The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Gay Marriage should be legalized in Australia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 624 times Debate No: 61837
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Gay marriage.... Why shouldn't people be able to marry who they love? Christians, Muslims and Catholics all say that marriage should be between a man and woman. God didn't write the marriage act, we did. So we should be the ones to change it. Tony Abbotts own sister is gay, I would love to see how he treats her. People should accept gay marriage. It is doing nothing wrong except making people happy.


Ummm...Yes actually God did write the marriage act,

(Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Romans 1:24-27 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves...

Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female...

Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.)

And also, these religions such as Christianity (I'm not too familiar with the others) teach us not only correct marriage ways, but also to love your neighbours/enemies, so when we Christians meet and hear of gays or lesbians, then we shouldn't be hating them and a number of us don't; but then again sadly a number of Christians do.
If you don't know how Tony Abbot treats his sister then just leave them out of it.
As my evidence of the bible proves, there is certainly wrong in accepting and committing gay marriage or gay anything of a sort.
Everyone has a different opinion, mine is to still love these lost people, but to never accept such an atrocious manner of living.
Debate Round No. 1


Good try, but god didn't write the bible, people did. Tony Abbotts sister is gay, you would think that he would try to help and support her, but no! If you believe in the bible then:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women should keep silent in churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Corinthians 11:5
But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

Do you believe in these sexist comments in the bible, should we believe in what the bible says, we wrote it, god didn't. We should change it.


Yes, I know, it was a great try. Question for you here: Who do you think inspired all of those people who wrote the bible? I guarantee you that the many numerous people who wrote their parts in the bible would not have remembered every single detail in the past events that they witnessed, and yet we are privileged to know exact numbers of more than hundreds of armies. It was the Lord there helping their memories and guiding them in their writing.
Now back to the Tony Abbot thing. I'm not denying that his sister is gay, but you said in your previous argument that you would love to see how he treats her. That means that you in fact do not know how he treats her. So in this argument why are you all of a sudden pretending that you do know huh?
I see you try to use scripture back at me, I forgive you seen as you are ignorant and, clearly do not know the meaning behind these poorly selected verses in which you hope to catch me out with. Allow me to clarify.
In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul wrote: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (vv. 33-35).
If we take this literally, it would mean that women are not allowed to sing in church nor respond when the pastor asks for comments or questions from the audience. Moreover, it would contradict what Paul said in chapter 11, where he said that women could pray and prophesy in church if they had the appropriate attire.
Common sense, church custom, and good principles of biblical interpretation all say that we should not take these verses literally"and almost no one does. Paul is not making a blanket prohibition that says that women can never speak in church. Rather, he was addressing his comments to a certain situation, and his comments are limited in some way. The question is, What are the limits of Paul"s prohibition?
1) The first thing we notice is that women are not the only people Paul tells to be "silent." He uses the same word in verses 28 and 30 to tell tongue-speakers and prophets to be silent when others speak. In both of those verses, he is calling for a temporary silence, not a complete and permanent prohibition.
2) The word for "speak" (lale!3;) does not necessarily mean a formal role in the pulpit"it is a general word that can also be translated "talk." Paul used a general word to say that women should not talk, and we have to make an interpretive choice: Was he prohibiting formal speaking roles, or talk in the audience, or something else?
3) Paul says that instead of speaking, women should be in submission. This implies that the Corinthian women were speaking in an insubordinate way. The fact that Paul said in chapter 11 that women could pray and prophesy, and in chapter 14 that two or three people could prophesy in a worship service, shows that women are allowed to have a slot in the speaking schedule. It is not insubordinate for them to speak prophecies; it is therefore likely that Paul is prohibiting some less-formal speaking, such as chatter or comments from the audience.
1 Cor. 11:4-5 says, "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved."
In ancient Greek society it was the custom of men to keep their heads uncovered during worship. It was the custom of women to keep their heads covered to show reverence to God. But that custom is no longer observed.
So, Paul is talking about authority. When we recognize the authority of God over us, we are subjecting ourselves to His authority. Likewise, women wearing the head-covering were publically demonstrating their subjection to the authority placed over them.
Have fun reading?
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asked for a reason, Con gave a reason. Both sides made a bunch of unsupported assertions, otherwise. Pro never really fulfilled the BoP, Con never really made a coherent case. I'm nulling this vote.