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

First a clarification: When I say "the Church", I am speaking specifically of the Church Body. That includes parishioners, deacons, elders, pastors (the latter three being church leaders). For me to use the terms "the Church" and "church leaders", interchangeably, is perfectly ok and within the bounds of the debate. My opponent is trying to deceive. the next few paragraphs are a rebuttal to my opponent's single contention: I agree with his definition of discrimination. I do believe discrimination is defined as he has stated: Unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender. Not in the case of sexual orientation. At least not in the case of marriage. In other cases, i.e., housing, and the workforce, sexual orientation should not matter. It is sad that in some cases, maybe alot of cases, it seems to be an issue. This statement alone should nullify what my opponent said about my claims that the existence alone of gays causes discrimination. In fact, I never said that anywhere. My issue is and has always been with the creation allowing laws stating that gays can be married. To solidify this I think it is fair to define marriage. Google so graciously provided the definition: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. The formal union of a MAN AND A WOMAN, typically recognized by law, by which they become HUSBAND AND WIFE. It's pretty simple, isn't it? You cannot create a husband and wife by putting together a man with another man, or a woman with another woman. I believe a common misconception of all advocates of gay marriage and/or the gay lifestyle have is that marriage itself is a civil right. It is in fact, not a civil right. Another way I could word my opponent's definition of discrimination, with which I have no qualms about, is, "denying civil rights to a person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender". It is saying the exact same thing. And seeing as marriage is not a civil right, gays would not be discriminated against. However, the right to practice whatever religion we choose, is a civil right. It is stated in the first amendment. Now I will touch on my opponent's rebuttals. I admit there is no relevancy between the Obama's health care initiative and gay marriage, I was simply trying to explain how fear tactics work. In regards to Pastor Carr's quote about "being forced to allow someone to use our facilities who does not believe what we believe the Bible teaches" The bible states that: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22)[1] Also, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:26-28)[2] This is what Pastor Carr was getting at. Christians believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That it is unnatural and not deserving of being categorized in the same as heterosexuals. Sure on the face of this, it seems that this is discriminatory, but as I showed in one of my sources, it is in fact not.[3] I will post that same article at the end of my round again. In response to part of my opponent's first and second rebuttals Discrimination comes in the form of ATTACKS. ATTACKS to illicit FEAR. NOT court rulings. This is exemplified by a very dark part of our nation's history. Think back to the long history of the Ku Klux Klan. They used several fear related attacks on African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and any other person they deemed necessary to invoke fear into. Everyone knows the Klan's fear tactics: Dressing like ghosts, home invasions, cross burnings (and if my 7th grade history teacher was correct, this was also a method of execution for the Klan), kidnappings, lynchings[4], just to name a few. Suing is not a discrimination, a court ruling is not a fear tactic, the fear of being sued because of a deeply held and kept belief IS a rational fear in this case, the threat of a lawsuit IS an attack to illicit fear, ergo, for the church (or church leaders if you're a stickler) to be sued in order to force said church to house a gay wedding ceremony and force a church leader to perform said ceremony IS discrimination. Yes, the sources I posted on the PHYSICAL attack on the Christian protesting the Pride rally were of the same incident, however, that gives different perspectives of the same incident. Hardly source bombing. If it pleases my opponent I have posted a different video of a similar incident in Australia http://www.youtube.com... Were the Christians instigating anything as my opponent suggests? Absolutely not! They were simply exercising their right to assembly. Was the Christian's sign a little harsh? Sure. But this was not an incident involving Westboro Baptist Church. He was in no way shape or form doing anything out of the ordinary. Simply just exercising their right to assembly. When the right to assembly is infringed upon, you are interfering with a civil right. When you are attacked for exercising the right to assembly, your civil rights are being infringed upon. Here is a video of participants in a Pride rally asking a Christian to leave. They infringed upon his rights. http://www.youtube.com... In response to my opponent's inability to find credibility in my two previous contentions if I were to side with the proposed solution Freedom Ohio came up with, that could not be more untrue. To support such an addendum in a law to which there is a religious exemption to gay marriage, lines right up with my contentions. It's simple cause and effect. If the law lifts a ban on gay marriage but says any religious institution has the right to refuse service to a gay couple, there would be no need for fear of lawsuits, there would be no need for lawsuits in this type of situation. 1. http://www.biblegateway.com... 2. http://www.biblegateway.com... 3. http://carm.org... 4. http://wiki.answers.com...