azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

This is a topic far more complicated than gay marriage. I believe society is still trying to get along with gay marriage and gay pride as to throw gay adoption in the way. I am not against gays, but I do believe that adoption is a whole new level. Gay parents will of course condition the child even if they don't want to, not to mention the hard time the child will have in school and the moral dilemma when he sees that his classmates have moms and dads. I'm not saying this will never happen, I'm just stating that gay couples adopting is not something society can deal with right now, we must be logical when it comes to promoting such laws, a step like this one is too much too soon.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I am a biologist and my point of view is other. The focus isn't on the kid's growth but who this will affect the population. Ok, maybe this will take some time, but is happen know. Moreover, the global warm was like this a few years ago. What I am trying to say is, if the gays have kids their kids will become gays. If they become gays, they won't meet someone to reproduce. If they won't reproduce the population will become old. If the population become old every one will die. Ok, maybe this can be extremist but this is the path that we are taking. If they solve this problem, I guess there won't be a problem whit this, I mean it will be great 'cos there will be more girls for me and a three some will be always a good call.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I'm glad gays can't reproduce maybe one day but not today I will always hate gays and so will everybody I know :)
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Gay AdoptionThey should not because a child should atleast have a father and mother or else the child willl be raised a homo. That is unacceptable and inappropriate. Do you pro-gay adoption voters want a child to be bullied at school? If so, you are a c*.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

gay marriage is already a step that they're trying to get.. it hurts nobody, but gays adoptiong children hurts the children and will confuse them since their environment is not suited right.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

The Homosexual community continue to adopt children! This is training these children to grow up and be gay themselves! Children are being brainwashed to say oh well look at my 2 moms or look at my 2 dads! it must just be okay or normal!? Children are being taught sinful inmmoral behaviors today that will destroy this country in the near future!!
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

The Homosexual community continue to adopt children! This is training these children to grow up and be gay themselves! Children are being brainwashed to say oh well look at my 2 moms or look at my 2 dads! it must just be okay or normal!? Children are being taught sinful inmmoral behaviors today that will destroy this country in the near future!!Yes, because it's much better if these kids remain orphans. Besides the fact that there is not the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that children raised by homosexuals will become homosexual. Or that we even have reason to fear such a thing.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

This is a touchy subject. However, I believe that it's important for a child to have been raised by a mother and a father. Each parent gives his or her child different life lessons and raises a child differently. Sure, one man could act as the father and the other as the "mother", but I think gender is a factor in how you raise your child, no matter sexual orientation. And then there's single parents. The difference there is that they are open to dating other people, so the boyfriends or girlfriends can come into the home and help the single parent in raising his or her child.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

But then what happens if there is a family with a mother and a father, but, say, they get divorced, or a parent dies, or something, and then there is only one parent? Is the child going to come out of childhood 'messed up,' or different, like you say would happen? There are plenty of examples of successful, well-rounded adults coming out of homes of all types, ones with only a father, many with only a mother, so I don't see the difference, in your example, if there is a single parent or two parents of the same gender.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Hey, guess who in a child's life is most likely to abuse him or her?Yep, the boyfriends and girlfriends of that single parent. Good job, you just hypothetically got your hypothetical kid hypothetically raped.Give an example of what ONLY a female or ONLY a male can teach a child. Not something that could easily be researched.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I agree with HGrey's point here about the subjectivity of gender. I do not think there are specific things that can be "taught" through ONLY one gender. However, I do think having a parent of that gender helps; a daughter would want to talk to her mother about her period, if given the choice. But fathers can definitely talk about it as well (even though it might be a bit uncomfortable).To quickly state my piece:Yes, I believe gay parents should be able to adopt. I do not think a child needs a mother and father to get a healthy perspective on things. I found an old article about this issue a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/26florida.html It was about the Florida ban on gay adoption that was ruled unconstitutional (but you can see that from the title).I even found an older article about a "new take" on the American family: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html By doing a quick google search, you can see that it is not on the forefront of the political crossfire as gay marriage is, but it is a important issue. I think one of the main reasons it makes people so uncomfortable is that everyone feels like they know how to rear children the best, whether it is with homosexual parents, hetoersexual parents, single parents, or whatever. It is a touchy issue for most people, since everyone has to listen to their mother-in-laws bicker once and a while.I'm interested to hear more from the anti-gay adoption side. This debate is open to all.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I disagree. And I'm actually picking your argument to comment on because it made more sense than most of the others on here. Although you are right in saying each parent gives certain lessons to a child and it's important that that child has different influences, these lessons do not have to come from people of the same gender. Different parents are going to be different no matter their gender. Nurturing doesn't necessarily come from the mother and discipline from the father. Also, say the parents are both men, the children aren't going to be secluded from women in their life. They will have aunts, grandmothers, teachers, family friends, etc that can serve as role models and examples. Also, regardless of whether your arguments make sense or not, it simply isn't shown in any studies done on children raised by gay parents
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Blah. Forget it. I'm not going to beat around the bush. I think a child having two fathers or two mothers is completely unnatural. It's not the way nature intended. Nature did intend for gay people to be around, but not for them to have children.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

