azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Nope, marriage is dated back further even than Judaism. You just adopted it and now seem to think it belongs to you.That is common knowledge, but that doesn't make it true. Why not check for yourself? I don't know why but Christians I talk to never seem to want to actually check the bible. If you do look, notice how each banning of homosexuality is nearby something you certainly don't follow. For example, Leviticus bans homosexuality and wearing clothes made of multiple fabrics. Jesus does say that "dogs" don't get into heaven, but also includes anyone that's ever told a lie. This kind of thing occurs at every reference to homosexuality, believe me, I checked. Why is it you are happy to ignore all these details? Obviously because they are silly. But why then don't you view the homosexuality stuff as silly? Misleading representatives of the church I suspect that are trying to spread their own personal preferences, in the same way the bible was recently used to defend slavery.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

"Nope, marriage is dated back further even than Judaism. You just adopted it and now seem to think it belongs to you."Let me rewrite my sentance: Religious people have a monopoly on marraige, my reasoning still applies for Judaism."That is common knowledge, but that doesn't make it true. Why not check for yourself? I don't know why but Christians I talk to never seem to want to actually check the bible. If you do look, notice how each banning of homosexuality is nearby something you certainly don't follow. For example, Leviticus bans homosexuality and wearing clothes made of multiple fabrics. Jesus does say that "dogs" don't get into heaven, but also includes anyone that's ever told a lie. This kind of thing occurs at every reference to homosexuality, believe me, I checked. Why is it you are happy to ignore all these details? Obviously because they are silly. But why then don't you view the homosexuality stuff as silly? Misleading representatives of the church I suspect that are trying to spread their own personal preferences, in the same way the bible was recently used to defend slavery."If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.Yes this is from Leviticus, but you can't state that because the Bible says one "silly" thing in one book, everything in the book becomes null and void.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

You might want to look more closely at what I said. Marriage was around before Judaism. In fact it is dated back as far as we have records. Once again, look more closely at what I said. That is Leviticus 20:13. I don't need to search the entire book to find something you don't believe. It amuses me that you didn't even look 4 lines higher, at 20:9 when you were demonstrating how well you know the bible. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."Murder everyone, even small children, that has ever cursed at their parents? That would require the deaths of millions of 10 year olds. I assume you don't believe this. This is in fact said in the very same speech that your quote comes from. We can even go all the way down to 20:18, where it clearly states that having sex with your wife while she is menstruating should be met with exile. Seems a little harsh considering it is possible for it to start during sex. Then it states things that have been dis-proven. "If a man shall lie with his uncle's wife ... they shall die childless." (20:20), so even if you have shady morals regarding periods and child murder, you cannot claim that everything in this chapter is true.All I am trying to say is that you are choosing passages to belief and passages to ignore. Since you cannot reasonably deny that, I would just hope that perhaps you'll start ignoring the bigotry and focusing on the love.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

"You might want to look more closely at what I said. Marriage was around before Judaism. In fact it is dated back as far as we have records. "Evidence? Considering how marraige predates any recordable history I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion."All I am trying to say is that you are choosing passages to belief and passages to ignore. Since you cannot reasonably deny that, I would just hope that perhaps you'll start ignoring the bigotry and focusing on the love."Those passages were written at a time when murder and exile were the only forms of harsh punishment, we are talking about people who live of the land and travel round in tents, how else are you going to deter them from sinning? Also, you must also take into account the Jesus taught us to help sinners peaceful, hence the fact that we don't go around slaughter gays and adulterers.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

"Evidence? Considering how marraige predates any recordable history I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion."Sorry what? What is it you want evidence for? I'm merely pointing out that the world religions of today did not invent marriage. I like how you have completely ignored important details, including the main point I was making.Are you seriously telling me that you agree with those punishments, simply because it was a different time? You think people need death threats in order to not do serious crimes? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for executing murderers for example, but people that swear at their parents? People that don't scream loudly enough while being raped? Do you agree with this? Will you not concede that there are things in the bible that are wrong? Do you refute even the things said that have been proven to be false? Are you so commuted to the defence of a book that you have never read that you will try to harm other human beings because of things you have picked up from others?It's clear to me from your last post that you have never studied the bible. The promise of eternal happiness is apparently not enough to encourage you to read a book. I would suggest looking up Jesus's actions before you make assumptions about his life. What is it exactly that you want me to take into account? Be specific. Actually do some research and tell me what you want me to consider. If you don't, then I will continue to base my opinion on Jesus from my own research, and believe me, he does not paint a pretty picture.I have started to get the impression that you are an idiot. If your next response does not contain at least one intelligent sentence I won't bother replying. I am almost certain this will be the case, so enjoy living your ignorant life.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

go fuck yourself love is love!! Neither you or me can deny them the right to marry! If you were a good christian you would support love.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

