1

THE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS ON SAME SEX

MARRIAGE

A Phenomenological Study Presented

to the SHS Faculty

Proponents

Asotilla, Crystal May

Cabug-os, Jane Camelle

Calubag, Karl Andrew

Mejorada, Glenda Mae

Pucong, Kristine Joy

Solomon, Maeriel Louise

March 2018

1
 2

Table of contents

Title page .............................................................................. 1

Table of contents ............................................................................... 2
Abstract .............................................................................. 3-4

Chapter 1 : Introduction 5
Background f the study ....................................................................... 6
Purpose of the study .......................................................................
Research questions ......................................................................
Theoretical lens ......................................................................
Importance of the study .....................................................................
Delimitations and Limitations ...............................................................
Definition of terms ....................................................................
Review on Related Literature ................................................................

Chapter 2 : Methodology
Research design .....................................................................
Research informants .....................................................................
Data Sources ....................................................................
Data Collection Procedures .................................................................
Data Analysis ...................................................................
Trustworthiness of the study ..............................................................
Role of the Researcher ..................................................................
Ethical Consideration ..................................................................

Chapter 3 : Results and Discussion

Discussion ...................................................................
Recommendations ...................................................................
References ...................................................................
Appendix ...................................................................
Curriculum Vitae ..................................................................

2
3

3
 4

Abstract
Previous studies about Same-Sex Marriage showed the primary obstacle of the

illegalization of SSM in some countries, and it is the claim part and viewpoints of

religious group of people. Our study aims to unveil the different viewpoints of religious

leaders on same-sex marriage and to spread awareness about gender inequality in the

society.

As more states consider marriage recognition for same-sex couple, it turned out to the

conflict between marriage equality, religion and morality. Some activists wish to include

this certain viewpoints from the same-sex marriage debate because religion and

morality offend harnessed in support of it. But each people should have equal rights,

people of all faiths or no faith at all should be free to participate and give their claim and

part on the SSM debate.

In this study, we used the qualitative approach that focuses on individual's

understanding of a phenomenon through their personal and shared experiences

(Patton,2002). The informants were the religious leaders of selective denominations

which willingly participated in our conduct of in-depth interview. Their answers answered

the research questions of our study. First, the different viewpoints of religious leaders on

SSM, in this, there were three themes that emerged from the extracted and highlighted

concepts of the transcribed interview, it is the " Immoral in the eyes of God ","

Acceptable in the eyes of men ", and " Disagreeable union of men ",these themes came

from the religious leader's answers. Second, their reaction on the idea of SSM in the

country, this are the themes generated," Antithetical to biblical perspective ","

Abominable sin to God "," Mysterious love planned by God"," Virtuously follow God's

4
 5

will", and" considerate towards their feelings". These themes were then supported by

the related literature study, specifically, of Messner (2012), Jenzel and Nash(2012),

Lapkin(2017), Hojilla(2017), and etc.

This study is recommended to be conducted again to fully discover, understand, and

consider another viewpoints, claim and part from other denominations or even religion,

other ethnical group, and even here from the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual,Transgender) community. It also recommended to include the counterclaim of

the opposing team.

5
6

6
 7

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Same sex marriage is a union between two persons of the same biological sex or

gender identity. Same sex marriage has been legalized through court rulings and

legislative action in some countries. There are people that are for SSM and there are

also against it. Some same sex marriage activists wish to exclude certain moral and

religious viewpoints from SSM debate because religion and morality is often used in

support of same sex marriage. But people of all faiths or no faith at all should be free to

participate in the marriage debate and bring moral viewpoints to bear on the issues.

Each people should be given equal rights to object their stands on the same sex

marriage. (Janzel & Nash, 2012.)

In America, there was a Christian bakery owner who were dragged into court

because they declined, due to their conscience, to make a cake for a lesbian wedding.

In Australia, there was a Catholic Archbishop of Hobert who was subject of a complaint

to the Anti-Discrimination Commission for publishing a booklet arguing against same-

sex marriage. And in the UK, the Speaker of the House of Commons has declared that

same-sex couples should have the right to wed in a church and gay rights activists have

served notice of their desire to import a similar coercive regime right here. And out of 50

states, 34 states that have not legalized gay marriage have much in common on the

reason why they have not legalized Gay marriage (Lapkin, 2017).

7
 8

In the Philippines, same sex marriage, a marriage or union of two Filipino

citizens of the same sex is not legally recognized. This issue was once again found its

way to national relevance after President Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncement. In

reversing his 2016 campaign promise to support legislation allowing same-sex

marriage, President Duterte said that while he has no issue with anyone’s sexuality, he

believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. A country report

initiated by the United Nations Development Program highlighted the fact that while the

Philippines is a signatory to many relevant international covenants promoting human

rights, the rights of the LGBT community are not always supported by the state (Hojilla,

2017).

There is a need to conduct this study because it will provide the views and

opinions of the religious leaders of each denominations about SSM and its legalization.

Through this study, we can spread the awareness of gender equality that is commonly

an issue or problem in the Philippines and even International. And lastly, it is to unveil

the stances of people with faith, biblical scholars, pastors, priest, ministerial leaders and

Bible defender towards same sex marriage.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of conducting this study is to unveil the different view points of

religious leaders on same sex marriage and how can this affect the society of the same

sex marriage people or the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community

and to spread awareness of the gender equality.

8
 9

Research Question

1. What are the different view points of religious leader on SSM or Same sex

marriage?

2. How do leaders in the Christian community react to the idea of same sex

marriage in the country?

3. What insights can be generated from the different view points of religious

leaders on same sex marriage?

