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

I would like to start this round by defining “discrimination”, as I feel it is important to this debate. Discrimination is described as the “1. Unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender”(1) I’ll dissolve this definition down a bit farther in a bit. As mentioned in the comments, I feel the resolution can be played into with a bit of semantics, so as a precursor, I would like to set the above definition as the accepted definition of discrimination. Now because there are many definitions for the word out there, my opponent can easily turn around and try to use another definition. I am arguing that this is the better definition to use, because while it is simple, it encompasses the true purpose of effectiveness for both sides. Now, to dissolve the definition, and why this one is important. The use of the term “unfair treatment” is the particular part of this definition that makes it unique to its counter parts. This definition makes a distinct dis-association from saying racist things for example, and actually physically taking away rights from a person because of their skin color. In this example, the latter would more appropriately fit the definition I am using in this debate. From reading my opponents arguments, it’s seem like this should be the argument he as well is trying to get across, so in that regard, there should be no problem. So prior to making rebuttals, I will make one contention specific to that which I have clarified above. Contention #1: The impact of weighing discrimination The way the resolution is worded, seems to suggest that if gay rights becomes legal, church leaders will be treated differently than they already have been treated. But in context to Pro’s arguments, it would seem that he feels church leaders (really just the Christian church according to his arguments) are ALREADY being discriminated against. In context, it really just looks like Pro is saying the existence of gays cause discrimination, rather than their physical right to marry. If this is the case, then Pro’s arguments do not fall affirm the resolution at all. In order for pro to properly uphold the resolution, he needs to explain why the actual passing of the law will do anything as far as “increasing” his view of what discrimination is, as opposed to what is already happening. Already, most of his arguments have lost merit, but keeping the above in mind, I will still offer rebuttals to his arguments. But where the big problem with the resolution is, is where it recognizes the existence of discrimination, but only holds the recognition for one side. It completely dis-regards any potential discrimination in advocates for gay marriage. But because it does exist for Christian church leaders, I think it’s important to weigh the two arguments together. Falling directly in line with the above definition, there has been unfair treatment of a group of people. Because this specific “group of people” have been denied the same rights as their counterparts namely in the Christian religion. In this regard, Christian church leaders aren’t really being “discriminated” against, as the argument outlined can only evidence discrimination as ‘being peeved that gay marriage advocates oppose being discriminated themselves and are willing to stand up for themselves’. In accordance to the definition, Christian church leaders are not being discriminated against, nor is it likely they will be by the legal passing of gay marriage. I’ll go into more detail regarding the specific portals Pro mentioned throughout my rebuttals. Rebuttal 1: Fear of lawsuits Because in this argument Pro specifically referenced Christian churches, I am going to assume he wishes to clarify the resolution is about the church entity, as no arguments were specifically laid out about their leaders. Far right opponents of Barack Obama and his health care initiative have used fear tactics to try to deter said initiative. What is the relevancy to this health care initiative and gay marriage? Also if you are saying the “far-right” are using these same tactics (IE where most church leaders align themselves), this argument seems to hurt you more than anything. With regards to fear, saying this is a by product of gay marriage itself, is fallacious for the reason of upholding the baseline idea of these Christian Leaders own religions. The article you cited with Pastor Joe Carr quote, even had the Christian ideals all wrong in saying “being forced to allow someone to use our facilities who does not believe what we believethe Bible teaches”. According to Bible.org homosexuality isn’t always a choice and can be cured through spiritual submission: “A. It is certainly true that most homosexuals never become heterosexual—some because they don't want to, but most others because their efforts to change were unsuccessful. It takes spiritual submission and much emotional work to repent of sexual sin and achieve a healthy self-concept that glorifies God by cooperating with Him in being transformed by the renewing of our minds.” The bible also states: And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11). So why do these church leaders feel they are being discriminated against? If the Christian bible states that these churches stand by trying to cure gays of their orientation, shouldn't’t they be happy that homosexuals want to be part of their organization? All this aside, I still find it highly unlikely that state laws will effect the religious organizations, because as you stated, religious freedom is protected under the constitution. Rebuttal 2: Gays have started their attack The men trying to sue, are only trying which is not evidence of discrimination. It's an unfortunate part of human nature, that people are obsessed with suing, but it happens on both sides of the spectrum. Even many Christian churches have put time and effort into the legal process. The Mormon Church's members have contributed some $22 million into Prop 8, a vicious campaign here in California seeking to strip fundamental marriage rights from same-sex couples, making them permanent second-class citizens. (3) Your articles do not demonstrate discrimination, until the courts pass the law, and even the articles themselves state that such legal pursuits will likely not be effective. There was also one instance of a gay man sued his former employer (a church) for wrongful termination because he is gay. Again, how is this discrimination against the church? The man is only trying to sue. It's success is limited with all the legal backing set in place for religious freedoms, etc. However, the man losing his job because of his orientation is a perfect example of the church being discriminative themselves according to the definition provided. And finally let's debunk your video (I don't know why you sourced bombed 3 articles about the same incident, saying the exact same thing). First, let's get a couple things straight. This was an isolated incident where an antagonized and threatened crowd reacted to someone who had the clear intention of causing a stir. His sign said "Repent or else" which is clearly threatening, and condescending. Gay pride event, or not, if you go directly into a crowd supporting something, and try to tell them they are sinners, your going to start some drama. So it's not like this man was innocently hunted down in some quiet suburban neighborhood for no reason. Second, the thick man who was responsible for most of the physical violence was a 12 time criminal according to your own source (10). I can see him acting this way in a hundred other scenarios not involving gay marriage. Third, why do you assume the "attack" was caused as an act of discrimination, rather than reacting to someone obviously and purposefully trying to start something? I am not saying what was done was right, but it's a pretty bad argument to say that all supporters of gay marriage are likely to do the same to any Christian leader simply for dis-agreeing with their ideals. Rebuttal 3: Ohio's "solution" I agree with this point, however I dis-agree that the religious side would have been discriminated against either way. I am all for religion keeping their own marital system "sacred" to them. However is Pro truly believes in his third rebuttal, I have a hard time finding credibility behind his first two. On to my opponent. Sources: (1) Encarta English Dictionary(more specific version of this definition can be found at #2 at http://dictionary.reference.com...)(2) https://bible.org... (3) http://www.mormoncurtain.com...