"go fuck yourself love is love!! "Rot in a dustbin, you deluded liberal! " Neither you or me can deny them the right to marry!"Yes we can, the right to marry only applies to a man and a woman of appropriate age, if we give homosexuals the right to marry then pedophiles can call for the same right."If you were a good christian you would support love."Pah, the ramblings of an imbecile, what would you know about good Christianity.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

You know, I find the human insufferable when they are not gracious enough in belief to use a sporting modicum of respect. You are referring to a Homosexual on the same levelings as a pedophile - you Sir are unimaginably deluded and pious. I also gather that you are religious from your Blithe protective fist at Christianity. Religion adopted by a mind that finds science (the truth) incomprehensible, a crutch for the feeble minded. I personally think ''rot in a dustbin'' is very shrewd - your use of metaphysical conceit sums you up in a neat, worthy package.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

If we take away the lovely embellishments of language and your insults against me, you haven't really answered my argument at all, aside from your statement that homosexuality and pedophilia aren't on the same level. Tell me, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it gives homosexuals the right to marry? And if we allow homosexuals to marry because "love is love" what is to stop a pedophile claiming the same right?
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

No one is forcing churches to perform gay marriges, what is wrong with you people?
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

Who else will perform the marraige if it isn't the church?
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Churches aren't being forced to perform gay marriages, churches that want to perform gay marriages are being allowed to do so if they wish.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

Yes, but which religion allows gay marraige?
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Well, there are many non-bigoted churches out there happy to marry gay couples. Not every single religious person is a homophobe.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

"Well, there are many non-bigoted churches out there happy to marry gay couples. Not every single religious person is a homophobe."Yes, but that like saying not every single muslim is a terrorist. Just because some religious people are willing to conduct homoxual marriages doesn't mean the whole religion should be forced to.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

How many times! No one is forcing anybody to do anything! What don't you get?
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

The state also preforms marriages, no religion required .
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

People can and do get married by Elvis Preisley lookalikes in Las Vegas, so clearly the Church is not the only institution that can perform marriages- plus, there are registry offices that perform marriage services (at least here in the UK there are). Plus, since when is being a good Christian about being anti-homosexuality? Jesus himself would spend time with lepers, and outcasts, and anyone who everyone else considered worthless or beneath them. Jesus opened his arms to EVERYONE, and it's not stated anywhere that he decided to hate gays.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Marriage is not a christian tradition. There was marriage long before christianity came into existence.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

People will interpret the bible differently. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all from the same scripts, just read differently.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Jewish people get married.Islamic people get married.Hindus, Buddhists, even Atheists get married.The Churches are the only people who AREN'T involved in the marriage process. Marriage is a legal thing as well as a cultural one, and this repression actually and fiscally hurts people.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

"Jewish people get married.Islamic people get married.Hindus, Buddhists, even Atheists get married."Of course other religions get married, my reasoning also applies for them. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism also have the right to choose who they wish to marry, none of those religions allow homosexuality. "The Churches are the only people who AREN'T involved in the marriage process. Marriage is a legal thing as well as a cultural one, and this repression actually and fiscally hurts people."Gay people can get civil partnerships, why do they have to be allowed to marry as well. Why do they even need to get married in the first place? If they sin once they might as well sin again.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Actually Hinduism and early scriptures on Buddhism do not place any discernible restriction on homosexuality. In fact, Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful. I can't speak for Islam or Judaism because I have no knowledge of them, so I'll skip over them. But that's not the point I want to make.The meaning of the pursuit of the marriage between homosexual couples is in the desire to be seen as a legal, justifiable entity with the same freedoms that we heterosexuals take for granted. Why should this be allowed? Well, why not? Why does it seem as though the sanctions of governmental regulation is influenced by Christianity? The concept of marriage long predates most religions, including Christianity. Actually, it was established as a means to restrict the promiscuity of the couple, or group, as polygamy existed when it was established as well. The problem is that regulations that are established now were molded by, and cater to, Christians for the most part. It is not the government's job to act as a church; it acts to preserve itself and the rights of the governed. Why would it be beneficial to have a government that imbues "unequal" rights to law-abiding citizens? Just to cater to religiously-uptight citizens who don't even have a particular adherence to the religion in the first place?
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