Theoretical Lenses

There are theories that has been presented to support the ideology of Same sex

Marriage like the "Micro-politics of Partnering" which states that countries such as Spain

that has had an inclusive marriage law since 2005 that ascribes full equality to spouses

regardless of sexual orientation ( Pichardo, 2011) but in Italy the hetero-normative and

same sex cohabitation is still not legacy recognized (Bertone et al, 2003; Saraceno,

2003; Trappolin, 2008). And lastly the "The Micropolitics of Friendship" which states that

the relationship between "modern" friends Gidden, 1992) have, their say about issues of

citizenship and their care and choices is very different from previous models that

authors such as Weeks et al. (2001) who suggested that a 'friendship ethics' is the ideal

guiding principle behind many sexual relationships in present times. In addition, Queer

Theory is an interdisciplinary approach to sexuality studies that identifies Western

society’s rigid splitting of gender into male and female roles and questions the manner

in which we have been taught to think about sexual orientation. According to Jagose

(1996), Queer [Theory] focuses on mismatches between anatomical sex, gender

9
 10

identity, and sexual orientation, not just division into male/female or

homosexual/heterosexual.

Importance of the Study

The importance of this study is to unveil and know the different view points of the

Religious leaders

Delimitations and Limitations

This study was limited to the conduct of in-depth interview to the religious leaders

and not to the members of their church. This was limited to the two female informants

from VCF (Victorious Christian Fellowship) with more than 20 years of service as the

leader of the church and a Born Again female pastor with more or less than 10 years of

service. This was also limited to four male informants . The first one is from the INC

( Iglesia Ni Cristo), a youth minister with more than 3 years of experience. The second

one also came from VCF but a youth pastor for almost 3 years in service. Third, a

foursquare American pastor with almost 50 years of service in the church. And lastly, a

priest assigned as the Bishop of Tibungco, Davao city that represents the Roman

Catholics.

This study was delimited to the conduct of thematic analysis. The thematic analysis

that relates to a phenomenology study that focuses on the human experiences. This

approach emphasized the participant's perceptions, feelings, and experiences as the

paramount or the important object of study.It allowed the respondents to discuss the

topic in their own words, free of constraints from fixed-response questions found in

quantitative studies.

10
 11

Definition of terms

In our study we have some words used that can be defined as, first, the Same

sex marriage, it is the union of two different sex or gender identity. Second, the

viewpoints, which is the claim of part of some group of community or group of people

about a certain topic or issue. And lastly, the religious leaders that can be define as the

group of people who leads a certain religious group.

Review on Related Literature

There has been an issue of same sex marriage that has become a huge

discussion in America today. Same-sex marriage, considering marriage between two

persons of the same biological sex or gender identity. There are people that are for gay

marriage and against it, there are also some states that have passed gay marriage laws

and other states that have not, and the 2012 presidential election has also become a

part of this big issue with gay marriage. However, of the 50 states not all of them allow

same-sex marriage. Same sex marriage has been differentiated by jurisdiction, resulting

from legislative changes to marriage laws, court, challenges based on constitutional

guarantees of equality, or a combination of the two (Sunstein, 2003). As reported by

(Godoy May 9, 2012) gay marriage has been legalized in the District of Columbia and 7

U.S states (Jenzel & Nash, 2012).

In addition, Vermont, being the first to recognize legal equality in the civil

marriage laws and to protect the religious societies authorized to solemnize civil

marriages. The laws then came into effect on September 1, 2009. Therefore, the 34

11
 12

states that have not legalized gay marriage, all have common similarities on the reason

why they have not legalized gay marriage. According to “Same-sex marriage law in the

United States by states” Those 34 states believe that a marriage between persons of

the same sex or gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and

binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. Some state also defends its ban by

claiming that it required an ideal setting for child nurturing, which it is defined as a two-

parent family with one parent of each sex (Sunstein,2003). State legislatures have been

deeply involved in the public debates about how to define marriage and whether the

official recognition of marriage should be limited to relationships involving one man and

one woman or that same-sex couples should also be entitled to marriage (2012). Also

only a marriage between a male and a female shall be recognized and given effect in

those states. These states are not willing to legalize marriage just because other U.S

states have done so already. State legislatures have gone both ways in this debate

either enacting “defense of marriage” laws or going the opposite direction, adopting

laws allowing same sex marriage. (Jenzel & Nash, 2012)

Moreover, there are many people that are for gay marriage and against gay

marriage. According to Human Rights Campaign most same-sex couples, like straight

couples, wants the right to legally marry because they are in love. Also, base on the

previous source “In the United States, there are an estimated 3.1 million people living

together in same-sex relationships. And these couples live in 99.3 percent of all

counties nationwide.” “While marriage has deep religious meaning to many people,

what actually protects couples and their families is the legal contract of marriage. No

religion or religious leader is required to marry a same-sex couple. People of faith

12
 13

remain free to make their own judgments about what makes a marriage just as they are

now.” Moreover, according to the Human Rights campaign whether it’s coming out as

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or as an ally, countless American musicians,

athletes, politicians, news anchors and actors have advanced the movement for equality

this year. For example, by Human Rights campaign, the famous people like Frank

Ocean (singer songwriter) Megan Rapinoe (US Women National Soccer Player) Tom

Gabel (Against me lead singer) Anderson cooper, Alicia Keys, Jim Parsons, Rev. Al

Sharpton, Carrie Underwood, John Legend, Jz and Justin Timberlake have come out for

gay marriage. All of these celebrities believe in equality even though they are not gay.

No matter how profound our love, no matter how long we have been together, and no

matter how desperately we need the privileges and protections associated with

marriage, we are denied entrance at the courthouse door (Gaynor, 2008).

On the other hand, there are people who are against gay marriage. According to

love and pride “Marriage, for social purposes, is a civil and religious event. In some

ceremonies, the two are celebrated at once, but couples must always undergo a civil

marriage in order for the marriage to be considered legal (Love and Pride 2012). By

then (Arguing Equality), elevating same-sex unions to the same moral and legal status

as marriage will further throw into doubt marriage’s fundamental purposes and put at

risk on social practice and moral ideal vital to all. “A state of being married, or being

united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual

relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and

women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of

founding and maintaining a family” is according to (Love and Pride 2012). Also, during

13
 14

an interview conducted by (Janzel and Nash of University of Texas El Paso) a woman

said“gay marriage has become a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing

deinstitutionalization by that they mean marriage’s steady transformation in both law

and tradition from a structured institution with clear public purposes to the state’s

licensing of private relationships that are privately,they also oppose gay marriage

believing that children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and

to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world.” Their interviewee

believed that “gay marriage is downgrading the traditional definition of marriage and

there for it should not be legalized.” Their interviewee also said “Gay marriage will lead

to more children being raised in same-sex households which are not a best environment

for raising children because children need both a mother and father. Any change or

threat of change, to the culture is distressing to many people, a change to the structure

of the fundamental building block of society the family can be particularly upsetting and

any change related to human sexuality can be profoundly disorienting (Jenzel & Nash,

2012).

