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

Contention #1: The impact of weighing discriminationMy opponent tries to manipulate the definition I provided to suit his own needs (in which case it still doesn't, as religion isn't being discriminated against).You cannot exclude sexual orientation if you agree with the definition, as you are classifying an entire group which matches directly inline with the definition. My opponent then goes on to give a biased version of marriage, though marriage has been redefined many times since original definitions were met. Let's look at Merriam Webster:"a(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"(1)A definition, however is still only as good as the argument behind it, as I stated in R2. There are many different definitions that say many different things. But in my research, most seem to support the new definition encompassing marriage equality. Popular resources such as thefreedictionary.com(2), and dictionary.com (3) both support these definitions, as well as most of the 55 definitions in the dictionary resource. Since my opponent is source bombing, I am going to resort to it too. Rebuttal #1: Fear of lawsuits 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.The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.(5)Everything about civil rights encompass marriage equality, even if marriage itself isn't specifically discussed."However, the right to practice whatever religion we choose, is a civil right. It is stated in the first amendment." I do not recall ever disputing this."Christians believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That it is unnatural and not deserving of being categorized in the same as heterosexuals."That misses my point entirely. I provided quotes from the bible above that demonstrate the contradictions in the bible quotes you yourself posted. To repeat one phrase in the bible while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the bible also suggests that acceptance of homosexuals in the church to try and save them is what needs to be done rather than outcasting them. In your own bible quote you fail to address the meaning behind cleansing and acceptance as interpreted in(1 Corinthians 6:11). This is largely the problem I have with organized Christian religions based on the many differing interpretations of the often contradictory book, based entirely off of contextualization. That aside, the bible itself is no impact in this debate until my opponent stands by a point behind that contradicts itself entirely.My opponent goes on to quote an article rather than make his own argument for why "condemning homosexuality is not discriminative". While I really should be refuting his own arguments here rather than someone else's, I will address the underlying conclusion stated by the article."Condemning homosexual practice as a sin is not discriminatory in a legal sense, but it is one in a spiritual sense, and that is alright." The spiritual realm of discrimination has nothing to do with this debate, because Gay Marriage issues goes into legality beyond organized religion. With that said, pouring millions of dollars into physically preventing a group of individuals from having rights, going to their rallies to call them horrible things like "sinners" etc, I am wondering why religion is being discriminated any more than you think Gay rights advocates are?Rebuttal #2: Gays have started their attack 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. Comparing Gay Rights advocates legal issues to that of the KKK is utterly ridiculous. The KKK made un-solicited attacks including terroristic attacks against those they opposed. However, contrary to the point you are making, the KKK is a perfect example of religious "attacks" that are equally discriminative. The way the KKK has evolved, the violence has stopped. But the ideals are still there, and guess what? They are based on many of the same Christians ideals you have used in this debate against Gay marriage advocates. Check out this video on the current KKK. (8) If you go to 3:48 of the video, a KKK advocate states his belief of what will happen to whites as a race with the acceptance of blacks, even going as far as to say we will be "put in concentration camps". The arguments used here are very similar to what the resolution entails, and the underlying point my opponent is trying to prove. The acceptance of another race or culture, being the downfall of another group of people. However my opponent will not admit that religion has anything to do with this, but keep in mind, even the people in this video use their interpretation of Christianity (just as my opponent has) as justification for their movement. Interesting stuff, if you choose to look at it in light of what it is. Point is, though, that Gay marriage advocates are not like the KKK in any way shape or form. One attack from a few people in a video, that was argumentatively justified based on the behavior of the religious zealot, is not evidence that the entire group of people will be hunting down Christians and burning them. So let's talk about "fear". My opponent admits that the act of suing itself isn't discriminatory, and says his impact is the fear behind lawsuits. But how is fear itself discriminatory, if the actions supposedly illiciting fear hold no weight? Weight in comparison the that of the Christian groups that hold 33 states against gay marriage to the 17 that do allow it? (9) Gay marriage advocates only have weight in social/legal passing of rights state-side. You have yet to prove how any success will come about their endeavors as far as enforcing religions to change their rules. Anyone, just as your pastor can be afraid unjustifiably. But the truth is, hundreds of thousands more in homosexuality have been correctly been discriminated through the fear you speak of, because their rights have been absent for centuries. Christians have no reason to fear be sued, because they will win every time. There is nothing to suggest the individuals suing will be successful, nor do those individuals foreshadow any massive increase of further suing. "If it pleases my opponent I have posted a different video of a similar incident in Australia" 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? "Simply just exercising their right to assembly. When the right to assembly is infringed upon, you are interfering with a civil right." I haven't said that I dis-agree that the actions of those people were wrong in attacking him. That was completely not my point. My point is saying that this event is evidence that gay marriage will lead to discrimination is bogus with your reasoning. Similarly, going up to a gang of african americans to curse at them, and then getting shot because of it, doesn't mean that all african americans are violent. The action was provoked. The man beaten in that video was purposely seeking out trouble by not leaving when things were obviously getting heated. 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? "Here is a video of participants in a Pride rally asking a Christian to leave. They infringed upon his rights." Your use of the word "his" demonstrates that you also didn't watch this video, as it was clearly a woman. This video was also a waste of my time, because you just got done saying a group has a right to assemble, and the group had every right to ask the woman to leave the event. Though if you listen to what the woman says, it seems like she may have been lying or exaggerating, as she said she was told to leave, but also said she was free to walk around and discuss with those willing to talk to her about it @ 2.28 of the video ;-) If I go to a church and try preaching that gay marriage is okay, the bible is completely flawed, and that all Christians are horrible people, I might just get asked to leave too. Back to my opponent. Sources: (4)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (5)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(see also civil rights) (6)http://dictionary.reference.com... (7)http://www.onelook.com...(8) Video (9)http://gaymarriage.procon.org...