Homosexuals have a right to marriage.

1. Equal Application & Marriage My opponent claims that their phrase is not based on the 14th amendment, but no where else in the constitution does equal protection exist. I challenge my opponent to then find where in the constitution it mentions this. Also, if you Google the phrase presented by my opponent one of the top results was my source from Cornell about the equal protection clause. My opponent claims there is not an equal application of the law because heterosexuals can marry anyone they please, but homosexuals cannot. There are several things wrong with this claim. First, this is a misunderstanding of what the laws say. Traditional marriage laws usually look similar to this "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage" [1]. This is a definition, and this applies to everyone equally. Second, Heterosexuals cannot marry anyone they please because we have laws against Polygamy, Incest, and Homosexual marriages. Third, as stated in the previous round this is not about sexual preference discrimination because when you apply for a marriage there is not a sexual preference record needed. This shows that the law does equally apply to all citizens. My opponent claims that such laws do discriminate because it only allows to marry the opposite sex and not the person you love. First, we need the definition of discrimination as used in this context which is "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people" [2]. Second, my opponent also states "When these laws were made they were not meant to discriminate. .. ". I would just like to make the point that discrimination does not change because anything something is more accepted, if a law unfairly treats a group it does not matter when this law was made it would still be discriminatory. Third, as stated before is not about sexual preference discrimination because when you apply for a marriage, there is not a sexual preference record needed. This shows not only does my opponent contradict themselves, the initial claim of discrimination is false. 2. Legitimate State Purpose Now is a good time to note that this debate is not about if Homosexual marriage should be allowed, but rather is there a right to Homosexual marriage. I could think gay marriage should be legal, but there is no right to it because marriage is a privilege not a right. My opponent claims that "Heterosexuals aren't going to stop existing if homosexuals can marry". I agree, but I don't see how this has any relevance since I never made the claim opposing this. My opponent also claims " Marriage is not only about procreation, it's about marrying someone you love, & wanting to be with them forever. " Here I also agree. Marriage is not only about procreation there is more to it, but procreation is a main reason for marriage. It also appears that my opponent thinks marriage is linked to procreation because they say "it is not only about" meaning that it is part of it but does not make up the sole purpose. It is true marriage is about procreation, but it also about partnership and trust. This shows my opponent has agreed that marriage has to do with procreation. As stated procreation is a legitimate state interest. With my claim of ". .. society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers. ' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage. .. " my opponent only addresses the first three words here, and not the main claim which is about connecting families. My opponent claims that children do not do best when raised by their biological parents. I provide sociological data supporting my stance, I would ask for my opponent to back up their claim with any evidence. My opponent claims "there is no correlation between these European countries allowing homosexuals to marry and the out of wedlock birth rate" This is false. When Homosexual unions were allowed the wedlock birth rate went up. That is, by definition, a correlation. The three state interest I gave were Responsible procreation, even my opponent has admitted that marriage deals with procreation. Connecting families, this was never rebutted by my opponent. Preserving the institution, in which my opponent denied the link between homosexual unions and out of wedlock babies, but I showed there was a correlation. All of these are still valid reasons why the state promotes traditional marriage. 3. Purpose of Traditional Marriage Laws As stated before "I would just like to make the point that discrimination does not change because anything is more accepted, if a law unfairly treats a group it does not matter when this law was made, it would still be discriminatory. " My opponent conceded the point that the laws were not meant to discriminate. This means it automatically passes the third and final test to be a constitutional law. Sources [1] . http://www.legislature.state.oh.us... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...