However, there are three understandings that should form the basis of any

discussion about the place of religion and morality in the same-sex marriage debate.

First, though some people who defend marriage are personally religious or have

religious motivations, support for marriage as the union of husband and wife does not

require belief in the religious teachings of any particular faith. Second, many people,

including some professional gay-rights activists, enthusiastically mix religion with law

and politics in support of same-sex marriage. Third, the question of how marriage

should be defined in law raises inescapable moral considerations that should be

14
 15

confronted directly.Much more, some proponents of same-sex marriage have suggested

that religion is the primary obstacle to redefining marriage to include homosexual

unions. "Religion is the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress,” testifies

one expert. Says one activist, “There’s no road to success that doesn’t go through

religion-based homophobia. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “The

primary opposition to same-sex marriage appears to be theologically based—the claim

that God doesn’t like it.” ( Messner, 2010)

For Thomas Messner "It might be true that many people who defend marriage

are personally religious or act in part from a religious motivation to promote the common

good. But support for marriage does not require belief in the religious teachings of any

particular faith". Many arguments for marriage focus on it as a natural, pre-political

social institution intrinsically connected to the vital public interest in the begetting and

raising of children. “Across history and cultures,” reports marriage scholar David

Blankenhorn, “marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a

mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples,” argues

Blankenhorn, “would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”If religion is viewed as the

primary obstacle to making same-sex marriage a reality in law, it should be no surprise

if some activists wish to exclude certain religious viewpoints from the same-sex

marriage debate. One activist expressed this view quite plainly in explaining why he

sponsored an advertisement exploiting anti-Mormon bigotry. “I’m not intending it to harm

the religion,” this activist said. “I think they do wonderful things. . . . My single goal is to

get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”

Evidence shows, however, that religion is often harnessed in support of same-sex

15
 16

marriage. In California, for example, a wide range of religious institutions supported

same-sex marriage legislation that was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Advocates on both sides of the marriage debate should respect the reasoned

participation in that debate of people of all faiths and no faith at all (Messner, 2010).

Lastly, while acknowledging the inalienable dignity of all individuals as human

beings created in the image of God, traditionalist Jews and Christians nonetheless

adhere to traditional sexual mores. Any intellectually honest reading of the Bible reveals

irrefutable advocacy in favor of the heterosexual nuclear family as the aspirational norm

for human relationships.This clear scriptural favor towards male-female monogamy

cannot simply be stripped from the Jewish and Christian canons just because Leftists

would like to flush it down the memory hole. While progressive activists are entitled to

their own opinions, they’re not entitled to their own facts. Adherence to religious

conscience can become a very expensive proposition. Those US bakery owners were

driven into bankruptcy after being ordered to pay US$135,000 in damages for

“emotional and mental suffering resulting from the denial of service”. If you think a six-

figure sum is a pretty steep price to pay for hurt feelings, that’s beside the point. The

object of this legal exercise was intimidation, pure and simple. The “Sweet Cakes by

Melissa” ruling was intended to coerce religious conservatives into submission for fear

of prosecution ( Lapkin, 2017).

In addition, in UK, the Speaker of the House of Commons has declared that

same-sex couples should have the right to wed in a church and gay rights activists have

served notice of their desire to import a similar coercive regime right here. Australian

Marriage Equality has openly announced opposition to the inclusion of “exemptions for

16
 17

conscientious objectors” in any new marriage legislation. So, the leading organization

pushing for same-sex marriage in Australia seeks to foist a regime of penalty and

punishment upon bible-believing Christians and Jews.Therefore, this is tyranny

masquerading in the guise of tolerance. Liberty must be bi-directional if it is to be truly

genuine. The same democratic principles invoked to defend freedom of sexual

orientation must also apply to freedom of religious conscience ( Lapkin, 2017).

However, in the Philippines, this issue once again found its way to national

relevance after President Rodrigo Duterte’s pronouncement. Reversing his 2016

campaign promise to support legislation allowing same-sex marriage, President Duterte

said that while he has no issue with anyone’s sexuality, he believes that marriage

should only be between a man and a woman. He anchors this statement on Philippine

laws, particularly Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as “The Family Code of the

Philippines,” which governs the law on marriage. While President Duterte’s change of

stance was widely criticized by rights groups, it was welcomed by the Roman Catholic

Church, from which staunch opposition against same-sex marriage largely comes.

Philippines is known as Asia’s bastion of Roman Catholicism and this heavily explains

the church’s political influence over more than 80% of the population who are its

members. The Family Code defines marriage as “a special contract of permanent union

between a man and a woman.” It further provides as one of the essential requisites that

the contracting parties “must be a male and a female.” It thus clearly prohibits same-sex

couples from entering into a contract of marriage. The same law mentions

17
 18

homosexuality and lesbianism, but only as grounds to annul a marriage or to allow legal

separation (Hojilla, 2017).

Moreover, the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the supreme law of the land, neither

discriminates nor prohibits same-sex marriage. It provided only for the significance of

marriage, such that marriage, “as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the

family and shall be protected by the State.” Thus, bills protecting the lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community, which include the legalization of same-sex

civil marriage, are not among those which the House of Representatives prioritizes. As

early as 18 years ago, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was filed by former

Representative Etta Rosales, but it never progressed from first reading. The same

counterpart measure was sponsored by Senator Risa Hontiveros last year but it only

also reached as far as first reading. Numerous anti-discrimination proposals have been

served on the table but none of which was a success. A country report initiated by the

United Nations Development Program highlighted the fact that while the Philippines is a

signatory to many relevant international covenants promoting human rights, the rights of

the LGBT community are not always supported by the state. It is a fact that same-sex

activity is not criminalized in the Philippines and sexual orientation is mentioned in

various laws. However, national legislation is bereft of anti-discriminatory laws which

allow the LGBT community to fully exercise their fundamental rights to equality and non-

discrimination. Though there are victories in the form of ordinances passed by local

government units, such as Quezon City, Angeles, Cebu, Bacolod, and Davao,

addressing discrimination against the LGBT community, there is not much to revel in

terms of the latter’s opportunities to build a family. So, without marriage, same-sex

18
 19

couples suffer from substantially lesser rights compared to heterosexual couple ( Hojilla,

2017).

