niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: For example, if a state Congress passes a bill that grants additional benefits to marriages and civil unions, a governor could simply line-item veto the benefit to civil unions, which then means that the benefits would apply only to marriage.
 Sent2: Any legislature could grant additional benefits to marriage with as much ease as it takes to leave off the words "and civil unions".
Output: Similar
Sent1: Even though denying polygamous marriage is not actually a destruction of equality, one might still say, "Well, even though denying polygamous marriage isn't as bad as denying same-sex marriage, why do we deny it?
 Sent2: I have explained how denying same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay marriage is wrong the reason is because in every definition of marriage it includes man and woman not man and man or women and women it is women and man.
 Sent2: Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think people should be allowed to live their lives to where they can fully enjoy it.
 Sent2: Personally I am indifferent towards gay people, they should have the same rights as everyone else, because I don't think a what a person does in the bedroom should have any bearing on their public lives.
Output: Similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: Opposition to interracial marriage was based on prejudice and the current opposition to gay marriage is based on prejudice.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There is no good reason behind giving marriage benefits to people based on their sex and there are plenty of reasons to do just the opposite.
 Sent2: In the case of same-sex marriage, I have to assume that we are not giving benefits to people based on their religious beliefs regarding what constitutes a marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If civil unions do not provide the same benefits and protections as marriage, then civil unions are clearly not equal to marriage, and again, gay people are being treated as less-than-equal citizens.
 Sent2: But I can think of no reason for creating a separate category of civil unions for same-sex couples other than animus against gay people and a desire to treat gay people as less-than-equal citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Now, if you wish to argue that defining marriage is above majority vote, then you would need to show that the the constitution prohibits this.
 Sent2: There is nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to marry whomever you like, and so current law defining marriage does not violate any existing constitutional law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If we allow same-sex couples to legally marry, does it in anyway water down any other marriage between opposite-sex couples?
 Sent2: No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex just because same-sex couples have the right to marry legally.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 Sent2: gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, you might try to say that by allowing same-sex marriage, we are violating one man's right to be comfortable knowing gays can't marry.
 Sent2: We don't necessarily have a right to officially recognized gay marriage, but we have every right to tell the government if we want it or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: That could be extended even to say that I don't think promoting specifically male/female monogamy is a good thing because it implies that same-sex monogamy is not a good thing.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
 Sent2: Without same-sex marriage, opposite-sex couples are paying less than their share because of same-sex couples who pay more taxes without seeing any benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since we're talking about what rights heterosexual people have versus what rights homosexual people have, the only logical conclusion is that both groups have the same rights since marrying whomever you love is not a right.
 Sent2: You stated that changing same-sex marriage infringes upon people's rights because it devalues their marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also there are laws that pertain to marriage made to protect and promote the interest of children and spouses.
 Sent2: Those rights and protections are indeed laws but are directed towards individuals within a legal marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage was never defined as between a Man and Woman until religious Zealots pushed the Government to define it in such a way to deny Gay people their right to marry.
 Sent2: The constitution allows the government to define marriage between a man and a woman, but the reason for defining it that way can't be because they want to use the Christian definition.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 Sent2: I'm curious about something from the other side of the fence...to those against same sex marriage, if a man gets a sex change and becomes a woman, should he/she be allowed to marry?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage can be redefined to include other arrangements people may want (right now, same-sex couples are trying to do this) then most certainly it can be redefined to include more people in a relationship to have it apply to.
 Sent2: It wasn't seeking to redefine what marriage is, it was about applying marriage (as it already was--between a man and a woman) to inter-racial couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is but there are those christians out there that actually believe in justice and equality and that love is love no matter whom it is with.
 Sent2: Many Christians believe that supporting equality is not moral depravity; it is the right and Christian thing to do.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If marriage can be redefined to include other arrangements people may want (right now, same-sex couples are trying to do this) then most certainly it can be redefined to include more people in a relationship to have it apply to.
 Sent2: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: Not to mention visitation rights in hospitals, or any one of the thousands of rights denied gay couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: What's going on now with the gay marriage stuff is simply to get their marriage to be legally recognized so that they can have certian "rights" when it comes to things like social security and inheritance, etc.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: concerning homosexual marriage, allowing this type of legal union also raises the question of multiple partner marriages, or marriage of siblings/close family.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A valid argument against incestuous marriage would not have as its only premise "Marriage is defined as a legal bond between a man and a woman who are not x-apart related."
 Sent2: Man-woman marriage is legal and gets state goodies, but man-man and woman-woman marriages are illegal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I also think that most Americans are truly uninformed when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage.
