azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

You are making an assumption and then you act on your assumption by making an accusation.Assumption: straight people think they are more than we are Accusation: that's why they want a copyright on the word.My philosophy is to try and verify my assumptions before acting on them. That usually goes a long way towards saving face later on if the assumption proves to be wrong.Your argument is also based on emotion and it thus tries to manipulate the reader's feelings. This is done by calling one group bad; the straight people. You do do this by saying that "straight people think they are more than we are." You then call the other group good; the gay people. You do this by saying "We wish it to mean exactly what the word 'Marriage' connotes and carries with it."I prefer arguments that are based on data and let the reader decide. There is no way to prove that gays wish marriage to mean exactly what it connotes and carries with it. There is also no way to prove that straight people think they are more than gays. Nor is there a way to prove that that's why they want a copyright on the word.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Now, my view on the topic itself. I have three points:Point one: I am a purist and I want the word 'marriage' to mean exactly what those who invented the word years ago defined it to be, "A civil union between a man and a woman." I don't want to change the meaning of the word to "The loving union between two individuals." Point two: Just because someone wants something doesn't mean that they are entitled to it. So, no matter how noble gays may be, no matter how important the word is to them, they are not entitled to it.Point three: Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to. Straights responded like anyone who has had someone try to take something away that doesn't necessarily belonged to them. Gays want to force straights to share the word. But trying to force someone into doing something they don't want usually results in them resisting with equal or greater force.I thus propose that gays create a new word and stop this "war."
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

"Point one: I am a purist and I want the word 'marriage' to mean exactly what those who invented the word years ago defined it to be, "A civil union between a man and a woman." I don't want to change the meaning of the word to "The loving union between two individuals."If a Civil Union was what they defined Marriage to be then what? You now have both of the words and/or statements by which the union is known. Does this mean we can have neither? If, as you state, we are not entitled to it then what shall people who wish to be married and enjoy a Civil Union be called? And why should it have to change? All any gay couple wishes to have are the things that are already defined by these words. If you change it, then you must define it. Then the ball starts to roll again in the direction of not being equal to Heterosexual people...but we are in all ways but one.I, for one, am not in a war of any kind. I use logic and yes, I do use emotion along with logic in order to get some points across. Of course I can agree on the larger picture of people wanting something they are not entitled to but who decides we are not in this case? Straight people! Is this in any way just? I don't think it is and I wouldn't think so if the tables were turned.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

"Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to."That's the point. They are entitled to it which is why attempted bans of gay marriage will always fail because it flys in the face of equal protection under the law as stated in the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Gays ARE entitled to equal protection under the law.Gays ARE entitled to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.Gays ARE NOT entitled to the word "marriage!"If gays feel that they need the word in order to be accepted, then they are misguided because you can't legislate acceptance. Even if they get to use the word, they wont necessarily be accepted by those who believe they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexual married couples. If gays just want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, then they should just call it something else and stop this "war."
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Do you even have a clue about the history of marriage? Seriously.Marriage has meant plenty of things over the millenia. It's not about a word, it's about a right. There were those who said blacks couldn't marry whites once upon a time. The same rhetoric was used against them. Gays are entitled to the word marriage just like anyone else because no one owns that word and any connotation that you ascribe to that word has a historical context that has changed over time and will change more over time. Separate is not equal.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Historically, marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. If it has ever meant anything other than that, then I would like to see that proof.When racists said that a black person could not marry a white person, they lost in the courts because the historical definition has been "a union between a man and a woman" not "a union between a man and a woman of the same race."Racists did not try to claim ownership of the word. The racists tried to change the definition of the word and lost. As they should have.Now a new group wants to change the definition of the word once again and they should lose that battle but they should win the battle to get their rights.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Historically marriage is a property arrangement wherein a man takes possession of a woman. This has led to forced marriages and polygamy being the norm for thousands of years up to this day in many parts of the world. What you call marriage is a western idea. Western society has changed the definition of marriage a lot to suit their society just like any society does. Considering womena's sufferge wasn't that long ago as far as history is concerned it's suprising that you think marriage has always been a equal union. No, actually it's naive.On your point about blacks: They had to be allowed equal protection under the law before that could happen. Google: Jim Crow.The racist were upholding the traditional norm that blacks were subhuman and shouldn't marry whites. You just don't seem to get it. People thought marriage didn't include them at the time either. You are looking at the whole thing backwards. The word is changed constantly through history and those against the change are always on the wrong side of it.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

