Women should be able to become ordained ministers/priests.

"The belief that women should not be ministers or priests is not without knowledge, thought or reason, it is derived from a study of the scriptures. This belief is not preconceived, it is only after study of the Bible that it is accepted." Of course, that is generally where such beliefs come from, the traditional interpretation of the Bible. " This belief is not unreasonable, (it is based on the words of GOD, who made us) nor is it hostile ("Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her.") The belief that women should not be ministers or priests is not discrimination or prejudice, but based of the Bible." Wrong. The belief that women cannot do something because of specific interpretation of the Bible is unreasonable, because in no other realm of the US would anyone try and justify keeping a woman from doing something based on gender. It is hostile because it tells women that they cannot be leaders in the Christian church because they are women. Lastly, if your interpretation of the Bible keeps women from ordination, then your God is prejudiced along with you. A prejudiced God is not justification for prejudice. Your assertion that it is not discrimination because it is based on the Bible only asserts that the Bible is prejudice as well, and perhaps even the God that you worship. According to the definitions of discrimination and prejudice, the Bible is just as guilty as you are. In short, your justification is flawed. My second argument is that the Bible is actually not against women's ordination/priesthood. Gal 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is in direct conflict of the verses you supplied and I could equally claim it to be God's word. So what's the big deal, how is this any better? Because my interpretation of the Bible doesn't justify discrimination. Let's take a look at the verses you supplied: "1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." Which parts of this text do you think modern churches follow and require of their women? Are women actually completely silent in church? Are they not allowed to ask questions unless they ask their own husbands? Are women actually SHAMED when they speak out? Most of Christianity would say no (I hope). Clearly, this was either a very specific time/place/situation that was being addressed, or it reflected the biases/prejudice of the writer, or very possibly both. "Ephesians 5:22-25 says, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her." There are two problems with this text. If taken as the literal word of God, then women who are not married should be permitted to be ordained/priests, because they do not have a husband who is the head. They are their own head and answer to no one. Second, the fact that men are admonished to love their wives does not negate the fact that women were considered property in Bible times. I can prove this with the 10th commandment: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' This is a list of things you are not to covet. You will notice that your neighbor's husband is not among the list? How come? Because women weren't considered to be able to be guilty of the sin of coveting. Why not? Women were property. Notice how the wife is listed SECOND among the other things owned by man. The house is most important, THEN the wife, then servant (males first, then females), then the ox (clearly more valuable than a donkey), then the donkey, and then anything else less valuable. How come I'm not surprised women are asked to be submissive to their husbands? Because the culture of the day required this of them because they were property, they were owned, and not even the most valuable item a man owned if a man owned a house. The Bible is steeped with Patriarchy, overtones of how women were somehow "less" in the image of God, how women were bartered for with Bride prices to the highest bidder, women who were raped and stolen by the Israelites as war winnings. Verses that require submission on the part of only one gender should be considered nothing less that the prejudice of patriarchal society. It flies in the face of reason to tell women that they are SO cared about, but that they are still denied rights because of their gender. But, there are some glimmers of a new thought emerging in the Bible. There were women prophets even in the old testament, and there were women who were leaders in the early church, such as Junia, Aquila, Priscilla. If the patriarchal, prejudiced society that the Bible was written in was able to let even a select few women lead, then surely we can get past the prejudism today and give women their full rights as human beings and not deny them a leadership position based on gender? I delved into the arguments within the Bible because, my opponent defended their opinion with the Bible. But, my main premise remains: declaring that it is not discrimination to refuse women ordination or the priesthood is in direct opposition to the very definition of discrimination/prejudice and no Bible text can change prejudice from being prejudice. It is what it is . . .