I got your point. I'm not saying we have to copy all the laws written in the bible and follow them. True that God gave us the freedom to choose for ourselves, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are considered as absolute truth. Truths that no popular opinion can change. These truths are considered to be universal to whatever religion you may belong without the need of specifying what religion to consider. Absolute truth like God is the creator of all things, God is the lawgiver, and God made man and woman. Those truths are universal, and those are absolute.
Remember that we must love God before we love our fellowmen. Those who believe in a God of supreme beings like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (the majority of religion in the Philippines) know that the first commandment is to worship the Lord God and no one else. Saying that God's truth comes second is already a sign of disrespect in His authority. Which will become unconstitutional since the constitution itself knows and respects the authority of the almighty that's why it was included in the very first words of the preamble. Remember that the constitution serves as the very basic foundation of laws in the country. It doesn't need to detail everything. When the constitution says "imploring the aid of the Almighty God" it is to say that God's truths come first. It is hypocrisy when we assume that man has the authority over God's truth, and I don't think that the constitution would mean to say based on what you mean, "We'll implore God for help but let us not head it." Rather it bows down to the authority of God. That's why the laws that are made are based on absolute truths from God, like the 10 commandments.
I would like to disagree to what you said "what god says is not law itself..." That is presumptuous, sacrilegious, and unconstitutional--at least for me as a believer. I said unconstitutional because of the reason I mentioned earlier that the constitution itself bows down to the will of God. Do you know why the word implore was used? It is because of its meaning.
View attachment 1652973
Thus to say that it is just a second opinion is contradictory to the intended meaning.
The most important thing in the preamble is not the Filipino People. It is the purpose of the constitution itself! It is to make a just and human society and establish a Government through the GUIDANCE OF GOD's TRUTH. Again we don't need to specify what GOD we are talking about because the majority(which means the Filipino people) of religions in the Philippines are Christian, Muslim, and Judaism, who by the way the GOD of the Bible.
View attachment 1652974
Are you a religious leader yourself? When it comes to counseling those people who are experiencing same-
* attraction. We just don't say mahal ka ng Diyos and this and that. There are things we need people to understand. There are truths people need to know why they are experiencing those things and what is the role of God in one's life regarding that matter. Scientifically there is no concrete evidence yet what people feel same-* attraction. We may not be able to pinpoint the origin of those things, but we may be able to understand why those things come into our lives. Just as those people who suffered disability by birth and other disadvantages in life. GOD will never be a hindrance to one person's happiness. GOD is happiness itself. If one thinks that he won't be happy because he follows God by not succumbing to his desires for same-
* love. I believe He doesn't much about how God works and how He loves us so much. Now this will all make sense if you are a believer, but if not, this would mean nothing to you. Don't try to reason something to say about God if you don't even believe. Because that would only mean using Him as a tool for your argument to justify same-* marriage.
What I mean when I said, people would demand more of what they already have, is that people will not be contented kung anong meron na. Let's say that same-
* marriage will be legalized here in the Philippines. There would be people that would be happy enough to get married in the civil. BUT there will be others who will request for a church wedding. As it becomes a law, there would come a time that they will ask for churches to conduct same-* marriage. And the law will be forced to enforce it to those churches who are against it. Now let us take from your point of view that God's law becomes a second opinion. Do you think there would still be freedom of religious exercise present during that time? God forbid.
That's why I will always voice for a NO-NO for same-*** marriage. NOT only because of the threat it entails to religious freedom, but most importantly it is NOT truly from GOD. GOD is love but yet GOD's love is not defined by man's desires. GOD is a living being and not just words from a book.