Gay marriage should not be banned

I will now post my final words in this round. I would like for the audience to read these statements: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. " -U. S. Constitution "We the people" refers to all the people of the US. Basically this means that all people in the US will be granted liberty. Liberty: Political philosophy meaning people may act freely according to his or her own will. Contention 1. /Counter Argument 1. Liberty is granted to all men and women in the US. Be mentioning all men, this includes the population of homosexuals. My opponent stated that by taking the right for gays to marry is not just taking the right from homosexuals, but everyone in general. This is only partially true. I certainly dispute that all of us are homosexuals. Therefore there are certain people who are. The population of homosexuals is classified as the gay community, therefore meaning a specific group of people. So, my opponent is incorrect. The act of eliminating gay marriage turns out to be taking the right from a specific group of people because the topic is specifically about homosexuals. In this case, not all people are granted liberty. "I pledge allegiance To the flag of the United States of America And to the republic For which it stands One nation Under God, Indivisible With liberty and justice for all" -United States Pledge of Allegiance Here again, we have granted freedom, liberty and justice to all. "For all", I might add. When taking the right for gays to be married away but still allowing straight marriage is not justice at all. Like said before, it is a mere act of discrimination. This violates the United States policy, Constitution, Civil Rights, Bill of Rights, etc. Certainly this cannot be allowed. Contention 2. /Counter Argument 2. My opponent pleads morality. But this morality is in accordance with his idea of right and wrong. He disputes that what is right and wrong is all our own opinion. I dispute his philosophy. We have been taught by our parents and many other people what is right and what is wrong. This occurs to everyone but some parents and others teach us different ideals of what is right and wrong. Clearly if one person says one thing is right and the other says it is wrong, then it is obvious that it is all in determination of their opinion. Immorality only comes from our idea of what is wrong. My opponent disputes this as well as the fact that homosexuality is not immoral. Although he is incorrect. Contention 3. /Counter Argument 3. We, meaning the US, share equality. My opponent mentions the Bible quite often in his arguments. He solemnly states that the Bible is the book of Christ. Yes this is true, but it was not written by Christ. It was written by a human being who had his own opinion of what he thought God thought was right and wrong. We cannot prove that the Bible is in exact accordance with God's message. And with the Bible being around for so long, look at the possibility after being modernized often, that slowly it came to be too radical. Believers of God know that He created everyone. This includes homosexuals. By discriminating against homosexuals, we are not being fair, we are being hateful. This is in violation of the Bible as well. Contention 4. People dispute that people are born gay. This is absolutely false. People are infact born gay. If people can be born mentally challenged, then the possibility of a man or woman having more opposite sex chromosomes is 100% possible. For example, there was a woman in a local supermarket near my house whom we visited quite often. She was a lesbian. One day she was in tears because she tried to commit suicide three times all due to persecution. Many people would say that she only chose to be a lesbian so that she could gain attention from the world. How could this be if she is in tears from suicide attempts? It is strictly impossible. Obviously if she chose to be a lesbian, she would not try to kill herself. It is immoral to be gay but it is not immoral to oppress and to hate? I absolutely, positively, 100% disagree with full heart. Another example is the Laramie, Wyoming murder. This was mainly about a homosexual who was condemned for being a gay and was killed for it. Many people in the community segregated from gays, but at the funeral and court trial is where they found in their hearts discrimination is wrong. The murderers thought he was immoral but it was moral of them to kill him? How can this represent freedom, liberty and justice for all. It simply cannot. Contention 5. /Counter Argument 4. My opponent made it very clear to me that he thinks homosexuality is immoral. "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. " He proved here his radical behavior as well as his overseen contentions. I will present my response in the following way. First of all he has brought up an irrelevant topic: Allowing homosexuality. This is not the topic. The topic is allowing gay marriage. He is too jurassic when he mentions the extinction of mankind. First of all, allowing gay marriage will not stop people from being gay, it is absolutely uncontrollable. Overall, just because a couple is married does not mean they are going to have kids. Let me point this out. It is not immoral for two teenagers to get married, not love each other and end up with children they can't support. But allowing two people who just happen to be the same gender and really love each other to be married is immoral? This cannot simply be true. My opponent states homosexuality is immoral and should be prohibited. We are supposed to be a free nation. By taking peoples' freedom of being a certain way and saying we are a free nation is absolutely contradictory. We would not be a free nation, we would be a dictorial one. Examples of dictorial nations: Joseph Stalin of the USSR/Russia (communist) and Adolph Hitler of the Nazi Party/Germany (fascist). Both these two nations spoke out clearly that being gay as well as being Jewish was immoral and they took action. The US on the other hand disputed this. It would absolutely be hypocritical for the US to rant freedom, liberty and justice but in the end not provide none of those. We would not be a free nation, only a dictorial. And all dictorial nations have suffered great loses all due to their blindness of what is moral and immoral. In conclusion, I affirm that allowing Gay marriage is an act of freedom and banning it is discrimination and is dictortial. We as a nation are supposed to negate dictators as well as discrimination. Our conception of right and wrong is all upon our determination. My opponent disputes this, even though that is fact. Banning gay marriage will not stop people from being homosexual. Basically meaning homosexuality cannot stop for as long as people have a way of seeing the world as well as being born an individual. We are a nation under God but have our own conception of what is right. Our conception is freedom of the people to be independent and have the right to pursue their own measure of happiness. I have countered all of my opponent's arguments and have proven much more. Besides opinion, there is absolutely no legitimate reason to ban gay marriage. Thank You!