 Sent2: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 Sent2: If gay marriage were made legal, the amendment would have to prohibit incestuous marriage and polygamy at the same time.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: Practical problems are not a good justification to ban civil liberties, especially when the argument for gay marriage is not that it's "easy" but that it's "right".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One one hand you seem to think that gay people don't have the right to get married at all--they do because you can get married anytime you want.
 Sent2: If you think the benefits given to married people are innapropriate or unjust, that is a different topic than denying people the right to marry the person they choose.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We are not longer primitive, so we should allow any couple to marry, as we already allow with straight couples who do not have children.
 Sent2: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So your saying that if gay people are allowed to marry...then marriage becomes pointless and heterosexual couples will stop having sex and our species will parish?
 Sent2: Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Output: Similar
Sent1: recognition and considered a "civil right" to have their marriages recognized has been made to stop marriage from being redefined for YOUR movement.
 Sent2: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Are you implying that heterosexuals are entitled to whatever "it" is, but homosexual individuals are not?
 Sent2: And you say gays are entitled to every privilege the rest of us are and then you suggest that being gay would negatively effect the "values" of a child, so that shouldn't be allowed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: i agree with gay marriage because it is not fair to them that only man and women who are in love can only get married.
 Sent2: Who is it ok for a man and a women (both of consenting age) to fall in love, and get married, but horrible for two women (both of consenting age) to do the same?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I wouldnt mind letting religion have the word marriage and the government have civil unions to where both straight and gay couples have civil unions and if you want to go to a church to get married then you can.
 Sent2: I think most gay people would never want to get married in a church, we want a civil marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I am a conservative, and I don't understand how people who consider themselves to be conservative can also be against gay marriage.
 Sent2: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
 Sent2: All citizens are protected under the law for equal treatment.
Output: Similar
Sent1: But gay people can do that too; if people are going to marry not for love but for benefits, gays can do that by marrying someone of the opposite sex just for the benefits.
 Sent2: Looking at the situation logically, the people who would use same-sex marriage, the people who might love someone of the same sex, are homosexuals and bisexuals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And since they claim HIV/AIDS is a consequence of being gay, do they want  to increase the risk of infection for straight women by insisting that such women be the only marriage partners gay men are allowed to have?
 Sent2: i agree with gay marriage because it is not fair to them that only man and women who are in love can only get married.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Lets look at the polygamy claim, since no one else can marry more than one person no one is being discriminated against.
 Sent2: But it is NOT discriminatory to not recognize marriage rights for somebody who CHOOSES NOT TO MARRY.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
 Sent2: If gay marriage were made legal, the amendment would have to prohibit incestuous marriage and polygamy at the same time.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You are using a double-standard that is unfair not only to couples, but to their children, who end up losing the protection of having two married parents simply because other people don't like the sex of the two parents.
 Sent2: What you are missing is that if gay people have the right to marry then their marriage must be recognised under equal protection.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And as I pointed out, "most people who oppose gay marriage" are actually opposing gay marriage because they very much oppose gays in general.
 Sent2: Fear and anger are the tools of those who oppose gay marriage, I've never seen any public argument that could rationally explain why denying rights to a group of people was the correct and necessary thing to do.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Now no one here is talking about giving rights or the legal benefits of marriage to men who act on their attraction to young boys.
 Sent2: Those rights and protections are indeed laws but are directed towards individuals within a legal marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The homosexual agenda's justification for demanding marriage has always been for the equal benefits which marriage affords couples who marry.
 Sent2: I do not disagree with homosexual couples being afforded the same tax breaks and employer benefits afforded to married homosexual couples pending a legal contract.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If marriage can be redefined to include other arrangements people may want (right now, same-sex couples are trying to do this) then most certainly it can be redefined to include more people in a relationship to have it apply to.
 Sent2: Using the same logic, doesn't giving couples benefits, without marriage, to gay and straight couples, probably hurt polygamists too, and hurt single people who just want to co-habitate, but don't want to register for as a couple?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And I never said someone should not be allowed to Mary do to their gender both men and women should be allowed to marry (each other) so it's not sexism at all really.
 Sent2: Because it is not between a man and woman, it is not right to call this a 'marriage', in saying this, I am in no way trying to demean the relationship two people of the same gender can have.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
 Sent2: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
Output: Similar
Sent1: We both know that as long as marriage is kept for opposite-sex couples alone, then opposite-sex couples will be elevated above same-sex couples under the law.
