azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

I would go even further , and say that people should not have to get permission from government to enter into any sort of mutually voluntary relationship.That having been said, government should not grant married people special privileges that single people do not enjoy.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

I do feel sorry for anyone who can't marry the person of who they want to spend the rest of their life with. However, those who choose to go with their desires and follow the gay path with all it's goods also have to accept it's bads. Marriage is accepted as a bond between Man and WIFE. With it comes legal and moral rights and obligations. And some of us do actually still respect them. There are alot of people who aren't able, for one reason or another to marry the partner of their choice, who aren't gay. Do you think a brother and sister should be able to get married if they fall in love. Certain religions will only allow men from their religion to marry women from their religion.And a man who respects that religion will abide by that rule Some nationalities wont allow interracial marriages.. Certain States apparently do recognise gay marriages so if you want to get married as a gay couple and have it recognised than move to that state. But i don't think it should be accepted across the board, which will probably piss off alot of the gays that I know.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

However, those who choose to go with their desires and follow the gay path with all it's goods also have to accept it's bads. Simple question: Did you ever choose to follow the heterosexual path? Furthermore, what are the "goods" associated with the gay path, compared to the heterosexual one? From what I can see it's a much harder path to go down. I can't really fathom why someone might CHOOSE to go that way, unless of course they were BORN gay, in which case you're discriminating against a condition people have no control over.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

As for did I ever CHOOSE to go the heterosexual path , the answer is YES I DID.As for what are the perks. Many gay people would claim that their coming out has brought them great relief and as much, if not more, possitive attention than when they were choosing to portray themselves as heterosexual. Also many gays who choose a partner of their own sex claim that there are alot of advantages, such as the feelings of love are deeper and feel more real, their desire for sex with that person rather than with someone of the opposite sex is stronger and the sex more satisfying, and I could keep going on and on. Also in certain fields of work, such as fashion design or interior design, the gay guy is usually assumed as going to be good before even showing any other credentials. And how can someone really say they are BORN gay, when boys and girls don't really even know the difference between the sexes until they are at least 2-3.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

1. "As for did I ever CHOOSE to go the heterosexual path , the answer is YES I DID." Really? What age were you when you chose to be heterosexual? Is it something you struggle with daily? Do you have to remind yourself that heterosexual is the choice you've made and you're sticking with it? What motivated you to go heterosexual when there are clearly so many damn perks to being gay? 2. "Many gay people would claim that their coming out has brought them great relief" Duh duh duh. Of course coming out brings them relief. This has nothing to do with a perk of being gay. This is a perk of being who they are and being unashamed of it. 3. "many gays who choose a partner of their own sex claim that there are alot of advantages, such as the feelings of love are deeper and feel more real, their desire for sex with that person rather than with someone of the opposite sex is stronger and the sex more satisfying" Go figure. Gay people prefer same sex relationships. That's your argument here. In the same way, I'm sure you would claim the feelings of love are deeper and feel more real with someone of the opposite sex, and that your desire for sex with them is stronger and more satisfying. You've just defined what being gay is, not given a perk. 4. "Also in certain fields of work, such as fashion design or interior design, the gay guy is usually assumed as going to be good before even showing any other credentials." Really? Usually? Not to be a bitch, but prove it. My grandfather owned a flower shop for 20 years, and while gay men worked for him and were damn good floral designers, he NEVER hired on the basis of their sexuality. They were hired BECAUSE they were good. 5. "And how can someone really say they are BORN gay, when boys and girls don't really even know the difference between the sexes until they are at least 2-3"Sexual identity develops at around 12, while sexual interest develops around the age of 7. What Developmental Psychology Says about Sexuality
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

yeah what if someone wants to marry an animal,or if someone thats mother/son or father/daughter etc. wouldn't that be discriminating against a group because you don't agree with there views just like gay marriage..i mean that's what the gay marriage supporters argue that they should have the same rights as straight couples shouldn't a couple be able to marry even if it's mother/son or father daughter and yeah most people are against such things but its none of our business just like gay marriage and if the gay community says this is wrong isn't that being a little hypocritical?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

now now now.... Incest IS wrong......For mother/daughter/son/father/uncle/aunt/cousin etc would mean that the rights of parenting are being abused. misleading the innocence of a child.tends to produce medical hicks..........next.... RAPE......of animals IS wrong.....they have no ability of consent.....(tho lightheartingly some people like marrying their pets just as they may leave them their estates when they die,you know the non-beastiality, animal lovers types)
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: think before speaking

