Homosexuals have a right to marriage.

C1)"our constitution allows every citizen that has not broken the law the same opportunities" This is not from the 14th amendment. It's simply from the basis of our constitution that allows law following citizens the rights we're given in our constitution "The equal protection clause is not intended to provide 'equality' among individuals or classes, but only 'equal application' of the laws." Equal Application of the laws! If heterosexual citizens can marry anyone they please, then in order to have "equal application" of the law, homosexuals should be able to marry anyone they please too. "The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. [1]" In the application of the traditional marriage laws they do not discriminate because everyone can marry one person of the opposite sex." It is discrimination if you're telling a person they can't marry a person they love. It discriminates because it only allows people to marry members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are grill citizens of this country, and if they follow the laws they should be given the right to marry who they please just like everyone else. C2)"First, traditional marriage promotes responsible procreation. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [2] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it." Heterosexuals aren't going to stop existing if homosexuals can marry. The idea that everyone gets married and has kids after their married is not always the case any more. Lots of people have a child out of wedlock & they do just fine. Marriage is not only about procreation it's about marrying someone you love, & wanting to be with them forever. Not everyone wants to have children so should they not be allowed to get married since "marriage is about procreation"? "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." The world isn't going to stop making children just because homosexuals can get married. That being said there are lots of children who need homes. Many homosexuals have common law marriages, and adopt children. You connect a child with parents making the "social function of marriage", & you stated "the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives". Since homosexuals are unable to fulfill their right to marriage the government cannot recognize this "aspect of our social lives". "Second, children do best when raised by their biological parents, which is promoted by traditional marriage laws" this is not true at all. There are thousands of people who have had successful lives, & where raised by adoptive parents. It doesn't matter what type of couple raises you. There are thousands upon thousands of people with married heterosexual parents that have screwed up their lives. The institution of marriage "is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." Allowing homosexuals to marry would in no way damage the institution of marriage. If anything not letting them marry would hurt it. With common law marriages there aren't established rights between the spouses. As you stated "sex makes babies", so there is no correlation between these European countries allowing homosexuals to marry and the out of wedlock birth rate. Homosexuals can't have children, so why would them being able to marry have any effect on those that can he paving children out of wedlock? There is no "legitimate state purpose" because homosexuals, that are law following citizens, have the same right as heterosexuals citizens that follow the law to marry whom ever they please. C3)"If the laws were made purposely to discriminate, then they are unconstitutional." When these laws were made they were not meant to discriminate because homosexuality was not a normal part of society. Now it is a normal part of society, so now that law has become discriminatory, and is now unconstitutional. It is a sexual preference homosexuals prefer people of their same gender. "Firstly, homosexuals cannot procreate with each other. Second, homosexuals cannot both be the biological parents of the children. Third, it would remove marriages link with procreation, which undermines the institution of marriage" I have already refuted these arguments, but I shall restate the definition of the institution of marriage: "is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." Homosexuals marriage would in no way violate, or undermine the institution of marriage. Traditional marriage laws are no longer constitutional because they leave out homosexual and their sexual preferences. I stand by my argument: Homosexuals that re law following citizens have the right to marry whomever they please, just as heterosexual citizens who follow the law do. Resource (s): http://en.wikipedia.org...