azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: technically no

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of homosexuality but that doesn't really matter. If they wan't to have a life together that's they're business. But I don't think marriage should be re-defined.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Not really. No.Wasn't even a good parrallel.Buddhist my ass....
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Yes really. Yes. It's a good parallel. It's a great parallel.It's a superb parallel.It's the parallel nonpareil!Debate is fun. (Sorry to hear about your ass).
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

You're correct, gays can go out and get married. They have the same rights under the law as anyone else. They just choose not to and that's not discrimination.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Not in the US. Most states don't even allow civil unions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_the_United_States
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Umm.. no. Gay people are allowed to marry. But heterosexually.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

:| ...right... you're hilarious..................................
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: Yes

no they dont! gay people can only marry in 8 states! thats not fair
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Guess what? Marriage is a "civil union". In order to get married, you need a license from a government office. You can't get it from a religious organization. That makes marriage a civil matter.The meaning of "civil" in this situation is "of or pertaining to civil law". Civil law is "the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters."One definition of "union" is "the act of uniting or an instance of being united in marriage". As I said, marriage is a civil union.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

"marriage is our thing and they should get there own thing."Marriage, permitted by a license from the goverment... Marriage which confers upon its participants over 1,000 federal benefits... is who's thing?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

"Technically "Gay Marriage" doesn't exist."Technically "Gay Marriage" does exist -- in many countries in the world and several states in the United States. Need me to name them all for you?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

your qoute does not make since to me "we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin" because it sound to me as if your saying being straight is the sin and did you actually see a sign that said this? i am thinking that you took a qoute and made it different and if thats the case that just makes you crazy for trying to impress upon us a qoute that implies your veiws that does not exist. its like laughing at your own jokes
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Gay people should get their own thing? I agree. In support, can anyone provide a very good reason as to why black people should have gotten their own kind of marriage? That is also what you liberals would call an "arbitrary" or "capricious" distinction.Quite simply people of different races do not get together and they should "get their own thing". There's nothing wrong with the name Mixed Union when they are given the same legal entitlements as marriage (pure-race unions, or clean-marriages, of better defined as those marriages which are in keeping with our honourable forefathers of America).Marriage is a precious institution of our society and only recently in the history of the US has the mixing of races within this great institution been permitted (research yourself how liberal and "new" this Mixed Union concept is). The other Great nations of the past also did not permit such mixings; even S. American nations (which do not count as one of those capital-G "Great" nations) until recently made explicit laws making sure that those Mixers would GET THEIR OWN THING instead of muddying up the definition of marriage. As other people later put it, and quite logically put it, 1+1 IS NOT 3, IT'S 2. THE ANSWER IS 2. Though, of course, one would argue the real answer is to this problem is 42... anyone with me?1 Latino + 1 Pure Aryan = DOES NOT MAKETH A MARRIAGE; it makes it a Mixed Union entitled to all the same legal protections as marriage. We do make this extremely precious and important distinction because nowadays our dictionaries are getting muddied with upstart liberal ideas (my god, they want to redefine sexuality and say that men have sex with men... and the women, the pure women as well! it's just inconceivable). For the sacred, time-honored tradition of protecting our dictionaries, we make that important legal distinction.Yes, that's exactly why we are so passionate about arguing for the non-arbitrary distinction between real marriage and Mixed Unions. We are concerned that 1+1 is not 3, and we are also concerned about the muddying of our dictionaries. And since Mixed Unions have the same legal entitlements as real marriages, my lawyer told me that it does not constitute discrimination and that those liberals are likely to fail at a challenge in the courts. Suckers! Shoulda hired better lawyers, you Mixers!Oh wait, we're talking about those gay people. Yeah, suckers, you Civil Unioners. I won't call you by your real name, but you know what name I'm thinking for you when I think of you... you non-marriage Unioners!Separate but equal is just as equal as surely as 2 = 2 or x = x.btw, with more convincing logic, if a = b and b = x, then a = x. See? Different, yet equal. wow. just wow.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: technically no