Ok sure i see your point,but about the men and the religion thing,they made the choice to follow that religion,a choice the gay couples didn't make a choice that they can't marry.Why should gay couples have to move to a different state to be happy?that's like telling all Catholics to go move to Philadelphia,its stupid.This is 2010 why can't people accept others and not allowing these marriages interferes with those peoples pursuit of happiness.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

1. Civil unions is the same as being married. It just has a different name.2. A gay couple can say that they're married without any problem.3. What you're really asking is "Should gays have the right to force everyone else call their civil union a marriage?"
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

1. No first of all it's not. Civil unions do not grant all the rights of marriage. Only 9 states offer civil unions to same-sex couples with almost all the rights of marriages. Six other states offer civil unions to same-sex couples with some of the rights. Therefore no civil union has the same rights as marriages, and most states don't even have civil unions. Also the federal government does not recognize civil unions and due to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships do not have "1,138 rights, benefits and privileges that a married couple has under federal law."So thank you for the talking point from NOM, but you're totally incorrect. Civil unions are not the same as being married. But even if they were, this would not be acceptable. How can you possibly think it is fair to deem one type of union unworthy of being called marriage. Would this have been an acceptable alternative when interracial marriage was illegal? Oh it's okay you can't get married to someone of a different race because you can just get a civil union?2. This is a really dumb statement. Yeah sure and 100 years ago women could say they can vote without any problem. Except that it's not true.I really don't understand why people even care enough to be opposed to gay marriage. It doesn't hurt anybody, what is the big deal?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Well, lets think about this... Which is easier:1. To force the federal government to give civil unions the same exact right as marriages or2. To force their version of marriage down the rest of our throats?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Easier != what is rightAlso that's a pretty crappy way to describe it as forcing equality down everyone's throats.Slavery being illegal was forced down everyone's throats, women's suffrage was forced down everyone's throats, but that doesn't make it bad.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

I have found that there are a few argument tactics that are used to get people to agree with the point being defended. One of those tactics is to associate the opposing point to something that is almost universally despised. This tactics works because a lot of people are passionate beings that are too lazy to analyze the argument and realize that there was an association made (not an comparison).For example, associating civil unions with slavery and no suffrage for women is not a comparison.Civil unions are the same thing as marriage, only with a different name (this is a comparison). Slavery was not the same thing as freedom, only with a different name. Women not allowed to vote was not the same as women suffrage, only with a different name. Therefore one cannot make the comparison between civil unions and slavery (or civil unions and suffrage) and show that they are similar. In both slavery and not allowing women to vote, people were losing rights. In civil unions, they are given marriage rights (but a different word is used).
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Actually the word you are looking for is called analogy. I know it's kind of a difficulty concept so I will explain it. Making an analogy is comparing similarities between to ideas. So if I make an analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage, I am talking about things that are similar between them. No one in their right mind would take this to mean I am asserting they are the same thing.And I know segregation was awhile ago, so you may have forgotten, but the supreme court ruled that separate is not equal. You can't have one one type of thing for one group and one for another. WARNING: Incoming analogy. White water fountains and black water fountains. Straight marriages and gay civil unions.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

WARNING: Incoming analogy. White water fountains and black water fountains. Straight marriages and gay civil unions.You're right. The analogy doesn't work because you could have dirty run down water fountains reserved strictly for one group and the nice clean ones for another group. However, if the states drop the use of the word "marriage" and replace it with he words "civil union" then there wouldn't be a "separate but equal" situation and only churches and religious organizations will be left using the word marriage and (I know this is difficult for you to grasp but) since we have separation of church and state, the supreme court doesn't have a say in what word churches use. Have a nice day, lead head ;)
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

