Third Affirmative Speaker

My sincerest greetings to everyone in this room, most especially to the panel of

adjudicators and our worthy opponents.

The affirmative side has lain down the arguments, and allow me to cite their main points
and our answer to them to enlighten us on what is right and just based on the tenets of the law,
jurisprudence and social justice.

The first affirmative speaker mentioned that

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
and this is wrong because it is a ___________________________________________________
because _______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

The first affirmative speaker also stated that

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
and this is wrong because it is a ___________________________________________________
because _______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

The second affirmative speaker however mentioned that

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
and this is wrong because it is a ___________________________________________________
because _______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

The second affirmative speaker also argued that

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
and this is wrong because it is a ___________________________________________________
because _______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
After laying down our rebuttals, allow me to summarize the points of the negative as to
why LGBT should not be recognized as a valid gender status in the Philippines.
It is not necessary and not practicable to do so in two reasons, First, a number of
Philippine laws are already in place that may afford protection to the third sex, enforcement is
the key and not a new piece of legislation and Second, the culture and society in the Philippines
already accept LGBT people and afford them basic rights as recognition of their legitimate
existence.
It is also not beneficial to recognize LGBT as a valid gender status in the Philippines
because SOGIE, when enacted into law, may be used as instruments to stifle or violate our
freedom of religion and freedom to live out our faith.
 The negative side understands the affirmative side in their aim of providing better living
conditions for our brothers and sisters of the LGBT community. But we can achieve that NOT by
carelessly creating another valid gender status but in regulating the implementation of existing
laws to make sure that the welfare of LGBT people are not abused in present-day society.

Again, we stand firm on our argument: Our present laws may not be perfect, but they are
enough and they are sufficient. The answer is not creating another gender status. The answer is
enforcement of present and existing laws.