I never said anything about marriage traditionally being an equal union. I said that it was a union between a man and a woman and that part has remained constant. But I like the way you twisted my words in order to call me naive.Now you insinuate that heterosexuals consider homosexuals as subhumans and thus don't want them to marry. That's an assumption. You're assuming to know "the real reason" why some heterosexuals don't want to allow homosexuals to use the word marriage. Heterosexuals say that the reason they don't want gays to marry is because marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman. You seem to be calling these heterosexuals liars and racists who consider gays to be subhuman.So, to recap, your argument is based on discrediting me by calling me naive and appealing to the reader's emotions by insinuating that heterosexuals are racists. I tend to find these types of arguments as weak. I mean, name calling and trying to manipulate people's emotions instead of letting your argument stand alone on its merit is weak.I understand your argument that the word marriage has changed in definition over time and thus there's a precedence for changing it once again. But the changes you site are minor and the underlying definition [the foundation, if you will] has never changed. It has always been between a man and a woman.BTW, you may want to reply here.http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_are_some_of_the_ramification_of_gay_marriage or not ;)
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

As far as your "separate is not equal" statement, it simply does not apply to this situation. That statement applied to the situation between blacks and whites. One example (for illustrations purposes) is schooling. The idea was that blacks would have their own schools and whites would have their own school. But since at that time whites were more affluent than blacks, their children were able to enjoy a higher level of education.In the current situation heterosexual couples are not necessarily more affluent than gays. There's no reason to assume that a heterosexual union would be better than a homosexual union. There's also no reason to assume that by calling a homosexual union a "marriage" that they will receive a "higher level" of benefits than if they just called it a civil union. Therefore, the statement "separate but equal" does not apply.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

I don't know if you've been reading all of my arguments on this topic but what I'm proposing is for the government to stop using the word "marriage" and replace it with the words "civil union" and have those 2 words apply to heterosexual and homosexual unions. This would give homosexual unions the same rights as heterosexual unions.However, If the government were to take this advice, the churches would still be able to deny to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies. In this case gays don't miss out on any "rights" because a wedding ceremony [performed by a representative of a given religion] is not a right.If the government were to use the word "marriage" for homosexual unions, then would churches be required to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies? If so, wouldn't this mean that the government is telling the church what it can and cannot do? Is it a good idea for the government to get into the "business" of religion? And if the churches are forced to perform homosexual weddings, would gay couples automatically be accepted by the congregation?
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Having said all of that, I know exactly how you feel because I too want something that I'm not entitled to and the courts keep on deying me.So my arguments to you are like therapy to me because if I can create a well thought out argument against gay marriage, then I can use a similar argument to justify the court's decision to myself and this in turn eases the pain and resentment and anger that is within me.So don't think too harshly of me. We're all in this together. We all have issues. ;)
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Yes, Joe! We are all in this together and I'm glad you made that statement! I don't think harshly of you when you make an honest and well thought out rebuttal. I only think that way when you start with your other type of debate or arguments!You say you are also fighting the courts on something you say you're not entitled to. I don't know what that may be but you must keep fighting for a reason. We, too, fight for a reason. We fight for equality in all things because we are also viable human beings who deserve to be treated as such. ;-)
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Gayness is as natural as sex and food.Treating people worse because of them being gay is like treating black or Asian or Indian people worse than others.Except I've actually seen a black person change his colour (Michael Jackson), but I've never heard of a real story where a gay guy became straight (and not asexual or faking it trough whole life).
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Nobody is born gay, although they might become gay because one of their parents is gay and they look up to them.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

That is as far from the truth as one can get! There are no statistics that show that your take on this is true.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

In fact there is evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic. At this point people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view. If homosexuals are born that way, then that means God created homosexuals. This is unacceptable to most fundamentalists, so they merely close their eyes, cover their ears and scream "LALALALALA" whenever someone points out the fact that they have been proven wrong.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

NO! You're making an assumption as to why people are opposed to same sex marriage! Show me the data proving that "people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view." This is part of the problem. People are going off half cocked making assumption all over the place..... and they are not even constructive assumptions. If the other side doesn't agree with you, just malign them and call them names. The assumption is that there's one reason and only one reason why the religious right is against same sex marriage; they're bigots. Come on, you're smarter than that! The world is not black and white. There are shades in between. That's me and whole lot of other people.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Well Joe, give me one non-religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage. Just one. I try to be as fair as possible in most of my arguments and usually give people the benefit of the doubt. Here though, I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue. People don't choose to be gay, that is a fact. By taking away rights from people for reasons beyond their control you are discriminating against them. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and racism is that this is socially acceptable. Why? Because in some obscure passage of the Bible it says homosexuality is wrong. It also says it's okay to beat your slave to death as long as it takes a while for them to die.I cannot be silent about my beliefs any more then those fighting for civil rights in previous generations could. There is no legitimate reason for denying happiness to another person if you are unaffected by it.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