You just specifically said that it's up to those people involved to decide whether or not they should be able to. If they don't agree with your bigotry, they don't have to--end of discussion.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

There are lots of binding traditions you could call "marriage" and Christians were far from the first to invent these. It seems silly they would be allowed to ban others from it because it's their word (not their concept). Also marriage is a lot more than a religious tradition nowadays; you can have many different churches preform a marriage, not all of them Christian, as you can the government through a courthouse. One acceptable option would to be to completely sever the link between church and state in this regard and stop giving financial benefits to married couples; then gays would only be denied something of religious significance. Another viable option is for Christianity to change it's views, as it has done numerous times in the past, to allow gay marriage. Yet another alternative is for Christianity to allow the gays to form a splinter religion, as has been done numerous times in the past, and this similar and affiliated religion would be able to sanction gay marriage. In conclusion: Christians didn't invent marriage, it's not their business to police it. If they want to police it, the state shouldn't compensate and reward them for their efforts. If they still want tax breaks and financial aid, they need to drag themselves out of the stone age yet again, or otherwise allow gay churches to preform their own gay marriages, if they really want nothing to do with it.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

I did not say Christianity invented marraige, I merely said it was their tradition, meaning they adopted it. (I am aware that other religions conduct marraiges, but seeing as thie debate involves mainly British and Americans I've just used Christianity as an example everyone would be familiar with).Why would someone want to be married in the first place unless the specifically follow that religion? Gay people can have civili partnerships why do the need to be allowed to marry as well.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Oftentimes it's one specific issue that causes some religious people to want to splinter off and make their own similar but different (on that one issue) religion. One needs only look at the many, many branches of Christianity to see that people have a lot of different opinions on proper Christian faith and behavior. I don't see why homosexuals shouldn't be able to do the same, and have rights that other splinter churches enjoy (there are LGBT Christian churches nearby that I know of, but they cant preform a legally binding gay marriage). We allow religious people to pick-and-choose the aspects of their faith that they want to follow and don't usually revoke privileges or rights for it. You can have just about every sin in the book on your hands and still be Christian, still have a Christian marriage, but these things don't always hold true if your sin is homosexuality. I get that homosexuality, like everything else, is an abominable sin in the Christian faith, but they don't allow or deny marriage rights based on how much you sin or what your sins are. If you're a gay Christian and you want to marry another gay Christian, why can't you have a Christian marriage? I guess I've always seen the beliefs of the church and Christians as very mailable and ever-shifting; they alter their views so they can be accepted and supported by their host community. If the Church still opposed interracial marriage, for example, priests and Christians would be mocked and ridiculed for it. Yet at one time it was a valid and accepted position for them to hold. Allowing gay marriage is just the next grudgingly progressive step this backward religion is going to take; they're going to kick, scream, and really dig their heels in, no doubt, but Christianity has been fighting a losing battle since it was created, always giving ground to civil liberties at the last possible second, before they draw too much hatred upon themselves for their bigotry.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

You are apparently a moron. Does the bible not speak of marriages before Christ was born? Homosexuality is not against Christianity, for homosexuality is not an ideology but a description of sexuality, however some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality; Marriage is also a secular, governmental institution, and very few, if anyone is suggesting churchs be forced to do anything other than stop using their influence for violating basic principals of secularism. There are governmental privileged and rights granted with a marriage LICENCSE, and there is no secular basis to deny homosexuals these benefits from the government. There is no legitimate interest which the government has in doing such.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

