Gay marriage should not be banned

"Like I have stated, our definition of right and wrong is all in determination of our own opinion. For example, you think homosexual marriage is wrong, therefore you consider it to be immoral. Proven before, this is your opinion as well as many others who feel the same way. Opinion can be supported by facts but cannot be proven to be true if only an opinion." The definition of wrong is "not in accordance with what is morally right or good", which is not an opinion but a fact. I'm going through the logic backwards: it is immoral, so it is wrong. This I have proved with the statements made in round 1 in my list of definitions. It can be "proven true" by using facts, as I have done, because definitions are considered facts. "I ask this simple question... How exactly can homosexuality be immoral if it does not cause any harm?" Because it is against the Bible (as given by your definition from round 1). I will elaborate later. "Fact: God teaches us to love not hate, not to discriminate. Taking a right away from a specific group of people is in FACT discrimination. Therefore, it violates biblical law as well as the Constitution." It's not taking a right away from a specific group. It takes the right away from everybody. Whether or not everybody wanted the right in the first place is irrelevant. Additionally, in order for a right to be a right, it must remove the rights of others. I can elaborate on this if you want me to. "I would like to note that the Bible was not written by God. It is only our interpretation of morality, A.K.A. our opinion of what God thinks is right. But can we prove that God's beliefs match to those of the Bible? With the evidence proven, no it cannot. If what the Bible says is true, then the Bible contradicts itself entirely." How does it necessarily contradict itself? In order to do that, it would have to claim to be wrong, or not what God wants, which it clearly does not do. "For example: Do not hate, only love. Yet if you are homosexual, you are condemned to hell? Contradiction 1. Contradiction 2: The Bible states you can love who ever you may please, yet it states you cannot love someone of the same gender? How contradictory!" There is a difference between love and marriage. It could be "brotherly love." Love and sex are not the same thing. It doesn't say you can't love somebody of the same gender. It says you can't have sex with them. "I would also like to remind the audience that for the years of the Bible being around. For thousands of years, how are we so sure that it was not reformatted? Everything that we interpreted could have been reformatted. Though of course not saying this is true, it is only a theory." It has existed long enough, with enough different copies, so that it could not be reformatted. That would involve destroying all previous copies of the Bible. "Let me clarify why the government of the US makes laws that prohibit things like running around naked. The Constitution, Bill of rights, as well as the Civil Rights grant freedom to all men yes. This freedom is the type that allows the people of the United States to have a fair life with equal treatment to that of others. Running around naked may be an example of freedom. But the US makes certain laws that are appropriate for the people. Running around naked is inappropriate. Therefore it is harmful to the people and the government prohibits it. Homosexual marriage on the other hand is only an act of union no different to marriage between different gendered people. Therefore it is unharmful and the government has no way of saying it can be banned without evidence it is harmful." Homosexuality is inappropriate. It is not natural, and if done, could lead to the extinction of the human race because nobody would be reproducing. Therefore, it is harmful to the people and the government should prohibit it. This is using your logic. Where is your proof that people running around naked would be "harmful?" Until you find this proof, I have won this argument. "We certainly cannot compare politics with religion. Because the Bible states certain things that can cause people to be too radical, we cannot follow it's set of rules. Especially considering the fact it is only our interpretation of God. In addition, the Bible is all one large contradiction to itself, why should we follow a set of rules when we are supposed to be a free nation, because the Bible takes away some of the freedom some of us would like to endure." Why can't we compare politics with religion? You give no reasoning. And why can't we follow the Bible? Again, you don't have reasons. Just because it is only our interpretation of God does not mean that it shouldn't be followed. There is a high chance that it is His wishes. I'm sure that many crazy people out there would love to run around naked, and feel that we are taking away their freedoms. You must respond to them in the same way that you must respond to gay marriage. "Further more, I extend my arguments." I will also extend my arguments. You're welcome, and thank you again for this debate.