Creating laws in support of gay marriage would create discrimination against church leaders

I in no way tried to manipulate my opponent's definition. Race, age, ethnicity and gender are all things you cannot choose. You can change your gender, but you can not choose which gender you are born with. My opponent will surely try to dispute this and manipulate anyone who is reading this, but let's make this clear YOU cannot choose YOUR own gender from birth. With all the medical advances these days your parents may be able to, but YOU cannot. He may even use a source like this[1] to manipulate and deceive like he tried when he disputed and accused me of deviating from the debate topic by using "Church" and "church leaders" interchangeably. I say all this because we need to understand that there is a clear difference between race, ethnicity, age and gender from that of sexual orientation when determining what qualifies as discrimination. [2] There is no conclusive evidence that one is born gay. Why my opponent insists on harping on his lone contention is beyond me. In continuing to doing all this, my opponent repeatedly commits what is called a category mistake.[3] Essentially, he is comparing apples and oranges. There ARE cases where discrimination is perfectly OK. If you were hiring someone to oversee an after school program or a teacher, would you really consider hiring a pedophile? Again it is important to understand I am NOT comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Discrimination against religious beliefs is unconstitutional, discrimination against a chosen sexual orientation My opponent also resorts to accusation attacks by claiming I was "source bombing". I never did. There really is no such thing as source bombing, vote bombing, etc. "Next my opponent goes on to say: It is in fact, [marriage] not a civil right. The argument behind this statement is absent to me. Marriage itself is not, but everything the very meaning of civil rights is, encompasses equality of marriage." This makes no sense at all. My opponent, unsurprisingly, misses the point of 1 Cor 6:11 entirely. The sin is forgiven, washed away in a sense, however turning from sin is also a very important. Consider Acts 17:11, "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."[4] Receiving the message of what qualifies as sin and turning from sin is of the utmost importance. In merely saying that the bible contradicts itself shows my opponent does not have an understanding of the bible and thus is in no place to argue about its contents. He basically has contradicted himself. " I am wondering why religion is being discriminated any more than you think Gay rights advocates are?" My opponent not only has no knowledge of the bible, but current events as well. [5] Persecution of Christians happens all over the world. In China[6] In the middle east[7]. Two friends of mine, Nolan Dean and Steve Hussman, also trekked to Turkey in 2009 to make a documentary about discrimination of Christians in Turkey[8] I was in no way comparing gay rights advocates to the KKK. I was merely explaining how discrimination works through usage of fear. Seeing as my opponent chose to again attempt to deceive by saying I was equating gay rights advocates to the KKK, shows that he missed the point completely. "I wasted my time watching the entire video, just to find it had nothing to do with the last video, nor did it show the violence you speak of. Did you even watch the video? The video contained a bunch of people from both sides screaming, yelling, and cheering in support of the sides they were affiliated with, and for the most part the conduct was civil. What was the point of this video?" The gay rights advocates instigated the confrontation, however, as you see the Christians were not violent unlike the gay rights protesters in the first video I posted, which once again makes your argument irrelevant. But it does lead me to my next point: "Sure he had the "right" to be there and do those things, but are you really surprised that given the context of the situation, it led to violence?" Absolutely! The guy was standing there with a sign. Probably the least violent action one can take outside of sleeping. It was the gay rights advocates who attacked him. As you see, he didn't even try to fight back. It does not matter if one of them or all of them had a history of criminal activity. Attacking someone physically, outside of protecting oneself from potential physical harm, is never ok. "Your use of the word "his" demonstrates that you also didn't watch this video, as it was clearly a woman." This is completely irrelevant. It is normal for one to use "his" or "her" in a neutral sense. It happens alot. This is just another attempt to deceive[9] 1. http://www.babycenter.com... 2. http://carm.org... 3. http://carm.org... 4. http://www.biblegateway.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.breitbart.com... 7. http://www.persecution.org... 8. http://www.nrbnetwork.tv... 9. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...