Is America truly a "free" country

Just as a note, I assume that my opponent means the USA when he says 'America'. In fact, 'America' also includes Canada, Mexico and other countries. But for the sake of the debate I will use 'America' synonymously with 'the USA', despite this being geographically poor practice.I maintain that America is a 'free' country insofar as people are permitted to have liberty insofar as it is unnecessary to limit it. Liberties that are necessary to limit are this way for any of three reasons:1. Permitting it would harm others2. Permitting it would harm society3. Permitting it would ourselves(these are listed in order of importance)I argue that America is a 'free' country, which is to say that all liberties that pass the above criteria are permitted.My opponent presents two liberties; same-sex marriage (hereupon referred to as SSM) and abortion in cases of rape (hereupon referred to as ACR). According to him, these liberties are unnecessary to limit and hence justify the resolution that America is not a 'free' country.Therefore, my role in this debate is to show that SSM and ACR are necessary to limit because they do not pass the above criteria.Same-sex marriageSSM is necessary to prohibit because not doing so would harm society, children and married couples.Firstly, it would harm society because legalising SSM would involve fundamentally changing what marriage is, simply because of public opinion. Yet an institution is more respected and trusted if its essence is constant and remains unchanged despite external pressures. To use an analogy, a political party is more trusted and respected if it sticks to its policies and does not change them under pressure from public opinion.This phenomenon is evident when one considers social psychology. People are more likely to respect or trust a constant thing as opposed to a changeable thing - as in the case of the latter they are not certain as to what they are placing their trust in.Consequently, legalising SSM will lead to marriage becoming less respected and trusted because it would mean that marriage is changeable unto the whims of public opinion. Marriage is a net good in society and so it is damaging for society for it to be less respected or trusted.If marriage is less respected, less people will get married in the first place which will harm children (as marriage provides the most stable environment for children), and divorce rates would increase which harms society (more division), children (they are generally harmed by divorce [1]) and the partners themselves (divorce is emotionally tumultuous [2]).Ergo, SSM ought not be permitted because doing so would harm both society and the people within it. There are further arguments against SSM but I will refrain from voicing them until if and when there is call to do so.Abortion in case of rapeThis supposed liberty ought not be permitted because it harms others - in this case the human foetus.A counter-argument to this could perhaps be the claim that preventing a rape victim from having an abortion would harm her. Yet this is a flawed objection for multiple reasons:1. The emotional harm to the mother from carrying the child of her rapist is temporary, whereas the physical harm to the foetus from being aborted is permanent.2. Abortion does not 'undo' the rape - it doesn't do anything to resolve the dreadful crime that has been committed.3. Abortion rarely improves one's mental health, in fact it often increases it (3)(especially when the mother was already in poor mental health, which would be the case after being raped).4. Morally, it is better to suffer harm than inflict it.To summarise, abortion in cases of rape should not be permitted in a fair society. Ergo, the supposed 'liberties' that my opponent presents are not needed in order for America to be a free country. (1) https://www.psychologytoday.com...(2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(3) http://bjp.rcpsych.org...