Gay marriage should not be banned

Time for the final round. "Liberty is granted to all men and women in the US...." Not really. Homosexuals aren't being discriminated against. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry those of the same sex. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry those of the same sex. See? Same rights. It takes the rights from all people, not just gays. For example, most people do not want to run around naked. However, nobody is allowed to run around naked. Is this discriminating against those who want to run around naked? No. "My opponent pleads morality...." If Bob says that 2+2=5, and Joe says that 2+2=4, does that make those opinions? No, it means that Bob is stupid. Just because people disagree does not mean that neither one is right. Your contention is not necessarily correct. "We, meaning the US, share equality. My opponent mentions the Bible quite often in his arguments. He solemnly states that the Bible is the book of Christ. Yes this is true, but it was not written by Christ. It was written by a human being who had his own opinion of what he thought God thought was right and wrong...." He doesn't have to write it for it to be the book of Him. It was written by many human beings, who were talked to by God. We can't prove anything in history. Can we prove that the Constitution had all of those signatures? Maybe some were faked. We can't tell. But because it has been around for so long, and more and more copies were made, it would become harder and harder to edit them all, so your reasoning that it could steadily change over time is incorrect. "Believers of God know that He created everyone. This includes homosexuals. By discriminating against homosexuals, we are not being fair, we are being hateful. This is in violation of the Bible as well." As I have mentioned, we are not discriminating against them. These laws apply to everybody. Said who that it was hateful? It is just for the better of society. "People dispute that people are born gay. This is absolutely false. People are infact born gay. If people can be born mentally challenged, then the possibility of a man or woman having more opposite sex chromosomes is 100% possible. For example, there was a woman in a local supermarket near my house whom we visited quite often. She was a lesbian...." "Opposite sex chromosomes?" That doesn't make any sense. How is her wanting attention impossible? She could try to kill herself anyway. You can't really tell. As I have said, it is not oppressive or hateful, but for the good of the nation. "Another example is the Laramie, Wyoming murder. This was mainly about a homosexual who was condemned for being a gay and was killed for it. Many people in the community segregated from gays, but at the funeral and court trial is where they found in their hearts discrimination is wrong. The murderers thought he was immoral but it was moral of them to kill him? How can this represent freedom, liberty and justice for all. It simply cannot." It was not moral to kill him. I never said that it was. It doesn't represent freedom, liberty, or justice. The point here is that murder is immoral. This is hardly relevant. "My opponent made it very clear to me that he thinks homosexuality is immoral." Correct. "First of all he has brought up an irrelevant topic: Allowing homosexuality. This is not the topic. The topic is allowing gay marriage. He is too jurassic when he mentions the extinction of mankind. First of all, allowing gay marriage will not stop people from being gay, it is absolutely uncontrollable. Overall, just because a couple is married does not mean they are going to have kids." You were the one who brought up homosexuality in the first round, defining what "gay" meant. I know that the extinction point was exaggerated, but I put it anyway. How would allowing gay marriage stop people from being gay in the first place? Your point is obvious. I never said that married couples will have kids. They just usually do, while gay couples do not. "Let me point this out. It is not immoral for two teenagers to get married, not love each other and end up with children they can't support. But allowing two people who just happen to be the same gender and really love each other to be married is immoral? This cannot simply be true." That's because it isn't true. I never said that the former situation was moral. They both seem to be immoral. "My opponent states homosexuality is immoral and should be prohibited. We are supposed to be a free nation. By taking peoples' freedom of being a certain way and saying we are a free nation is absolutely contradictory. We would not be a free nation, we would be a dictorial one." So we should allow homosexuality, but not allow people to run around naked? That is a right that some crazy people out there would like to have, and you aren't letting them have it. Is this contradictory, no, it's not. "Examples of dictorial nations: Joseph Stalin of the USSR/Russia (communist) and Adolph Hitler of the Nazi Party/Germany (fascist). Both these two nations spoke out clearly that being gay as well as being Jewish was immoral and they took action. The US on the other hand disputed this. It would absolutely be hypocritical for the US to rant freedom, liberty and justice but in the end not provide none of those. We would not be a free nation, only a dictorial. And all dictorial nations have suffered great loses all due to their blindness of what is moral and immoral." This is largely irrelevant. When you create more rights, you at the same time are removing other rights. By giving people the right to not see crazy naked people running around in the street, you're removing their right to run around naked. So by that logic, you can't ever have all rights, so all nations are… "dictorial" is not even a word. So that logic can't work. "In conclusion, I affirm that allowing Gay marriage is an act of freedom and banning it is discrimination and is dictortial. We as a nation are supposed to negate dictators as well as discrimination. Our conception of right and wrong is all upon our determination. My opponent disputes this, even though that is fact. Banning gay marriage will not stop people from being homosexual. Basically meaning homosexuality cannot stop for as long as people have a way of seeing the world as well as being born an individual. We are a nation under God but have our own conception of what is right. Our conception is freedom of the people to be independent and have the right to pursue their own measure of happiness. I have countered all of my opponent's arguments and have proven much more. Besides opinion, there is absolutely no legitimate reason to ban gay marriage." In the same way, banning gay marriage is another act of freedom: the right to not have gay marriages in our nation. That is how rights work. So, that does not mean that we are a dictatorship. By your given definition, we can conclude that wrong can be determined. Even though we ban murder, people get murdered every day. We know that it can't stop it, but it can greatly discourage it. Besides opinion, there is no legitimate reason to ban running around naked. Besides opinion, there is no reason to do anything. Besides opinion, life is pointless. It is your opinion that you should do something with your life, not a fact. Opinions can matter, should matter, and do matter. With opinions, things can be optimal for the wellbeing of society. I proved that banning gay marriage is not discrimination, and thus not hateful, that rights are simply the removal of other rights, and that by definition, homosexuality is wrong. All of my opponent's points have been rebutted. My opponent has given no valid reasons why we should treat the situation of gay marriage any different than letting people run around naked. Vote CON. Thank you.