OK, so we agree on the following:And if I had my druthers I would prefer states only issue civil unions to all couples and no marriage licenses because marriage has religious connotations.Now the question is, does the state have the power to force the church to marry gays? I say no. But that's OK because the state also does not have the power to prevent gays from starting a religion that will marry them.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

No obviously I don't think the state has the right to force churches to marry gays. If they want to be intolerant that is their business. However in a similar vein I do think all religions should lose their tax exempt status. Because I think it violates the Lemon Test decided in Lemon v. Kurtzman for testing the violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It forces the government to decide which religions are legitimate and this "needlessly entangles the government in religion." Furthermore all of the money that is lost in exempt taxes from churches does not benefit the entire country, only members of that religion. Yes money that goes to charity benefits everyone, but then only that money should be deducted from their taxes and they should pay tax on the rest. This also fails the Lemon Test because again it forces the government to decide which religions are legitimate and worthy of tax exemption.So for you is the second best option allowing gays to be married or do you jump straight from only civil unions for all to no gay marriages?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

I say:1. all religions should lose their tax exempt status.2. only civil unions for all.3. churches decide to marry gays or not.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Okay I'm glad we are in agreement on those, but you didn't answer my last question.Is your order of preference:A) Civil unions for allB) Marriages for allC) Marriages for heterosexual unions, civil unions for homosexual unionsorA) Civil unions for allB) Marriages for heterosexual unions, civil unions for homosexual unionsC) Marriages for all ?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

I'm mostly against marriages for all so the last one... although I'm being forced to chose from a set I wouldn't normally chose from. Especially since there's no explanation for being against marriages for all, leaving room for interpretation, accusations, and long drawn out arguments.... but then again, that's why I'm here ;)
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Civil unions is the same as being married. It just has a different name.So...separate but equal? I'm thinking we tried that once before and it didn't work out.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Really? When? Why did it not work out? I mean, I'm thinking I've heard this argument before used as a mantra and no one has explained it any further. ;)
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Once upon a time, there were these people. And they came in many colors (Really, only about four or five). Anyway, some of these people thought that they should have separate facilities than those of darker colors. Separate schools, separate bathrooms, separate seats on the bus (Talk about a waste of taxpayer money!). The light colored people thought it was great, but the dark colored people did not. They realized that they got what is known worldwide today as The Shaft. Separate but equal is never equal. You either give equal rights or you don't. ---------------------------------I support civil unions for all marriages that occur outside the church, but let rights be entirely equal for all.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

"However, those who choose to go with their desires and follow the gay path"As opposed to doing what? You do understand sexuality is not a choice right?"Marriage is accepted as a bond between Man and WIFE. With it comes legal and moral rights and obligations."In a well-defined statement why do you no want a bond between two people of the same-sex to have the same legal and moral rights and obligations?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Was this a misplaced argument? As much as I enjoy Quentin Tarantino's work his analysis of a random movie has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: swordfight swordfight swordfight

SEXUALITY IS A CHOICE!!!!atleast according to Quentin Tarantino,... sooooo.....Swordfight! Swordfight! Swordfight!
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Yeah you have troll in your name so I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a troll.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: U Can't Touch This

You have ledhead in your name so I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're a lead head.Sooo....BOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!I gotchya! I gotchya baby!, Hook, Line, and Sinker!!!LEAD sinker-straight to the bottom baby!AaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaLOL
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Did you read the whole statement or just pick something that you could argue with. It's not just the gays that don't get to marry the person that they desire to. And how do you know that maybe I have experienced this first hand. Don't judge me as someone who doesn't understand this circumstance. But why should gays get the rights that others don't.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

I read the entire thing and then selected the parts I wanted to question."But why should gays get the rights that others don't."What are you talking about?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