There are legal issues involving the former’s adoption and custody of children,

hospital and prison visitation rights, management and transfer of properties, medical

and burial decisions, and entitlement to insurance proceeds. Same-sex couples resort

to certain legal, albeit limited, approaches to legitimize their union -- adoption, which is

allowed if done by a single LGBT person; business partnership, to jointly own

properties; and a special power of attorney, to name a few. Same-sex marriage is an

issue that is still heavily debated upon. Grounds raised against it range from moral to

legal. However, the legal impediment against same-sex marriage can be cured by

legislation. There is no absolute prohibition against legitimizing -- at least, civilly --

unions between two Filipinos of the same sex. Hence, it is legally feasible for the

legislative branch of the government -- the Congress and the Senate -- to enact a law

which legalizes same-sex marriage in the Philippines. Therefore, "Our freedom to differ

and, ultimately, our freedom to choose must not be limited by existing laws, especially

when there is nothing that prohibits legislation accommodating legitimate calls for

equality, which the Constitution itself enshrines" (Hojilla, 2017).

19
 20

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Phenomenology was chosen as the qualitative approach in this study. According to

Patton (2002), Phenomenology is focused on individual meaning making as the

quintessential element of human experience. Moreover, Patton said that "the important

finding derived from phenomenology is understanding a phenomenon as seen through

the eyes of those who have experienced it. Phenomenological inquiry hold the

assumption that there is an essence to shared experiences".

Research Informants

The informants of the study was the religious leaders of the selective churches in

Davao City. There were two female and four male informants of the study. The two of

them was from the VCF church in Buhangin, Davao city, 1 from the INC in Tibungco,

Davao city, 2 from Panacan, Davao city (which included an American Pastor from New

York City). And lastly, a parish priest in Tibungco, Davao city. The revealed and

unleashed stances and view points of the religious leaders on SSM was the primary

objective and target of this study.

20
 21

Data Sources

The primary source of data in this study was the transcribed interview of

conversation between us and our informants from the recorded audio. Also the

observation notes that was made by observing the gestures, behaviors, connection,

delivery, and facial expressions of the respondents during the interview.

Data Collection Procedures

In gathering the data of this study, procedures were followed. First, the design and

validation of the interview questions and then we submitted it to our research adviser for

the validation. Second, we arranged an appointment for the informants of the study to

know when and where they are available . Third, we conducted the one-on-one

interview with the evaluated and validated interview guide by our research adviser.

Then, after the conducted interview, we transcribed the recorded interview from the

informants. And lastly, we created an audit trail to record the sequence or pattern of

answers from the informants.

Data Analysis

In data analysis, the following was used. The making of audit trail to record the

sequence or pattern of answers from the informants and then we proceeded to the

highlighting of concepts from the audit trail of answers. Next was the thematical analysis

of the data by extracting themes which was carefully examined from the highlighted

concepts. After extracting themes , we interpreted the answers by analyzing the

grouped themes of the audit trail and combined the obtained data to discuss and

21
 22

explain it thoroughly afterwards. Lastly, we supported our discussion with our review of

related literature (RRL).

Trustworthiness of the Study

For instance, Guba and Lincoln proposed for criteria for judging the soundness of

qualitative research and explicitly offered these as an alternative to more traditional

quantitatively oriented criteria. They felt that their four criteria better reflected the

underlying assumptions in much qualitative research. Their proposed criteria are the

following: First the credibility, the credibility criteria involves establishing that the results

of qualitative research are credible or believable from the perspective of the participant

in the research. We achieve credibility in our study by the help of our respondents who

really participated to our research and shared their true impressions and viewpoints

about same sex marriage. With them we achieved credible results because the

participants are the only one who can legitimately judge the credibility. Second, the

transferability to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be

generalized or transferred to other context or settings. We achieve transferability by

allowing the future researchers to use our study as a basis or citation in their future

study. Third, the confirmability, qualitative research tends to assume tha each

researcher bings a unique perspective to the study. Confirmability refers to the degree

to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others. We achieved

confirmability by analyzing and rechecking the data throughout the study. And lastly the

dependability, the traditional quantitative view of reliability is based on the assumption of

replicability or repeatability. Essentially it is concerned with whether we would obtain the

same results if we could observe the same thing twice. We achieve dependability by

22
 23

putting down their answers about same sex marriage even if done respondents have

the same answers.

Role of the researcher

In this study, we as the interviewer, posed questions to the interviewees. We

were prepared to listen to what the participant was actually saying. We also listened to

the process and flow of the interview so as to remained aware of how tired, bored, or

active the participant was and as well as how much time has already passed and how

many questions still remain. We, also as the interpreter interpreted the given data from

the data sources which were the transcribed interview and observation notes.As the

encoder, we encoded the interpreted data to our personal computer and lastly we are

also the data analysts who analyzed the data and results then discussed it

afterwards.We also as an observer, observed the informants in the way they speak,

move, and express their emotion by the question given to them. These observation

were then utilized to gather data. We as the transcriber, transcribed what the

participants said through the recorded interview.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical consideration of the study is considered more importantly to ensure

the security and confidentiality of the information. In Full disclosure, the researchers will

inform the informants on why the study is being conducted and why they are

interviewed. They will be assured that the information given in the study is confidential.

In giving a consent form, the researchers will explain to the informants on what the

23
 24

study is all about and inform the informants the assurance of confidentiality of the study

and lastly, the guarantee of confidentiality where the researchers will use alternative

names for the informants to hide their real names and identity.