For what reason? From what I understand, 'marriage' is a social construct. 'Marriage' has not held the same definition since its creation, and it is also different across cultures. In some cultures, men can have four wives. In other cultures, men can have a wife and a girlfriend. And look at this country: until only just recently (the past 50 years or so), it was completely acceptable for husbands to beat their wives. It was a "personal" issue, not domestic violence. I suggest reading this article on how traditional marriage has changed over time:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/260456_marriage.html What I'm trying to get at is: of course homosexual marriages are unnatural. ALL marriages are unnatural. They are constructs of society. And if the society sees it fit, it can change the rules.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

1) Nature is non-intelligent, it is incapable of intending anything. Unless of course you're using "nature" as a code word for "God."2) Just because something is unnatural does not mean it is bad.3) Give up on religion. It's nonsense and you know it.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

1. I'm pretty sure nature, not God, did intend for parents to be heterosexual couples. Why else would we reproduce sexually? A mother and a father can make a baby, and thus a mother and father are more equipped to raise a child.2. True, unnatural doesn't mean bad. But does it necessarily mean good?3. You have no right to tell me to denounce my religion. I happen to love my religion and just because you don't believe in a higher being does not mean the whole world must think like you.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

1. My point was that the word "intent" implies intelligence.2. Irrelevant. The point is not that gay adoption is good, the point is that it's not bad and therefore ok.3. Heh, I know. I just thought I'd throw that out there to see how you'd react. You strike me as too intelligent a person to restrict yourself to an outlook based on nothing but blind faith.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I try my hardest to keep religion out of my debates, unless of course the debate is about the existence of God. =p But other than that, I keep them secular.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I do not think we should label 'religion' as nonsense. Having a moral code is a valuable part of human life, whether or not we define it as religion. But I don't want to change the argument: yes, I agree, just because a religious doctrine may discourage homosexuality, does not mean we must apply that doctrine to a secular government.But please, feel free to add to this argument/write against it. I am encouraging more debate!
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Yeah and they can't conceive children, but they can care for the unwanted children of heterosexuals and in some cases(lesbians) use artificial impregnation techniques just like heterosexuals to conceive a baby. The nature argument is very weak. We as humans bend nature to our will on a daily basis.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Who are you to speak for nature?You have no idea what nature intended. Everything you say is just a blind assumption.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Well to sort of counter the downvotes, I'm going to just add another argument. I really love it when people downvote without a reason... not! Seriously, if you're going to downvote an argument that you disagree with, say so! If it's bad grammar, which is rare for me, then fine (and not just one misspelled word). This is a legitimate argument with no misspellings or grammatical errors and there is NO right to downvote it.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Well to sort of counter the downvotes, I'm going to just add another argument. I really love it when people downvote without a reason... not! Seriously, if you're going to downvote an argument that you disagree with, say so! If it's bad grammar, which is rare for me, then fine (and not just one misspelled word). This is a legitimate argument with no misspellings or grammatical errors and there is NO right to downvote it.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

why should they be able to adopt? Thats the easiest way to screw up a kid.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Andrew, how old are you and what could you know about what can "screw up a kid?" I'll need some back-up on your blanket statement which makes little sense to those who are a bit older and more well versed.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