 Sent2: How does that still justify denying marriage to same-sex couples if the same "privilege" is given to opposite sex couples?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Remember that people who are not straight currently get married just for the benefits, and people who do not love each other currently get married just for the benefits.
 Sent2: marriage is simply two people who love each other expressing that love and making a commitment, so why can't a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are in love make a commitment?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Man-woman marriage is legal and gets state goodies, but man-man and woman-woman marriages are illegal.
 Sent2: And Christian doctrine teaches that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If we want to distinguish between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, we can simply say, "same-sex marriage" or "opposite-sex marriage".
 Sent2: If we broaden the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, wouldn't heterosexual unmarried couples still be discriminated against?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But not allowing gay marriage hurts all homosexual couples to a greater extent than the prior.
 Sent2: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the burden should be on a state that bans a form of marriage to show that that specific form of marriage does harm to people.
 Sent2: I think absolutely no reasonable argument can be made suggesting that same-sex marriage might cause any harm, and I think that no reasonable argument can be made which suggests that same-sex marriage will not help people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In as much as "marriage" is a right (I don't see it as an absolute right) all men and all women have an equal right to marry.
 Sent2: And I WILL point out that the issue is whether gays have the right to be treated equally with respect to marriage - not whether they are to be treated equally with respect to gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage is privilege not a right, because not every heterosexual couple even gets granted the right to marry... the state has a right to regulate what impacts the welfare of the union as whole.
 Sent2: But when the government is promoting heterosexual marriage, it isn't because promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage is a good thing, and it isn't because heterosexual couples deserve more money or more benefits than same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
 Sent2: In that sense, the case for states recognizing legal same-sex marriage is even stronger under the equal protection argument than was the case for states recognizing legal inter-racial marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Without same-sex marriage, opposite-sex couples are paying less than their share because of same-sex couples who pay more taxes without seeing any benefits.
 Sent2: I think their point is that homosexual tax payers should not benefit from marriage benefits as the heterosexual community will receive more benefits if they don't include homosexual life partners in the benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Except blacks were barred from marriage to those that white people could marry, and white people were barred from marriage to those that black people could marry.
 Sent2: The fact is that people are not prohibited from being married because of their sexual orientation.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think people should be allowed to live their lives to where they can fully enjoy it.
 Sent2: Christians should live their own lives the way they want but what they recognise that others with different beliefs also live in society.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I have seen only two arguments (and one of them is restated here) for gay marriage to not be a thing: we have to protect the sanctity of marriage or marriage should only be for people who can reproduce.
 Sent2: I'm not gay but I believe they should be aloud to marry however if it is not in the religion for gays to we'd then they should respect that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: The problem is that the media only focuses on the civil rights battle, so the average person has no one has any idea who gay people are; they know only that gays are asking for the right to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The definition you'll hear from conservatives is more along the lines of: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
 Sent2: It does not state in law that same-sex marriage is a civil right any more than it states you marrying you sister is a civil right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people who are fighting against the rights of gays to marry do not want to see same-sex couples receive any rights or recognitions of their relationships.
 Sent2: gay marriage is about two people of the same gender who want to commit to each other in a romantic relationship, and have the same legal rights and recognition as a straight couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do wish there was a way for gay couples to recieve the same benefits in government as married couples, but I don't believe in homosexual marriage.
 Sent2: But when the government is promoting heterosexual marriage, it isn't because promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage is a good thing, and it isn't because heterosexual couples deserve more money or more benefits than same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 Sent2: One one hand you seem to think that gay people don't have the right to get married at all--they do because you can get married anytime you want.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: that marriage itself is optional, not the norm ��_��__��_��__��_��__ that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren��_��__��_��__t heroic, we must not be called to marry.
 Sent2: Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman��_��__��_��__��_��__��_��__��_��__it is not a civil union (although many treat it as such)��_��__��_��__��_��__��_��__��_��__and that is why so many people have a problem with legalizing gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay couples are allowed to marry then any combination of marriage should be allowed as long as it involves consenting adults.
 Sent2: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: This is me pointing out that if full faith and credit is NOT recognized in marriage, that you have a situation of legalized polygamy, just by jumping state boundaries.
 Sent2: I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights do you believe each state should have the right not to recognize any marriage - for instance the states that had laws prohibiting interracial marriages?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now, I am uncertain why gay people should not be allowed to have civil marriage and in fact many people (perhaps most) support civil unions.
 Sent2: Those who support gay marriage have determined that it is a civil right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, the issue of rights is not the same as it was with race because homosexuals are not barred from marriage with anyone heterosexuals could not also marry.
