gay marriage

for the intention of this debate to remain interesting I will say Religious marriage but will define marriage as a social union between two individuals. N1- My opponent says " the first amendment prohibits the U.S. congress from making laws that "respect an establishment of religion" I will ask him to clarify this and extend it and how does the first amendment prohibit this? If you say right to freedom of speech, religion and blah blah blah then can't a Homosexual that is a Christian or catholic marry someone else who is gay and have a religious matrimony and "Furthermore, our rights are created from the US constitution. However my opponent stated "liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness" which is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence which has no bearing on our Constitutional rights." my opponent never says we don't have these rights (which we do even if it is an excerpt from the declaration of independence) what are constitutional rights and give a few examples n2- what is a religious institution? can you clarify and extend your last sentence n3- you do not answer my question so please do and what religions specifically say that gays can't marry contention1- freedom of speech the word speech is a very general term what does it exactly mean "speech" a concept now that has been expanded far beyond verbal communication this is due to courts it also includes ways of expressing freedom so with that in mind wouldn't gays be using there first amendment right and if the church doesn't want or let them marry wouldn't this take away homosexuals 1st amendment right? would this make the church discriminatory It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on grounds of their sex (including gender re-assignment) or marital status (including civil partnerships), or on grounds of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or on the grounds of philosophical beliefs. wouldn't being gay fall into one of these categories (sexual orientation) then wouldn't the church be breaking the law and the government can or could intervene? contention 2- "homosexuality is a sin" the bible says this and what is the bible exactly a piece of literature that needs to be written by someone so someone had to write this and nowadays there are several versions of the bible and while although there are several religions my opponent I believe is referring to one of the 4 major religions Catholic,Christian,and Eastern Orthodox, and Muslims although they may have different literature that they support and several feuds between the Christian and Catholic church they all pray to the same God so if this is true and they believe God is the creator of all If God didn't want homosexuals why did he create them. back to the bible In the beginning the bible says how Adam and eve were created, and reproduced by having children "be fruitful and multiply" If they were the first here then they must of had boys and girls to further reproduce and those children had to reproduce with each other then in the eyes of the church correct me if I'm wrong then wouldn't that violate the church's or religious beliefs After all this if the brother / sister thing is ‘against nature' then isn't the bible contradicting itself making itself wrong on base of self contradiction? and if the church is wrong about this then the vendetta against homosexuals not marrying is irrelevant? 2nd round conclusion my opponent said " the burden of proof always lies on the person who made the resolution, and more importantly who is the Pro in the debate...the burden of proof is on him to show why the government should make any law respecting religion" now what my opponent did here is very interesting not only does he shift the burden of proof he excuses himself on how he doesn't have to show proof anymore or during this debate. well although I do have to prove my points so does my opponent also my opponent agrees on some issues which makes him seem more open minded, but in the final analysis he is against Gays and everything that means because if you are not with them you are against them unless you don't really care (neutral). and he now is commanding me to say as to why the government should make any law respecting religion when I never said it should "I negate legalizing Gay marriage violates the proposed ideology of America being equal" let me clarify what I said I did not say that if you legalize gay marriage this would violate the ideology of America being equal I said or intended to say that "not only is not allowing gays to marry a violation of the so proposed ideology of America being equal" because although America says it has equal opportunities for everyone apparently not, according to the church ( by church I mean any religion that has the bible as it's literature) gays can't marry and history does not support America and being equal. In order to make this debate more interesting lets not provide information supporting contentions if you say no I will provide information for my contentions in 3rd round as well as several new ones w/ information supporting my contentions