24
 25

CHAPTER III

Results and Discussion

Different viewpoints of Religious leaders on SSM

 Immoral in the eyes of God

While we were extracting and analyzing the data, we have come up with the

theme "Immoral in the eyes of God". Same sex relationship was considered as immoral

in tye eyes of God because religious leaders do believe that marriage or even just a

relationship between two people with the same sex is immorality. Committing this kind

of sin leads them farther from God and away from His commandments, away from the

Bible, as what AI1 said " Ang sagot ay dapat nakabatay sa bibliya, hindi pwedeng

malihis dahil may sinasabi sa aklat ng Awit, ito sa Awit sento disinoybe, ang talata ang

sento singko, ganito ang paliwanag " Ang salita Mo'y ilawan sa aking mga paa at

liwanag sa aking landas" (The answer should be base on the Bible, we should not

deviate what is written in the bible because as it is said in the bible in Psalms 119:105 "

Your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light to my path" NKJV). That's why religious

leaders prohibited people to have that kind of relationship with your same sex. This

statement was then followed by another verse in the bible that can clearly explain that

SSM is immorality. According to AI1, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, it is written that "Do you

not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites. Nor

thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the

25
 26

kingdom of God." and by that AI1 explained " Dito pinagdiinan ni Apostol Pablo yung

mapakiapid sa kapwa lalaki sa salin o bersyon ng The Living Bible, lininaw doon kung

ano ang ibig sabihin ng mapakiapid sa kapwa lalaki, ang sabi don Homosexual. Kay sa

Iglesia ni Cristo, bawal sa amin ang mapakiapid sa kapwa lalaki o maging sa kapwa

babae" ( Here, it is pointed out by Apostle Paul that those men who also desires men ,

in the version of The Living Bible, clearly stated its meaning, that is Homosexual.

Because in Iglesia ni Cristo, it is prohibited to desire someone with the same sex as

yours). And that only means that Homosexuality is an immoral act for the Bible

defenders. The informants way of speaking was formal . His way of delivering his

answers and his way of connecting to us eye to eye made his statement more

understandable, believable, and stronger. This concept can be considered as one of the

basis of how religion and morality affects the SSM union and bits legalization as per the

American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital testimony " the primary opposition

to SSM appears to be theologically based the claim that God doesn't like it" (Messner,

2010)

 Acceptable in the eyes of men

Same sex relationship was also considered as acceptable in the eyes of men.

Some of our informants SS ( Same Sex) relationship as part of our society. They

considered it as a normal relationship since the SS couples love each other despite

their status and gender. They also said that SS couples, as well as the members of

the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community, has the right to love

and to be loved and that they also need to be respected and to be accepted by the

people. Two of our informant's statement showed that SS relationship can be

acceptable in the eyes of men. Like what AI5 stated " SS relationship is an issue that

26
 27

we can live with because our constitution gives a bill of right to all people" and that

he added "It is non of my business how people relate to one another" given that his

is also a homosexual. He truly meant his statement because it was evident how

emotional he was when it comes to this kind of topic. This was also explained by AI6

in his statement that " Ang (The) true relationship is base on love" and that " Love

does not discriminate". For him, if there is true love between two people with the

same sex, it is acceptable. He also added " Love is something that we have to

nourish, we have to respect kay nagsukod man ug gugma ( because it measures

love)" but that doesn't include the physical inter course between them, as he

explained " If SS partner is in love just because they want something out of their

partner physically, then I'm against it". It was obvious on how serious he is as he

said these words. This concept is also related to the Human Rights Campaign

stating that most SS couples, like straight couples, wants the right to legally marry

because they are in love. Based on the United Sates previous source, there are

estimated 3.1 million people living together in same sex relationships , these

couples live in 99.3% of all countries nationwide. Marriage has deep religious

meaning to many people but what actually protect couples and their families is the

legal contract of marriage. In addition,It was stated by Gaynor (2008) "No religion or

religious leader is required to marry a same sex couple. People of faith remain free

to make their own judgments about what makes a marriage just as they are now.

( Jenzel & Nash, 2012)

 Disagreeable union of men

27
 28

For SSM, the union of two people with the same sex, was considered as a

disagreeable union of men. This concept is a very common response of religious people

or leaders on SSM because people with faith defend and stand to what is morally right

in the eyes civil law and divine law. They opposed SSM to be legalized because it is a

forbidden union of men. They stand with the moral teaching of the bible about the

sacrament of marriage that it has to be only a man and a woman as per AI4 statement "

Marriage talked in the bible as one man and one woman, and that is the only thing we

can accept", he also added " One woman, one man for one lifetime". AI6 also said "This

relationship cannot be united in the sacrament of marriage" and was supported by the

bible verse in Genesis 2:22-24 "Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man

He made into a woman , and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: this is now

bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman for she was taken

out of man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

and they shall become one flesh". In this verse, it was clearly stated that a man will

leave his family and be joined to his wife, the wife means a woman, not a man as AI5

stated " God created Adam and Eve , not Adam and Steeve". With these statements, we

concluded that SSM is really forbidden in the divine law of God and it was also related

with the study of the state legislatures that have been involved in the public debates on

how to define marriage, whether it should just be limited to relationships involving one

man and one woman or that SS couples should also be entitled to marriage (Jenzel &

Nash,2012).This can also be related to the SSM law in the United States,that those

states who believed that marriage between people of the same sex shall not be

recognized as valid and binding in their state as of the date of their marriage .They also

28
 29

defended it's ban by claiming that it required on ideal setting of child norturing which is

defined as two-parent family with one parent of each sex (Sunstein,2003).