My question is how old are you? Do you know what can screw up a kid Kuklapolitan? You cannot judge others by age. You could be in your forties and never have raised a kid in your life. I on the other hand have had alot of experience with children and gay parents and I am in my twenties. I could be well more knowledgable about this topic then you.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

oh... is there an age limit on this site... hmmm i don't think there is ...what are you even trying to say ...you sound like some lonely sixty year old laddie.... what do you mean about blanket statementi said nothing about blankets.. crazy
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

No, there's no age limit on this site, nor did I say so. I asked how old you are! This site gets more and more unfortunate with people like you and your brother on it. I'm not a laddie child. OMG...it doesn't even know what a blanket statement is. Poor little mite.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

"i said nothing about blankets"omg. rofl. That's priceless.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

That kid is so nuts it makes your head spin! LMAO...BLANKETS!
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

so your some lonely 60 year old guy who say stuff like "OMG" ? wow my life my life is already turning out better then yours..... and I'm only 15 :) and I'm glad i don't know what a blanket statement is ... so suck on that!
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

My GOD, you ARE A MENTAL MIDGET! laddie, laidie, guy, LOL!What a demented little creature you are.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

your the mental one ....down voting me just be cause you feel like it ....so you a 60 year old  lonely women ....right ? with absolutely no life pffft old people
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I down vote no one simply because they down vote me. I'm down voting you because you're a nasty, demented child who has nothing better to do than write garbage! And no, I'm not a 60 year old lonely woman...I'm a 62 year old very happy woman with a life you could never dream of.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

ahahaha wow 6ahaha 62 i was way off ahaha ...not hmmmm happy ...are you married ?
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

"with absolutely no life"What exactly does your life consist of?Mom wakes you up. Makes you breakfast. You are driven to school. You eat your lunch your mom packed you. You come home and do your homework. Watch tv, maybe whatever it is you do for fun. Eat your dinner your mom makes, go to sleep.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

"wow my life my life is already turning out better then yours"What do you mean your life is turning out well? You live with your parents. You have no responsibilities, accomplishments, or qualifications for anything as you are 15. You are not even old enough to get a job, what are you talking about?Ah I see you are related to JakeJ. I can't say I am surprised.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Sinners will be judged by God, not by people before they die.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

We can avoid extending the same rights to sinful acts as are enjoyed by good ones without judging the people enacting them.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

No you can't, denying rights is purely a judgement call. You think some sinners should have rights and other sinners shouldn't.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

If you deem a person unworthy of the same civil and constitutional rights as yourself, you are indeed judging them. You are not only saying "your acts are sinful", but you are saying that they as a person are not worthy of equality.On top of that, you are also determining which sinful acts are worthy of extra punishment, which is another form of judgement.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

I have not determined what is sinful, this was determined by God and is related in the Bible. I am then not keeping equality from others, but not allowing a sin to be given the same weight as something ordained by God.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

No, but you have determined which sins are and are not worthy of punishment, which is a judgement. Unless, of course, you want to make gluttony illegal, or try to outlaw divorce, etc.Additionally, your religion has no legal standing in this country, as per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Untied States Constitution. If you want to follow your religion, that is of course fine and your right, but to try to force those who do not follow your religion to abide by your religious code is, in my opinion, immoral.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

I have not determined what is sinfulHe didn't say you did.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Homosexuals simply love people of the same sex. Live and let live my friends.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Well, the bible definitely doesn't have any problem with lesbian rights.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

The bible does say that homosexuals won't inherit the kingdom of God.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Could you provide the verse you are referring to, please? If I remember correctly it specifically refers to gay men.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Absolutely. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