"Does the bible not speak of marriages before Christ was born?"I merely stated Chrsitianity to begin with as it is the main religion of the countries of which most of the debaters here are from, if you look in later arguments I changed it to religion."Homosexuality is not against Christianity, for homosexuality is not an ideology but a description of sexuality, however some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality;"The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, thus is you homosexual then you are against Christianity."Marriage is also a secular, governmental institution, and very few, if anyone is suggesting churchs be forced to do anything other than stop using their influence for violating basic principals of secularism. "What is the point of marriage then if it is a secular, government institution? "There are governmental privileged and rights granted with a marriage LICENCSE,"*For example?
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

Considering the wealth of religious diversity, what does any one particular opinion of a set of them matter, especially when it comes to if the government will grant people the 1,138 benefits, rights, privileged which marriage brings in the usa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States Other countries probably have a comparable number of benefits which marriage brings.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

It just seems weird and wrong. That's what FRIENDS are for. But same-sex isn't for MARRIAGE. ;P
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Same-sex

What are friends for? Not that kind of relationship. If I am attracted to a female then I can't help it. And I don't think friends are meant for that intimacy.Same-sex isn't for marriage because people can't get over themselves. If people want to live together in love than no one else should be able to stop them. Regardless of color, sex, or any other factor that people can't control.
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

It's gross imagine if they did something on bed... imagine the honeymoon...
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

whilst god does not discriminate it says in the bible that man must not lie with man, this geeration seems to think that you are above the law of the bible and if this is so just look towards god and ask him 'am i allowed?' and the answer will be do as you will but ot for lust only for love jacobyet the systematic abuse of this freedom to sleep with whom and whoever you want for love was jesus lega cy and he said for give them father for they know not what they do and this was his last words as a man so do you really want to go behind gods back and show yourself as heathans he died for you once and when the second coming arrives he shall do it again if you caqn live with the shame for breaking of the covenants is your forty pieces of silver if your heart is breaking speak to jeasus if you have lost your faith speak to the lord but if you continue to be promiscuous without asking for forgiveness then you may have your money and laugh for the lords say it will not happen again
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

I CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 6 VERSE 9 AND 10 '''DO NOT BE MISLEAD .NEITHER FORNICATORS.NOR IDOLATERS,NOR ADULTERERS'' NOR MEN KEPT FOR UNNATURAL PURPOSE,NOR WHO LIE WITH MEN WILL IN INHERIT GODS KINGDOM..
Debate: Should gay marriage be allowed
Side: Opposite-sex

I don't see what the big deal is. They knew the rules of a "marriage", the main one being that it's suppose to be between a man and a woman.They knew what they were getting into, so they have no right to complain about it.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

OK, Does anyone edit anymore? "marrige" "State" come on, for such a serious question, one would expect care and concern in order to discern the truth.First: Marriage is, in all of the truest sense, a contract between two individuals. A legal document does not ensure that the agreement will be forever upheld. People fall out of love all of the time. Why does sexual orientation, in the land of the free, change the definition of a contract? Marriage is a contract; why else would the courts be bogged down by disputes of property, wealth, and future holdings?Second: When two people want to have a contract with each other, why should everyone else care about the purpose of that contract or the sexual orientation of the contractual partners? We, in the U.S.A. look away when companies contract each other to form conglomerates. Why do we care so much about people in love that we would show our prejudices?Third: The human spirit should be without bonds. Let individuals be individuals. An atmosphere of growth will yield much more than the atmosphere of "let's wait and see".If people want to bind themselves to a legal document, let them. Don't make it an issue of orientation because the end result is the same effect.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

There are people in this general debate who kinda believe that if we allow same-sex marital coupling, then:Paedagamy (Paedophilic marriage)Kids will be allowed to marry other kids.Zoophyligamy (Zoophilic marriage)Animals will also get to marryNecragamy (Necrophilic marriage)And somehow the dead will start demanding civil rights...
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

but we already have straight marriage! By that means because you support Straight marriage, then you must also support:PaedagamyZoophuligamyNecragamyHomosexual marriage(marriages is only and ever only should be between 2 people who love each other and can support each other financially and emotional, that would rule out Paedagamy, Zoophyligamy, Necragamy; you can't prove a Horse loves-loves you)