"That is also what you liberals would call an "arbitrary" or "capricious" distinction."What? I'm not a liberal. "can anyone provide a very good reason as to why black people should have gotten their own kind of marriage?"Because the original definition of marriage has nothing to do with race. Gender? Yes. Race? no.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

The original definition of marriage does have something to do with race in US legal history, in Mexican history, and in European history. So? Given the long-standing history of race mattering, shouldn't it be in the definition of race? Many cultures understand marriage from a racial viewpoint and this can be anthropologically and historically demonstrated.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: Yes

"straight christian america" ? are you freaking kidding me? marriage isnt something only some people deserve its a right and everybody deserves equal rights! they dont choose to be gay, like you dont choose to be straight, or you dont choose your gender, or race, but why does it matter how you were born just because of your gender or skin color or sexuality doesnt mean you should be treated any differently, the decleration of independence says "every man is created equal" which means that everyone is equal
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

How do you make legal a fiction? There is no such thing as a gay marriage. If your gay and you make pledges to each other, that's not marriage. Marriage is something in particular. When we say "that's marriage" we are being descriptive, we are describing something we observe. What we are not doing is defining it. It's definition is inherent in the type of relationship it is. Mine or anybody elses definition doesn't change the reality of the thing observed. As a mathematical formula it would look like this: 1+1 is 2 we would be wrong to say that 1+2 is also 2 Our saying that the two equations are the same doesn't make them the same. So let's change the symbols in our equation and see if it makes sense; male+female=marriage and male+male=marriage. The values in the equation aren't interchangeable. So you see that we can't say that different combinations equal the same thing. It's the differences that, well, make them different. A gay relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual relationship. That ought to be obvious to anyone, that's why we give them different names. Now if your gay and you want to commit yourself to the other person, fine, by all means do it. But don't try say that relationship is the same as another type of relationship when it's clearly not. And yes I know that you love the other person and so does the heterosexual couple. So I would agree that is a shared trait. But it is the object of that love that makes all the difference. One loves someone of the same sex, the other doesn't. That's a difference.Now to the legality question. People form all kinds of relationship that the government never gets involved with. What interest does the state have in a homosexual relationship? Why should they get involved? As far as I can see the state has no compelling interest in these types of relationships.So in my estimation, to answer the question of the debate, The government should remain neutral on this issue because it has no reason to do otherwise.I've include a link to an article that elaborates much more on this issue than I have in my brief treatment of it.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Currently it refers to a special kind of relationship between a man and a woman. We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love. By failing to do so, we are collectively deriding gay love as unworthy, and this is a disgusting thing to do.(btw, your link is broken.)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Words are very powerful Jessald. Try walking into a crowded room and yelling fire, or walk through Watts, Los Angeles and yell out the "n" word. Homosexuality is an act of gay sex, not gay love. Two men or women can love each other and not engage in gay sex. I have many male friends I have known for a long time that I love very deeply however I am not sexually attracted to them. Men sexually attracted to other men and vice versa is a type of sexual disorientation. It happens all throughout the world in many different species however humans have the ability to correct behavior as apposed to the animal kingdom which is in some ways what makes us stand out. It can be the result of childhood or adult trauma, genetic hormonal imbalance's, environmental variables, the list is endless. Forget throwing fuel on the fire, lets start researching the causes of homosexual behavior and find ways to treat the condition instead of pretending like its a matter of choice because to be honest, I dont know any Gay men who would choose to be gay in todays social climate.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Being Gay is NOT a disease buddy. You should do yuour research before you decide to voice a remark as that!! Being stright is who you are. I never had any attraction to the opposite sex, not even as a small child. I did not wake up one day and say, "oh , I want to be gay today". Our lives are very hard because of the ignorance of some people in society. mabey discrimination is a disease or mabey you yourself has issues with your own sexuality and hoping for some magical "gay cure" that will help you with your own sexual insecurites. remember , GOD made us in his vision. You or no one else has the right to judge or to delegate to me who I decide to have in my bed.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Cagted: "Homosexuality is an act of gay sex, not gay love. "So, heterosexuality is an act of sex, not love, right?Because sexual attraction is just an act. There are no emotions involved in attraction. Its just like robot sex. Everyone knows robots can't love! Don't get me started about same-sex robots. "Men sexually attracted to other men and vice versa is a type of sexual disorientation."Hmmm. "vice versa?" So what you are saying then is " "Men sexually attracted to other men and men sexually attracted to other men is a type of sexual disorientation." Yes, this is disorienting, when you say it that way. But you are close to the truth, which is that men sexually attracted to other men is a type of sexual orientation.And speaking of being disoriented, you argue that same sex attraction is not a choice, but "correcting that behavior" is a choice. You want to "treat the condition". All such "treatments" to date have been found by reputable scientists as less than worthless -- they are actually harmful. So, until there is a "cure" that is not harmful, and until gay folk decide they want to think of themselves as defective and in need of being fixed, then we ought to just get out of the way and join all the other countries in the world that permit same-sex marriage.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Yes, eliminating homosexuality would make the problem go away.But science isn't anywhere close do being able to do that yet. In the meantime it makes sense to legalize gay marriage.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