Religious leader's reaction on the idea of SSM in the country

 Antithetical to Biblical perspectives

Religious leaders also opposed the proposition of SSM in the country according

to them ,as a christian,we should take the stand of the bible which shows the morality of

the things that we should do.Although some of them respect the government as per AI6

statement “We respect the gov. if they will legalized it ,then the church respect that but

the church has also to stand “ they still stood according to their “Biblical conviction”

(a14).They also said that “SSM is not found in the bible to appreciate it (A12)” and in

addition by A16 “It will not be recognized as morally united”.These statements can be

supported by some verses in the bible ,clearly states that is only one man and woman

created by God(Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image; In the image of

God . He created him ; male and female He created them”) and that “Only man and

woman are allowed to get married (A13)” Therefore, even if will be legalized in the

country , Christians and other religious leaders will still stand to what they think is right

which is to denounce and disagree .They also said that “There is a difference between

being legal and being moral (A16)” and that morality is doing what is right . This was

related to the websie study “Arguing Equality”(2012), elevating SS unions to the same

moral and legal status as marriage will further throw into doubt marriage’s fundamental

purposes and put at risk to a social practice and moral ideal vital to all.(Janzel and

29
 30

Nash,2012) and this was supported by Thomas Messner’s study, as one of the

understandings that should from the basis of any discussion about the place of religion

and morality in the same-sex marriage debate.It is the question of how marriage should

be defined in law raises inescapable moral considerations that should be confronted

directly.(Messner, 2010). In addition, SSM is an issue that is still heavily debated upon.

Grounds raised against it range from moral to legal. However,the legal impediment

against same-sex particularly Executive Order No. 209 , otherwise known as The

Family Code of the Philippines,which governs the law on marriage.(Hojilla,2017).

 Abominable sin to God

The Religious Leaders were asked on how will they explain SSM to their

members at church and their answers came up with the first theme "Abominable sin to

God".Abomination causes disgust to someone , that's why they firmly stand that SSM is

an abomination to God ,as it is in Leviticus 18:23 "You shall not lie with a male with as a

woman . It is an abomination and still in Leviticus 20:13 which is clearly discuss "If a

man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an

abomination . They shall surely be put to death . Their blood shall be upon them" . In

support with this, A14 statement "Homosexual relationships is one of the most

abominable things that any people and commit ", suggested that is really an

abominable sin to God and that man should "Stay away (AI1)" from that behind sin. In

addition, AI5 stated that in Romans 1:24 "Therefore God also gave them up to

uncleanness , in the lusts of their hearts , to dishonor their bodies among themselves,".

That in this verse she explained that because of the lusts of the hearts of these people ,

they changed the natural Creation of God that leads to abomination . Another verse

30
 31

given by AI7 "In Romans 1:26 "For this reason God gave them up to vite passions . For

even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature ," still this verse

corresponds to the statement of the religious leaders against SSM. According to (Ted

Lapkin,2017) while acknowledging the dignity of all individuals as human beings

created in the image of God, traditionalist Jews and Christians nonetheless adhere to

traditional sexual mores. Any intellectuality honest reading of the Bible reveals

irrefutable advocacy in favor of the heterosexual nuclear family as the aspirational norm

for human relationships. This clear scriptural favor towards male-female monogamy

cannot simply be stripped from the Jewish and Christian canons just because Leftists

would like to flush it down the memory hole. While progressive activists are entitled to

their own opinions , they are not entitled to their own facts.

 Mysterious love planned by God

One of the Religious leaders, specifically AI6, answered the same question but

has a different perspectives about how will he explain SS relationship not just SSM to

his members. He explained to us that if SS relationship is based on pure love not pure

lust, then he "will explain to the people that their relationship is okay". He added that for

him "SS relationship is still part of the mysterious plan of God because I, myself cannot

question nganong naay bayot ug tomboy (why there are lesbians and gays )". It was

clearly showed by the statement of AI6, that he wanted to understand the side of

homosexuals. He wanted to to promote equality to human beings because "they are

creatures like us , they are human beings created in the image of God " but as long as

"they should not get married" , he will consider it as acceptable. It is also similar to the

1987 Phil. Constitution. The supreme law of the land, that neither discriminates nor

31
 32

prohibits Same-sex Marriage . It provided on for the significance of marriage , such that

marriage , as on inviolable social institution , is the foundation of the family and shall be

protected by the state . It was then one of the basis hojilla's (2017)study about "Same-

sex Marriage and it's legal hindrance in the Philippines " which states that it is a fact that

SS activity is not criminalized in the Phil. And sexual orientation is mentioned in various

laws. However, national legislatation is bereft of anti- discriminatory laws which allow

the LGBT community to fully exercise their fundamental nights to equality and non-

discrimination . Though there are victories in the form of ordinances passed by local

government units, such as Quezon City, Angeles , Cebu, Bacolod, and Davao ,

addressing discrimination against the LGBT community, there is not much to revel in

terms of the latter opportunities to build a family. Therefore, without marriage, same-sex

couples suffer from substantially lesser rights compared to heterosexuals couples.

(Hojilla,2017).

 Virtuously follow Gods will for this extracted theme(Virtuously follow Gods will),we

concluded that RL stand family to their faith,to the religious beliefs,to their biblical

conviction because they believe that the Gods commandments in the bible is right

and just as per AI1 stated "We should always follow God and do not separate your

ways away from Gods" followed by the statement of AI3 "Go back to what we think

is right,lets go back to the bible". These statements clearly stated that they,

Religious leaders,wanted to share this message to those SS couple,who are

planning to get married to make them understand that it is really a sin to commit,that

they need to follow God.Because of their stands against SSM and its

legalization,some activists to religious view points from the SSM legalization debate

32
 33

as per Thomas Messner's (2010) statements in his study "Religion and Morality in

the SSM debate ","It might be true that many people who defend marriage are

personally religious act in part from a religious motivation to promote the common

good. But support for marriage does not require belief in the religious belief in the

religious teachings of any particular faith".His study also included the report of David

Blankenhorn a marriage scholar in this he said,"Aeross history and culture,marriage

single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father.

Changing marriage to accomodate SS couple would nullify this principle in culture

and in law" argues Blankerhon.Now,if religious is viewed as the primary obstacle to

making SSM a reality in law,it should be n surprise if some activicts wished to

excude certain religious viewpoints from the SSM debate (Messner,2010)

 Considerate towards their feelings and lastly,the theme"Considerate towards their

feelings " was extracted from the highlighted concepts of our interview.We have

come up with this theme because despite the fact that religious leaders would stand

with their religious and to what is morally rights,still some of them wants equality

among human beings,some of them understood,some of them accepted,and some

of them respected,and some were considerate towards the feelings of the

Homosexuals.It was what AI6 explained to as he answer our interview question no.

