gay marriage

"so the government can't prohibit people from being gay" No it can't. And your source has absolutely no relevance to what you just said. "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." I fail to see the relevance of this pertaining to the resolution. "unalienable rights" Unalienable rights are not constitutional rights therefore they have little relevance to this debate. Also both sources are both not credible for what you are attempting to prove. "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" A link is not an argument. "my opponent doesn't disapprove my assumptions so they still stand and here's some proof" Yes my opponent gives proof however he fails to prove that homosexuality is a sin, furthermore he fails to prove how it is a contradiction. Which were the two main things I accused him of not having proof. Furthermore, and more importantly, this entire argument is not relevant to the debate or to your resolution as the main argument I am making is that by making any law respecting religion you are violating the constitutional amendment of freedom of religion. "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" 1. My opponent calls me "moronic" and makes a laughable attempt to insult me. 2. My opponent calls me close-minded without any reason. 3. I don't have to prove you wrong as you are pro and have the burden of proof in this debate. Therefore you must prove your points to be correct. My only job is to tear down your arguments. Furthermore, your conjecture didn't even pertain to the argument at hand which is another reason why I won't even attempt to consider typing another word about it. ME: "I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points" HIM: "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"." Obviously you're a terrible reader as the quote explicitly said that I have to negate your points using factual or logical proof. I do not have to prove any points because it is not my affirmation. "I have refuted all my opponents negations and he doesn't negate any of my "points using proof"." No you have ignored every point I made about gay marriage being a violation of the US constitution and stead placed your entire argument in R3 on arguments that have no relevance to the argument I made. The points you made were not relevant to the debate, and the sources you used were either not credible - or did not pertain to the irrelevant points you were attempting to make. "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" LOL sorry mate, not only is your source completely biased and contains little to no factual information, but also a State Supreme Court cannot overrule the federal supreme court nor make applicable case law to overturn a constitutional amendment. But good try :) "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." Your points were irrelevant to the debate so I merely called them out for being the baseless conjectures that they were and negated your resolution using proof of the first amendment. The only defense for which was to give me a extremely biased source with no factual information that said a STATE supreme court made a ruling which is irrelevant because it was not a FEDERAL supreme court. " ask my opponent is he pro gay or against gays." You are simply trying to win leverage from the gay community and portray me as anti-gay to win your argument. This question does not pertain to the resolution and has no bearing upon anything. "he attempts to discredit me using by ridiculing me or making me look moronic" I didn't make my opponent look like anything, my opponent wrote what he wrote, I called it out for what it was. I never once called my opponent a moron, however you my opponent did call me a moron. To conclude: My opponent has accepted and not refuted my point that marriage is a religious institution. He only made one weak, two sentenced effort in attempt to discredit the first amendment by using a Californian Supreme Court which has no bearing on the constitution of the U.S. As my opponent accepted that marriage is a religious institution, and failed to disprove the first amendment. It stands that his affirmation has been negated because it is unconstitutional. Furthermore my opponent should lose points for conduct for calling me a "moron" and also attempting to gain votes by pandering to the public on my stance in this debate of being against gay-marriage. Furthermore his sources are either not credible, irrelevant to the point he was trying to make, or the point he was trying to make was irrelevant to the affirmation. Thus I am also advocating that he lose the source point because my sources were accurate, valid, and were a direct quote of the US constitution.