I believe the question is should gays have the right to MARRY, not do i think gays should have the same legal and moral rights and obligations as married heterosexuals. Gays, when choosing to live together can sign contracts protecting their rights, very similar to vows, and can hold their partner accountable if they dont abide by the contact, protecting themselves financially and morally and creating obligations. This is usually legally stronger than marriage vows as contracts are often added to marriages to clarify the terms. I agree that a person doesn't Choose who they fall in love with, but they do choose to act on it. There are alot of gay people out there who have chosen to be in heterosexual relationships for reasons of their own, just as someone else has chosen to go with their desires and follow the path they feel is right for them. Living in a gay relationship is definitely a choice. If a person buys his house knowing he is beside the airport, should he be listened to when he complains about the noise. If your answer to this is no, then why should a gay couple who enter a relationship KNOWING they cannot get married, whine about the fact later.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: Equal Rights

So I guess women shouldn't have fought for the right to vote, or slaves should have accepted the fact they were slaves, they knew they were black...why complain? Listen, since the beginning of this nation, we as a people have fought for equal rights and fought to be able to live our lives as we wish, with the pursuit of the "America Dream". It has not always been easy, but it has been necessary. By the way, "buying a house beside the airport" is a poor comparison to gay rights. What does it matter to you what other people do? How does it affect your ability to provide for your family? You have the right to your opinion, but when you assist in the denial of equal rights you have over stepped your boundaries.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

There is a Categorical Imperative not to enact same-sex marriage. When you universalize same-sex marriage, it yields a contradiction, so a perfectly rational person would not enact same-sex marriage. In other words, it's wrong.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Same sex marriage does not "yield a contradiction" (whatever that means). You just flip the gender of one of the participants. It's still marriage.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

By your argument, all marriage would not fit the Categorical Imperative qualifications, so all marriage must be made illegal. Categorical ImperativeQuoting from wikipedia here: "From this step, Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person making the moral deliberation. A moral maxim must have universality, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational being. "
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

No; gays should NOT have the right to marry because homosexuality is immoral and just not right.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: no one should marry

Immoral: "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."Ethics: "the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc."Ethical values change; I would say they actually improve. Human ethics have evolved from the socially acceptable Mayan rituals of human sacrifice, from the socially acceptable slavery... People like you whose personal ethics isn't keeping up with the social ethics of our time are no better than those who still think human sacrifice and slavery are ok. Try to keep up, using morals as an excuse to condemn homosexuality is outdated.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Well done .............................................................................................................................................................................
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

overdone actually.Tell the waiter to send it back.....................................................................
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

So...Ethical values change,... butYou would say ethical values actually improve...Compared to what?!AHahahahahahahahaha AhahahahahahahahahaFoolDon't try look smart by copying and pasting words and using arguments you demonstratively do not understand.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: no one should marry

"Compared to what?!"I'm not sure if you are honestly looking for an answer to this question, since it is on the argument you disputed. Just read it again.I copied the definitions of the concepts from a dictionary to show that guy that he didn't know what he was talking about. And I'm guessing neither do you... So I won't spend any more time trying to argue with a guy who uses "AHahahahahahahahaha Ahahahahahahahahaha" as an argument...
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Clearly you are not sure of anything; in particular, reality.I will continue to point out your shortcomings until you reform.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Who says it's immoral? ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Christians and Jews say that it's immoral. LEVICTICUS 18:22
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Homosexuality causes no harm to anyone, therefore it is not immoral.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Yes it is immoral no matter what you say its wrong and another thing in the bible stated man shall not lay with man.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Either you have created multiple accounts to upvote this kind of crap, or a few people in this site are in a mood for some old style queer-bashing.Either way, if what your bible states is true, then you and your buddies will be sucking some serious Satan cock when you die.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

I don't know why I felt the need to upvote this. I just don't ever think I've heard the term "Satan cock" before....
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

me niether...will have to remember that one...seeing it seems to go along with all the other profanities i delight in.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

I know socialist; she only has one account and so do I.