gay marriages should be allowed and there should be not hinderence to it dear. y do you wanna become an obstacle in their way. some men have it internally and if they do then let them. y are we to be bothered??
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola. Changing the meaning of the word is NOT going to fix the problem.Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Expanding it so that the definition shows acceptance of homosexual love will NOT magically make them be accepted by society as a whole. By failing to expand the definition, we are NOT collectively deriding gay love as unworthy. What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Society as a whole should accept gays. That would be best. But if it refuses to, we should still legally allow gay marriage. Because law should be based on reason, not popular prejudices. There's just no logical reason to disallow it."By failing to expand the definition, we are NOT collectively deriding gay love as unworthy."Haha, I like how you added the word "not" in there. I haven't heard such a devastating rebuttal since first grade.If we give gay love a lower status than straight love, we are saying it is less worthy. How is that not obvious?You should stick to make witty comments Joe, you're no good at this big people stuff. ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

I have never bought the argument that by giving gay marriage a different name that you automatically lower the status of gay marriage. I have never bought the argument that just by having a different word for gay marriage, that you are saying that gay love is less worthy.That type of stupid reasoning is what has allowed political correctness run amock. If you call a retarded person mentally challenged, it doesn't automatically change the way I perceive the person. By calling the person retarded, it doesn't automatically make me see him as less of a human being.A rose, by any other name, is still a rose.If it is not obvious to you that changing the definition of a word cannot change the perception of a bigot, then you are an idiot.Have a nice day ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Well the word marriage is used in two senses. There's the sense that people use it in normal conversation, and then there's the legal sense. We obviously can't force people to stop being bigoted assholes, but we obviously can change the legal meaning of the word. And we should do that. Because there's no good reason not to.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

There is a perfectly good reason. If you change the definition of the word marriage to be "a civil union between two consenting adults" then there won't be a word specify a heterosexual marriage. If some one said to you "I know this married couple, Amari and Jaidyn, who...."and we were to use the current definition, then you would know that one of those people is male and the other female (although you may not be able to decide which is which). If we used your definition then we would have no idea if they were one of each, two males or two females.The purpose of language is to clarify, not obfuscate. Otherwise, lets do away with half the words in the English language. We can combine the words that kind of have nearly the same meaning into one word. if that sounds like a crazy idea to you, then you are begining to understand that my stance against using the word marriage for gay unions has nothing to do with being a bigot.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Yeah... that's not a good reason. That's a pretty stupid reason actually. Let's come up with a word for red ants, because otherwise people won't know whether we're talking about red ones or brown ones!Come on Joe, who do you think you're kidding? You oppose gay marriage not because you're a bigot, but because the people you are politically aligned with are bigots. You're coming up with all these nonsense apologies for their blatant attempts to bring religion into government because in return they will support you and your social darwinist views.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