5 which states what they wanted to tell to those SS couples who wanted to

experience the matrimony of marriage and here is what he said "stay in love" "Do

not be embarrassed or ashamed to show their love to each other" but "as long as

there is no sex between them".It was clearly shown that he neither support nor

discriminate SS couple or Homosexuals.It is similar to the 1987 Philippines

33
 34

Constitution which states the significance of marriage that neither discriminates of

prohibits SSM (Hojilla, 2017) and to Ted Lapkins (2017) study entitled as "opinion:

Views on SSM based on the religious teachings deserve equality too", which

suggested "in UK,the speaker of the House of Commons has declared that SS

couple should have the right to wed in a church and gay rights activists have served

notice of their desire to important a similar coercive regime right here.

Therefore,some religious leaders still wanted equality among all kinds of sexuality,

be it Lesbians, gays, transgender, homosexuals, heterosexuals, male, female, and

or in between.

Insights that can be generated

As we go through our study, we have learn things beyond our expectations. Before

conducting the in-depth interview, we already accepted the answers of our informants

which is the total disagreement on the Same-Sex marriage or even SS relationships but

right after the conduct of in-depth interview, after observing the religious leaders as

they answers, and right after hearing their viewpoints, we were a bit shocked by their

responses because some of them accepted SS relationships then although not

marriage, in the society, some of them respected the homosexuals despite the fact that

they should be the one opposing them because their faith and bible defenders. And

most of all we have learn the most important lesson, that loving is not a sin because

love does not discriminate, love is not selfish but selfless, and love accepts. Those were

the insights that we have generated from the different viewpoints of religious leaders on

same sex marriage.

34
 35

RECOMMENDATION

This study is recommended to be conducted again to fully discover, understand,

and consider another viewpoints, claim and part from other denominations or even

religion, other ethnical group, and even here from the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual,Transgender) community. It also recommended to include the counterclaim of

the opposing team.

35
 36

APPENDIX A

Interview question #1: Wha is your impression on SS relationship?

AI1: Theme
- We should only use Bible as a basis
- We should not deviate what is written in •Immoral in the eyes of God
the Bible
and
AI2:
•Acceptable in the eyes of Men
- I dis-agree for the SS relationship
because Bible forbidded them

AI3:
- It is not accepted in the eyes of God

AI4:
- Not such a fighting issue
- An issue that we can live with
- Give that privilege to anyone who wants
a SS relationship
- It is non of my business

AI5:
- It seems good for people of SS who feel
in love with each other
- For me it is bad
- Although I understand their feelings but in
the eyes of God, it is wrong

AI6:
- True relationship is based on love
- Love does not descriminate
- Love is something we have to nourish,

36
 37

we have to respect
- SS partner is in love just because they
want something out of their partner
physically, then I'm against it.
- But if it's only after carnal or basr on lust
- Not love, that is a selfish love, that is not
Christian, that is against the will of God

Interview Question #2: What about SSM?

AI1: Theme
- Still base on the Bible
- What God has joined together should not •Disagreeable Union of Men
be separated by men but it is not
applicable for those who has same sex

AI2:
- Still not approve
- God created man and woman in the first
marriage but SS was not appreciated

AI3:
- Not aggreable
- The Bible didn't allow it

AI4:
- We go by the Bible
- Marriage talked in he Bible as one man
and one woman, and that's the only thing
wet can accept
- Denounce it totally
- One woman, one man for one lifetime

AI5:
- Strongly disagree

AI6:

37
 38

- This relationship cannot be united in the

sacrament of marriage
- In Genisis, it is very clear
- As a minister of the Catholic Church, is
against SSM

Interview Question #3: What is your stand on the proposed legalization of SSM?

AI1: Theme
- Even though men will legalized it in the
Philippines, if it's against God's teachings,
true Christian should not follow •Antithetical to Bibilical perspectives

AI2:
- My stand is to disapprove
- Same sex marriage is not found in the
Bible to be appreciate it

AI3:
- I believe to what I think is right
- The right is what is written in the Bible
- Only man and woman ate allowed to get
married

AI4:
- My stand has to be my biblical convicting
- Totally against SSM
- That is the only stand that the Christians
are allowed to

AI5:
- An abomination to the Lord
- A warming to those who do this things
- God is not please with these doings

AI6:
- We respect the government if they will

38
 39

legalized it, then the Church respect that

but the church also has to stand
- It will not be recognized as morally
united
- Forbidded to marry SS couples
- Their relationship is immoral

Interview Question #4: As a leader of a religions entity, how will you explain SSM to your
members?

AI1: Theme
- Stay away
- We are against those people who •Abominable sin to God
support this organization
•Mysterious love planned by God
AI2:
-We emphasize to them not to commit any
SSM
-Counseling them with the word of God

AI3:
-Explai during sunday school
-Telling the memeber what we actually
realy believe has to be the bible.

AI4:
-Preached against it
-Homosexual relationship is one of the
most abominable things that any people
and commit
-Abomination to God
-One of the last sins that makes God
totally abondmed people

AI5:
-An abonimation to the Lord

39
 40

-A warning to those who d these things

-God is not please with these things

AI6:
-SS relationship is still a part of the
mysterious plan of God.
-They are creatures like us,they are
human beings created in the image of
God.
-If ther is true love between them I will
explain to the people that their relationship
is okay.
-They should not get married.

Interview Question 5:What is you message Theme

to these people of the SS who plan to
experience the matrimony of marriage.?

AI1: •Virtuously follow God's will

-In Deuteronomy 30:19, God has set life •Considerate towards their feelings.
and death before us but among the
choices God has set, He still wants us to
choose life, and blessings
-We should always follow God and do not
separate your ways away from God

AI2:
-Not to really commit that kind of marriage

AI3:
-Go back to what we think is right, lets go
back to the bible
-I know they have the right but in here the
law might accept but for me as a christian
is not.Its a No,No

AI4:
-It is an abominable sin punished by God
to the internal lake of fire

40
 41

-A message of reconcillation
-A message of love
-Repeat, trust and obey Jesus

AI5:
-A warning, God's warning
-Challenge not to pursue that plan
-Accept God and surrender yourself to
Him.