andSoccer16,First of all. I would like to say that you have challenged me and bested me and I have acknolwedged it and up voted you for it. If you're truly a teen, then you're light years ahead from when I was a teen because it has taken me this long to get to this stage. It may have been a backwards journey for me but I like to think otherwise.Your question was an interesting challenge to say the least. I wrestled with it until my wife got home and helped me see the light. She helped me see what I've been feeling but unable to put into words.Please bear with me, I'm a little drunk. Which is not entirely fair because you are not allowed to drink and probably in your prime.A non- religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage (by J.C.)Birds of a feather flock together.I wish I could make my argument more...... serious.... more..... adult like. It's just human nature.Here read this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch and this:http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/28/5/283 and this:http://milehive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1176&Itemid=36 The bottom line:Gays want to be accepted into a club that doesn't want them and they are getting militant about it.Why is that? Probably because people want what they can't have and despise what they do have. Groucho Marx once said:"PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER". This is also why the "hair" industry makes lots of money. Women with straight hair want curly hair and women with curly hair want staight hair.It's just human nature. Not bigotry or ignorance, it's just human nature.Now, I have to go pee.C-ya ;)
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

So by your definition everyone is a bigot, including yourself, because I can probably come up with a group of people that you don't want to be around.However, a closer look at the definition of the bigot will clearly show that it is possible for a person to not want to be around a group of people for reasons other than intolerance of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. For example, I do not want to be around people that don't speak my language because I would rather be something else rather than trying to make myself be understood or trying to understand what they were saying. And if we are just supposed to be sitting there saying nothing, I would still rather be something else.BTW, I think that it is convenient that:"Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry."
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

If you lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because you can't marry or even have civil unions there, then move to a gay friendly state. But under no circumstance take this advice to mean that you should stop fighting for marriage.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: sarcasm-lots of bitter sarcasm

Hey Gays! Want to adopt? Leave your job! Leave your friends! Leave your house! Leave everything that you are familiar with and are accustomed to!It's not our fault. You're the one who wanted to start a family. What nerve you had! A family! Your lucky we don't throw you in jail.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

I love sarcasm ;)Everyone has their own reality. When I came to this country I had a choice. I could keep my language my culture and all of that crap or I could assimilate, leave all of that behind and live the good life. Guess which I chose? Life is full of choices. There's give and take. People that only take...... make me feel uneasy.The gay community is uncompromising when it comes to this issue of marriage.check this out:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Is_it_better_to_offend_than_allow_yourself_to_be_placed_in_an_uncompromising Maybe we should continue over there since it's getting crowded over here.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Soccer, you're floundering. lets keep it short and sweet.The specific thing you requested from me was to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that. You still claim that every person that is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot (period). if you don't think that my reason is legitimate, then say so and we'll debate that.I never said that people should stop fighting for their rights. I said that they should take the high road, which is a slower, longer road. Take the Gandhi road, the Martin Luther king road instead of the low road that may get you there faster. Don't take the "If you are against us you are " road. The low road is a tactic used to get you there faster.If I recall correctly, I did not compare homosexuals to Nazis. I said that the tactics being used are the same tactics that the Nazis used. This tactic can be used for good. The tactic itself is not evil. The gay movement is not the first to use that tactic. I don't like the tactic.I think that calling everyone who is opposed to gay marriage a bigot is unfair and narrow minded.When I said, "gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?" What I mean is, That the ends do not justify the means. Calling people a bigot in order to get your way is uncalled for.I've told you in the past when I have up voted you and why. This is the first time I have ever down voted someone. But I respect you enough to explain why I'm doing it. I'm down voting you for insisting that everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot even after I have given you one reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and you did chose not to respond to that. Your position implies to me that the ends justify the means. I think you can do better than that.no hard feelings. Peace out ;)
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

I think I may have deserved the downvote because I did not organize my last argument very effectively. Instead of getting into a long draw out thing this time, I am going to go back to my original intention.What I was referring to as bigotry was ignoring certain facts. In this case I was talking about JakeJ, because he repeatedly claimed that homosexuality was a choice, and I repeatedly showed him the proof that it wasn't. JakeJ, and most other people opposed to gay marriage don't use your argument but instead make baseless claims (i.e. kids can be turned gay, or gay parents can't raise children). When these things have been proven scientifically, continuing to use the same arguments is dishonest. I know that, in probably less then 50 years, the people who opposed allowing gays their rights will be considered bigots, for better or worse, and so I therefore stand by my statements.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

OK, so now you're saying that you follow the crowd instead of making up your own mind.Think about this. In any given argument, to use absolutes is usually wrong. To say that "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" is wrong. To say that "everyone else says that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot so it must be true" is wrong. Are you saying that it is physically impossible for someone to be against gay marriage for some reason other than being a bigot?Think about this. If it were a true statement that anyone who doesn't want to be around a specific group is a bigot, then why doesn't the definition of the word say that? Could it be that there are plenty of other reasons for people not to want to be around a specific group? What if you were shy and only wanted to hang around your own kind? What if you were deaf and only wanted to hang around deaf people? What if people with tinnitus wanted to be called deaf and deaf people were opposed, would they be bigots?