That's right, ants are another example. We have red ants and black ants. The red ants are called Solenopsis and the black ants are called Lasius niger. These words are common among scientists that study ants. Your average person doesn't deal much with ants so they don't need to describe them any further than red and black. However, your average person does deal with couples in a relationship and therefore more descriptive words are needed.Now, the fact that you think that is not a good reason means nothing. Who the hell died and left you as the person responsible for determining what is and isn't a good reason?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

"Lasius niger"... hmm... that sounds like two words... kind of like "gay marriage".On the rare occasions that we need to differentiate between different kinds of marriage we say "gay marriage" and "straight marriage". OMG, an extra syllable!We shouldn't take away people's freedom to marry someone they love over an extra syllable. It's fucking common sense.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

What are you talking about? Gays are free to marry anyone they like as long as it is someone of the opposite sex ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

blatant attempts to bring religion into governmentHey got one;We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.Looks like it's the other way around doesn't it? In America we ground laws and rights in the transcendent. If you don't like that, go get your own country or try China.We say homosexuality is wrong because the Creator who gives us our rights says it's wrong. Not because of some silly conspiracy theory.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

go get your own countryFuck you, asshole. This is my country. I was born here and I'm not going anywhere.How do you make the leap from "some being beyond human comprehension created the universe" to "thou shalt not buttfuck"? You can't. Your religion is a huge load of bullshit, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

What does it mean to have gay marriages legalized? Can anyone tell me?1 - Does it give gay married couples certain legal rights afterwards they wouldn't otherwise have? 2 - Or is it about acceptance by society?If it's 1, then it's easily solved by giving united gay couples the same rights after their union. Taxation without representation is a no no.If it's 2, here's what I think:If you love each other, what the hell does it matter what anyone else thinks? But if you really insist, let's have a look at the meaning of marriage to most people. And to do that, let's picture ourselves going to a wedding:a) We see 2 people who we assume love each other very much and want to be with each other for the rest of their lives (it doesn't matter if it doesn't always turn out that way). b) We also think that they will want to go on to have children with each other and watch them grow and then to watch their children go on to marry and bear them grandchildren and so on and so forth (it doesn't matter if it turns out they can't bear children). This is what we picture when we think of a marriage, it doesn't matter if we're in a cannibalistic tribe deep in the Amazon jungle or citizens of India. Of course we'll also form opinions about whether or not they look like a nice couple (amongst other irrelevant things) etc... but in our minds, a and b above are the main elements to a marriage. So if I see a wedding between those below, I'll not think of it the same way:- 2 people of retired age, or - 1 of retired age and the other half that, or- 2 children, or- 2 people of the same gender,- a human and something else not,Sure I'll be happy for them and I will sincerely wish them the best in love and life together, but I'm certainly not thinking of their union the same way I think of a straight couple's union as outlined above. It is what it is, it doesn't matter what you call it. About changing the meanings of words to be more inclusive? No way, if anything we should be even more precise when it comes to words. Dictionaries don't define words, people write dictionaries that define words (Mahollinger). So I propose to exclude even more when it comes to definition of words and in law, but tax money should be distributed without prejudice by the government so any legal rights afforded a straight couple after marriage should never be withheld from a gay couple after their union.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

"legal rights...or...acceptance by society?"Both. It's very hard to obtain legal rights without acceptance by society."easily solved by giving united gay couples the same rights after their union"Haha, if it were really that easy, same-sex civil unions would be legal in all fifty states."a and b above are the main elements to a marriage."The "upholding the sanctity of our dictionaries" argument is retarded beyond belief. I can't believe so many of you are picking it up. We're talking about marriage in the legal sense. The common meaning of the term is completely irrelevant in this debate.This debate is really about one question: Is homosexuality ok, or is it not? And if you leave religion out of the picture, as you should, the answer is inescapable: Yes, it's ok.