‘Marriage is for reproduction’: Atienza reiterate stand vs same-sex marriage, absolute divorce
FILE PHOTO A same-sex couple hold hands during an event to raise awareness of gay rights in Hong Kong on May 25, 2019, one day after Taiwan made history with Asia’s first legal gay weddings. (Photo by Philip FONG / AFP)
MANILA, Philippines — Vice presidential aspirant and Buhay Partylist Rep. Lito Atienza on Tuesday stood firm against same-sex marriage and divorce, while contending that the purpose of marriage is for reproduction.
“Marriage is for reproduction. If you want only pleasure, and material consideration, you can give it to your best friend, enjoy your lives together, nobody is stopping you,” Atienza said in an interview with CNN Philippines.
Atienza, however, could not say the same for same sex marriage.
“Iba yung same-sex marriage, iba yung civil union. I am for defending the rights of everyone, LGBTQ. I respect everyone’s right to enjoy themselves in life… But I will never, never support same-sex marriage. Do you know why? Because same-sex marriage is against natural law. It is against natural law,” he claimed.
Atienza echoed the sentiment of his running mate Manny Pacquiao, who received backlash after comparing gay people to animals back in 2016.
But the presidential aspirant has since backpedaled on his statement, saying that he does not condemn homosexuals, saying he does not have the right to judge.
Divorce
Atienza is also against enacting a law that would allow absolute divorce in the country.
“I don’t believe in it, but I would agree that there are problems for some couples whom we have to attend to. Let us attend to the problems of those who could not succeed in marriage… But let’s not make a law that will allow divorce in the Philippines,” he said.
The Philippines is the only country, apart from the Vatican City, that does not permit absolute divorce.
“We still have very solid families and people who believe in the sanctity of marriage… Bakit naman tayo gagawa ng batas na magbabago ng pag-iisip ng tao?” he said.
(Why would we make a law that would change the people’s minds?)
