gay marriage

how does the 1st amendment prohibit laws that respect an establishment of religion? Rebuttal contention1- so the government can't prohibit people from being gay, but yet the bible implies that homosexuals are bad and immoral yet many church's of similar religion have supported the gay cause so not only does the bible contradict itself, so does another similar religion. http://www.startribune.com... " what rights are you even talking about?" unalienable rights http://www.lexrex.com... http://www.christiangallery.com... I am not denying anyone anything if you wish to complain what the courts are doing blog and further more the ninth amendment is very hard to interpret so here is a better insight to the 9th amendment http://civilliberty.about.com... Rebuttal C2 my opponent doesn't disapprove my assumptions so they still stand and here's some proof 1. common sense that the bible was written by someone. 2. one god for 4 major religions http://atheism.about.com... 3.the bible is literature http://www.americanbible.org... It is very relevant if I can show that the bible was wrong on something then we can interpret that it must be wrong on many other things for example gay marriage "objective analysis and false interpretation" then shouldn't it have been easy to refute or are you as moronic and close minded as I think you are and make a simple refutation on how I falsely interpreted the bible and have objective analysis "it is ridiculous that a con should have to DISPROVE a resolution that the pro made" isn't that what the con does disprove? "I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points" so my opponent is saying that he is making assumptions and he doesn't need proof "by simply providing conjectures with no factual or logical sense,it would turn this debate into an unitelligable argument". refer to my 2nd round conclusion "what a ridiculous analysis in a pathetic attempt to win votes from members of this site who are homosexual" he never says if he is supporting gays. and doesn't say he is against them, but under these circumstances he is against homosexuals because he is trying to prevent gays from marrying. I have refuted all my opponents negations and he doesn't negate any of my "points using proof". he just uses his links as references to his points not disproving any of my points using proof. contention1- Equality for all since my opponent went into constitutional rights and such was his move of placing a king in check basically no I will capture the king (beat him) supreme court has deemed it that it is unconstitutional to deny gays equality where marriage law is concerned http://liberalslikechrist.org... 3rd round conclusion my opponent says all I have to do is negate your points using proof so if he didn't negate any my points using proof in his statements/arguments then his statements/arguments should be disregarded according to him. I ask my opponent is he pro gay or against gays. ( he will not answer it) finally he attempts to discredit me using by ridiculing me or making me look moronic so it would seem like he is more intelligent and win more votes, but he fails to do this and will end up losing because of " I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points"