AI6:
-Stay inlove
-Do not be embarrased or ashamed to
show their love to each other as long as
there is no sex between them.
-They should have their faith and prayers.

41
 42

Curriculum Vitae

Name: Crystal May Deocampo Asotilla

Address: blk. 8, lot 5, Ivy street, Upper Panacan, Davao City

Contact No: 09559638938 / 09185798345

Email No : Crystalasotilla@yahoo.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Degree: Grade school

School: Armed Forces of the Philippines Logistics Command Elementary School

Year Graduated: 2012-2013

Degree: Junior Highschool

School: Southern Philippines Polytechnic College Inc.

Year Graduated: 2016-2017

Degree: Senior Highschool

Area of Specialization: ABM ( Accountancy and Business Administration)

School: F. Bustamante National Highschool

Year Graduated: 2018-2019

42
 43

Curriculum Vitae

Name: Krisine Joy Arsenal Pucong

Address: Blk 1 Lot 2 Tibungco Relocation, Davao City

Contact No: 09073918752

Email No : kritinejoyarsenal@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Degree: Grade School

School: A.Pichon Jr. Elementary School

Year Graduated: 2012-2013

Degree: Junior High School

School: F. Bustamante National High School

Year Graduated: 2016-2017

Degree: Senior High School

Area of Specialization: GAS (General Academic Strand)

School: F. Bustamante National High school

Year Graduated: 2018-2019

43
 44

Curriculum Vitae

Name: Jane Camelle Cabug-os

Address: Prk.2 San Miguel, Tibungco Davao City

Contact No: 09350853138

Email No : none

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Degree: Grade School

School: Mamali, Elementary School

Year Graduated: 2012-2013

Degree: Junior High School

School: F. Bangoy National High School

Year Graduated: 2016-2017

Degree: Senior High School

Area of Specialization:GAS (General Academic Strand)

School: F. Bustamante National Highschool

44
 45

Curriculum Vitae

Name:mejorada

Address: ,,

Contact No:

Email No :

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Degree:

School:

Year Graduated:

Degree:

School:

Year Graduated:

Degree:

Area of Specialization:

School: F. Bustamante National Highschool

Year Graduated:

45
 46

Curriculum Vitae

Name: Karl Andrew Calubag

Address: Purok. 4 Cal Village 1,Tibungco Davao City

Contact No: 09269759298

Email No :Ptx.karl01@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Degree: Grade School

School: F. Bustamante Central Elementary School

Year Graduated:

Degree: Junior High School

School: F. Bustamante National High School

Year Graduated: 2016-2017

Degree: Senior High School

Area of Specialization: ABM ( Accountancy and Business Administration)

School: F. Bustamante National Highschool

Year Graduated: 2018-2019

46
 47

Curriculum Vitae

Name:Maeriel Louise Fernandez Solomon

Address: Purok 6 Buhisan ,Tibungco Davao City

Contact No:09096273765

Email No :ulykmaeriel@yahoo.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Degree: Grade School

School: Buhisan Elementary School

Year Graduated: 2012-2013

Degree: Junior High School

School:F. Bustamante National High School

Year Graduated: 2016-2017

Degree: Senior High School

Area of Specialization:GAS (General Academic Strand)

School: F. Bustamante National Highschool

Year Graduated: 2018-2019

47
 48

REFERENCES
Steele, B C. (2004). NOW WHAT?. Advocate, (928), 28-29. A brief history of: gay
marriage. (2008). Time, 171(22), 16. Retrieved November 19, 2017 from
(http://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/112448663/state-by-state-the-legal-battle-over-
gay-marriage)
Gaynor, M. J., & Wolf, C. (2004). Letters. National Journal, 36(14), 1014. Retrieved
November 19, 2017 from (http://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/112448663/state-by-
state-the-legal-battle-over-gay-marriage)
Kaplan, R. (2012, May 9). Romney says he opposes gay marriage. National Journal
Daily. p. 7. Retrieved November 19, 2017 from
(http://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/112448663/state-by-state-the-legal-battle-over-
gay-marriage)
Sullivan, A. (2012). The president of the united states shifted the mainstream in one
interview. Newsweek,159(21), 22-25. Retrieved November 19, 2017 from
(http://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/112448663/state-by-state-the-legal-battle-over-
gay-marriage)
Godoy, M. (2012, May 9). State by state: the legal battle over gay marriage. Retrieved
November 19, 2017 from (http://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/112448663/state-by-
state-the-legal-battle-over-gay-marriage)
Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Federal Appeal. (Cover story). New Republic, 229(25), 21-23
Retrieved November 19, 2017 from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-
services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx
Messner, T. (2010). Religion and morality in the same sex marriage debate.Retreived
November 19, 2017 from https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Religion+and+
morality+in+the+samesex+marriage+debate+july+20+2010&btnG= and
http://nhcornerstone.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/10/bg2437.pdf
Lapkin, T. (2017). Opinion: views on same sex marriage based on religious teachings
deserve equality too. Retreived December 4, 2017 from
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-views-on-samesex-
marriage-based-on-religious-teachings-deserve-equality-too/news-
story/ba2b7ef5e501bcf7d061db5ff73f7062
Hojilla, K.A. (2017). Same sex marriage and its legal hindrance in the philippines.
Retreived December 4, 2017 from https://www.msn.com/en-
ph/news/national/same-sex-marriage-and-its-legal-hindrance-in-the-
philippines/ar-BBCFQ9g
LaBanca, F. (2010). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Retrieved January 16,
2018 from http://www.ihrcs.ch/?p=1228

48
 49

Messner, T. (2010). Human rights campaign, religion and faith new Retrieved
November 19 2017 from http://hrc.convio.net/site/messageviewer?em_id=2461.0
Hojila, K. A. (2017). Same sex marriage and it's legal hindrance in th Philippines.
Retrieved December 4, 2017 from http://www.accralaw.com/publications/same-
sex-marriage _and-its-legal-hindrance-philippines

49