The Greek word, ἀρσενοκοίτης, that was translated as homosexual in that verse is a masculine noun and means "a male who lies with males." More info here and here
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

I'm aware. Most of the biblical laws only mentions "man". Women are not exempt from law simply because the pretext only says man. It's like saying "all men are created equal" and only truly mean the men are. The phrase applies to both genders.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

The word "men" has multiple definitions, such as "a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex." No definitions of the word ἀρσενοκοίτης have anything to do with women. If you're looking for a verse to support the Biblical condemnation of lesbians you should use Romans 1:26 instead.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Again, most biblical text is in a male context. The verse still applies to man and woman. Lesbians are not exempt.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Again, most biblical text is in a male context. Even if most Biblical text is in a male context, that doesn't mean you can just assume everywhere in the Bible that it says something about men that it applies to women as well. Unless there is something in the context that favors one interpretation over the other, the logical thing to do would be to assume the author meant it the way he said it.The verse still applies to man and woman. Lesbians are not exempt.You have no way of knowing for sure if that verse was meant for both because it doesn't say. If you said, "the author may have meant the verse to apply to men and women" that would be fine, but you're stating it like it's a fact that he meant it to apply to both.It's really not worth arguing over since there are other verses, like the one I mentioned, that are clear and not ambiguous like the verse from 1 Chronicles.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Even if most Biblical text is in a male context, that doesn't mean you can just assume everywhere in the Bible that it says something about men that it applies to women as well.Yes, this is true.Unless there is something in the context that favors one interpretation over the other, the logical thing to do would be to assume the author meant it the way he said it.Yes, I agree with this also. I think our disagreement is what we think the author truly meant. I suppose the logical conclusion was that the author only has men in mind.You have no way of knowing for sure if that verse was meant for both because it doesn't say. If you said, "the author may have meant the verse to apply to men and women" that would be fine, but you're stating it like it's a fact that he meant it to apply to both.True, I am basing my assumption on the comparative nature of this verse and Romans 1:26 and how homosexuality, in both genders, was punished. So I believe that both sexes will be condemned for homosexuality.It's really not worth arguing over since there are other verses, like the one I mentioned, that are clear and not ambiguous like the verse from 1 Chronicles.Yes, very true indeed.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Forgive me, I sounded pretty rude and informal in my previous post. This was not intentional so I'm sorry about that.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

No need to apologize. It didn't sound rude to me.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Ah, indeed I was quite wrong. Thanks for the quick quote!
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

None of those people except homosexuals are stripped of their equality. Why do homosexuals get the special treatment? It has nothing to do with inheriting the kingdom of God.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Why do homosexuals get special treatment? I wouldn't be able to answer that. I wasn't the creator of this law. If it was deemed as a sin then it's a sin. That's about all i can say.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

I didn't mean to dispute you before. I am simply asking why adulterers, idolaters, and fornicators are not missing rights today.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Men in the Greek sense of the word can mean a group of people including males and females.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Even if one takes it as such, it provides an example that extends to relation outside of a male human and a female woman
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Aww, how cute! Someone is down voting non-offensive posts of mine :P
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

i am curious, is there a passage in the bible referring the relationship of 2 women?
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

In some ways even to answer the question being arrogantly judgmental. Who am I to judge the sexual orientation of anyone? Gay men and woman were born with this deviant 'condition' and should enjoy exactly the same rights as every other citizen of their respective countries. There are other groups whose sexual alignment diverges from what is natural and the accepted norm. These sexual variants include those with little or no sex drive one way or the other and bi-sexual's'. These groups of people should have equal rights regardless of the backward scriptures of a bronze age book which was written in good faith by clever, well meaning, but nevertheless, mere mortals.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

The teachings contained in the Bible reflect the values of the culture in which the authors lived. Cultures evolve over time. Morals embodied in religious doctrine tend to evolve much more slowly than cultural based morals. The inevitable result is a widening moral divide. Apparently, ignorance of this process can lead to rants and name calling from the uninformed masses.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

The teachings of the Bible were written to intentionally be true and relevant for any generation in any time and culture.