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

RebuttalsHe 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.No deviation was committed or intended. I was responding based on your contextualization and loose verbiage, but from the direction you are taking this debate it seems like church leaders aren't the isolated topic here. If they are, this is very harming to your side, as you have been adamantly arguing about the (non specific assumed Christian) church itself as opposed the leaders there-in. Also citing a source not used for valid contention of your arguments, or a direct argument that I made or showed any intention of making, is a clear attempt at source-bombing. But in direct response to that, you cannot choose your sexual desires either, meaning that if choice is a valid argument in this discussion, you have once again harmed your case. There is no conclusive evidence that one is born gay. Nor have I said there is, but that also doesn't go on to prove that they aren't as well, in which as the instigator of this premise, you hold the BOP. In any regards, you just stated that one's choice is important, regardless of how they are born. If this is the case, you should be all for legality of gay marriage. 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?In saying that discrimination is okay, you forget that I also didn't say discrimination was unanimously not okay. Weighing discrimination is comparing apples to apples perfectly in this equation, as the underlining point is discriminating homosexuality IS wrong. Because pedophilia is viewed as wrong by most of society while homosexuality isn't, the debate goes on to establish why denying a group of equal people rights is more important than not? Such are questions that have been addressed multiple time in this debate. 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. Source bombing is intentionally using necessary sources that aren't of specific or neccesary use to the argument, to build an appearance of more credibility and references. You specifically cited three articles about the same thing, all saying the same thing. You posted videos and articles that contained information that worked contrary to your own points, which shows that you maybe saw the title, read the description, and posted it without knowledge of the context of the actual events. This is source bombing at it's core. Source and vote bombing are terms created for use on this website, and are procedures that are recognized by some of the more active debaters. With that said, whether the voters will view this as a conduct or source violation is completely up to them.This makes no sense at all.Read the civil rights, and then re-read what I said. Maybe it will make more sense to you. (10)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.According to bible.org, gays should be accepted into the foundation so that the turning of that sin is even possible. By casting them out, you are taking an [expletive] on Christian ideals. Receiving the message of what qualifies as sin and turning from sin is of the utmost importance. So you should agree that gays should be invited into the church, so that they can be taught that message and be cured of their sin. According to the original quote, that is not the intention of Pastor Carr. 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.This statement is without an argument for justification, therefore irrelevant.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].Articles 5-8 do not show discrimination through gay marriage, and are largely irrelevant. In fact the discrimination in every single source, mainly cites discrimination from countries with pre-dominate RELIGIONS already in place. Religion is being discriminated by other religions, in which case I don't really have to care. 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 did not say that you were equating gay rights to the kkk. Stop saying that I am trying to "deceive" you are starting to sound silly lol. No I got the point, addressed it, and decided to use your example in a different way against you concerning the Christian mindset. You actually dropped that entire argument.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:Watch the video again lol. The Christians actually started the "confrontation". They were standing on the steps shouting their opinion to the world. The Gay rights advocates came back and did the same thing non-violently. Again, this evidences that you didn't actually watch your own video. 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.A few things wrong with this. The guy's side said something threatening. Yes, saying "repent or else" is a direct threat. If I followed you around with a sign that said "let me take your sister to bed... or else..." you would have a reason to be pissed off at me too. However, that is still not the issue. The issue is that a man with a criminal history of violence instigated the physical attack, and he or anyone else there shouldn't be the representative for an entire group of individuals. However, in this article (11) a pastor and a bunch of deacons attacked a gay couple in largely the same way that happened to the christian in your video. Equally if I wanted to source bomb every instance of gay victims of religious violence, I could. The point is, that a few individuals do not make up an entire culture of people.This is completely irrelevant. It is normal for one to use "his" or "her" in a neutral sense. It happens a lot. This is just another attempt to deceive.Okay, but you didn't respond to the rest of the argument, so I am led to believe you agree that the woman lied/ exaggerated, and that the group was justified in booting her out non-violently. Sources:(10) http://www.hhs.gov...(11) http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...