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

Allow Marriage Equality 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
nishu_kid has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 104011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




There"s no business like the No-case business in the national debate over legalisation of same-sex marriage.
Opponents to changing the laws have worked hard at turning the basic postal survey question on extending marriage to single-gender couples into a many-tiered tower of issues.
They see the question as being like one of those tall, multi-layered wedding cakes they insist, without evidence, Australian bakers will be sued for not selling to gay couples.
And some on the No side have really let it rip with their imaginations by roping in changes which have never been sought by mainstream marriage equality campaigners and thinking up a few nobody had considered.
"And we know, everybody knows that it is wrong, but they"re after our young ones, that"s what they"re after." - Margaret court
Anti-discrimination laws would be "weaponised" and result in "legal warfare" against those opposed to SSM. - Senator Cory Bernardi
"This is our only hope, this is our Obi Wan Kenobi " we must win this debate." - Senator Matt Canavan
QUESTION: If we change the marriage laws in Australia then it could lead eventually to people being able to marry objects such as " the Harbour Bridge?
ABETZ: Why not? Why not. Look, I would like to think that that is taking the argument to the limit, but the issue is if we are judging this solely on a person"s view of what love is to them "" - Senator Eric Abetz
"Should people be forced to go to conversion therapy? No, absolutely not. Now, children " they are under the care and responsibility of their parents, so I think if someone"s a minor, it is up to their parents. And I think parental rights should be respected." - Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby
"A nation where anyone who chooses not to worship at the altar of homosexuality and gender fluidity will be run out of town? I fear for the Christian cake-makers and tailors who chose not to be involved in gay and transgender marriage ceremonies." - Columnist Mark Latham
"The school told my son that he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted," - Cella Whit, incorrectly, in an anti-SSM TV ad
"We may be looking at commercial surrogacy and things like that," because for married males wanting children "the only option would be to look at surrogacy". - Liberal lawyer Karina Okotel
"There is actually now a petition been put together for the House of Representatives by Green activists to legally recognise multi-member unions " Now I said that would happen." - Senator Cory Bernardi in 2013
"Asking primary school and grade seven children to act out as if they were in a homosexual relationship and how they would interact with each other, I know that is something that most parents would find inappropriate." - Senator Eric Abetz.
"When same-sex marriage was legalised in Massachusetts, children were given literature including that said it"s a myth that marriage is about children and a myth that children are best served when raised by a mother and father." - Karina Okotel


Everything Con has said has been a combination of "slippery slope", "strawman", and "non-sequitir" fallacies.

Allowing marriage equality will not lead to boys being allowed to wear dresses (not that there's actually anything wrong with that), private businesses not being allowed to choose who they serve, or people marrying a frog or some such nonsense. Con is providing nonsensical scaremongering, and nothing more.

Marriage equality should be legal because it is a matter between consenting adults, and nothing more. It harms no one. It should be legal.

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
There simply is no way to legalized same"gender Marriage it is using self-incrimination to multiple crimes on both sides. The basic principle of legal precedent is flawed and corrupt. There is no legal reason any Country need bear witness to a Consummation of this union. As any personal contact between two people of the same gender does not produce children of natural citizen ship.

All a separation process calls for is Title that is a legal witness account. As a legal title has never been given as common defense to the general welfare the declaration of Independence found is Binivir and UnosMulier.
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
Significant plagiarism was detected!
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.