gay marriage

"I will ask him to clarify this and extend it and how does the first amendment prohibit this? " The following is a direct quote of the first amendment, which my opponent most likely failed to read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " SOURCE: . http://topics.law.cornell.edu... "my opponent never says we don't have these rights" What rights are you even talking about? The direct quote from the declaration of independence never specified any concrete right, and neither did you. You simply took a quotation from the declaration of independence, and attempted to misinterpret it to say that you have the right to force a religion to marry someone who they don't want to marry. I mean seriously. The right to life? Yes everyone has the right not to be killed. This is built into the justice system. The right to happiness? Yeah you can go ahead and be happy. The right to liberty? Define liberty. Honestly the quote in the declaration of independence never specified any concrete right, nor does it have any bearing upon our rights. So you can't simply take a quote from it and misinterpret it to suit your own purposes. "what are constitutional rights and give a few examples" Constitutional rights are our rights given to us by the constitution obviously. I'm not doing a copy and paste of the Bill of Rights, but I'll at least link it for you in case you want to read it. BILL OF RIGHTS: . http://topics.law.cornell.edu... "what is a religious institution" A religious instiution is a broad term that essentially means "Anything that falls under the scope of religion. " Some examples would be marriage, church service, rituals used in worship, celebrating etc. Anything that is a part of religion. "you do not answer my question so please do and what religions specifically say that gays can't marry" I don't have to answer the question because it does not pertain to nor affirm your resolution. It doesn't matter if there is a particular religion that says gays can't marry. The affirmation is that gay marriage should be legal, and my point is that it should neither be legal nor illegal because it falls under the scope of religion, and it is unconstitutional that government make any law respecting a religion. Contention 1 - NEGATION My opponent fails to realize the impact of the following amendment to the constitution: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. By construing the meaning of freedom of speech my opponent is denying others their right of religious freedom by expanding the right to freedom of speech. This is explicity unconstitutional as stated in the above amendment. SOURCE: . http://topics.law.cornell.edu... Contention 2 - NEGATION Irrelevant to the debate, objective analysis and false interpretation with no logical or factual backing. "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. " I did not shift the burden of proof as it was yours to begin with, I simply blocked you from trying to force it upon me. It is ridiculous that a con should have to disprove a resolution that the pro made. "well although I do have to prove my points so does my opponent" No, I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points. "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" Your resolution says it should thus you say it should. And what a ridiculous analysis in a pathetic attempt to win votes from members of this site who are homosexual by stating " you're not with them you're against them" Absolutely ridiculous. "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" It wouldn't make the debate anymore interesting by simply providing conjectures with no factual or logical sense, it would turn this debate into an unintelligable argument. My opponent accepts my definition of marriage (by not refuting it), he therefore is defeated because all of his contentions have been rebutted. Furthermore his resolution fails to hold ground as it infringes upon the first amendment as is shown throughout the debate by well documented sources.