 Sent2: They don't have the right to get involved in anything to do with marriage, yet they passed DOMA to specifically disallow Gay Married couples the same RIGHTS that Hetero couples have.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Their disorder is taken into account so they are given extra time, in the gay marriage case the 'disorder' is taken into account and they are allowed to marry someone fo the same sex.
 Sent2: Why shouldn't they be given the right to marry, people with disorders that will prevent them having children can marry, people with disorders that would seriously harm any child they have can marry.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I have explained how denying same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples.
 Sent2: Since people cannot come up with any tangible reason for denying same-sex couples marriage - and same-sex couple can at least quantify the harm of denying them marriage, who do you think wins the argument?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Just because a religion proclaims a marriage is to be defined a certain way does not mean the government must conform to the wishes of the religious definition, quite the contrary.
 Sent2: By redefining marriage, you would in fact not only be changing something that millions consider sacred, but it would be tantamount to the state establishing a religion, by defining the validly or a religious ceremony.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I've actually had someone say that the purpose of marriage is to produce children so it should be between a woman and a man.
 Sent2: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: And that debate also settled on "No, BEING gay isn't wrong", thus the act of gay marriage for gay people should also be considered a net win for society, and in no occurrences a wrong thing.
 Sent2: Homosexual marriage is something that religious people disagree with by drawing a false line between right and wrong.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 Sent2: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
 Sent2: I guess because many (not all) same-sex couples plan when they have children, they do not need the encouragement of marriage that opposite sex couples do.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 Sent2: In as much as "marriage" is a right (I don't see it as an absolute right) all men and all women have an equal right to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, you might try to say that by allowing same-sex marriage, we are violating one man's right to be comfortable knowing gays can't marry.
 Sent2: - We need to understand that disagreeement over whether gays should be allowed to have legal same sex marriage is not "gay-bashing."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If inclusion of same sex couples being allowed to marry is what you call "redefining", then the inclusion of interracial couples would also be a "redefiniton."
 Sent2: The crock is how you will do anything but allow people to decide for themselves if they will call a same-sex union marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: There are a lot of in this country who believe that same sex marriage is just as oddball as the ones I mentioned
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 Sent2: If gay couples are allowed to marry then any combination of marriage should be allowed as long as it involves consenting adults.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You did suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples would still be discriminated against, even if we allowed same-sex couples to marry.
 Sent2: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If there are cases where we can not determine what sex a person is, how can we determine if they are homosexual or not?
 Sent2: And we don't hate gays we just don't think gay marriage is right nor do we see a men to men action nor women to women action right
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A man can marry "Chris" based on what "Chris's" gender is.
 Sent2: And Christian doctrine teaches that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If same sex marriage bans discriminate exclusively against gays, then polygamy bans discriminate exclusively against polygamists.
 Sent2: While the amendment specifically banned gay marriage, it went further than similar bans in many states by prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In a free society, the government does not deny rights or benefits to its people without a good reason; it does not deny those rights and benefits unless they are harmful.
 Sent2: If two people cannot do this for some legal reason, they are being denied equal rights unless marriage is completely outlawed within that nation.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In the same fashion, if denying a few people privacy on this petition would legalize same-sex marriage, then I would support doing that, for legalizing same-sex marriage is far more beneficial to the people.
 Sent2: In the case of same-sex marriage, I can state that it is harmless and it helps many people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage(besides the fact that animals were meant to be paired heterosexually) is that GAY COUPLES CANNOT PROCREATE" at one point.
 Sent2: Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 Sent2: and i think i can safely say that most same sex couples looking to be married just want to be seen equal in the eyes of the law, and not so much in the eyes of your god.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't care if calling it "marriage" offends people, or violates what they call the sanctity of marriage, gays should have the same RIGHTS that a married couple gets.
 Sent2: But I can assure you that the reason gay people fight to legalize same-sex marriage is not that they want people to recognize them, but simply because they want equal treatment under the law.
Output: Similar
Sent1: But I am drawing a parallel between the arguments by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the arguments by those who claim that gay people already have equal rights, including the right to marry someone of the opposite-sex.
 Sent2: Instead, you are claiming that gays are trying to be able to marry people of the opposite sex, and claiming that the gay marriage movement is trying to argue that.
Output: Similar
Sent1: This would, at the very least, allow certain groups of people to keep their word "marriage", and allow the benefits of marriage to everyone -- making civil unions completely equal to marriage from a governmental point of view.
 Sent2: Now, I am uncertain why gay people should not be allowed to have civil marriage and in fact many people (perhaps most) support civil unions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: i agree with gay marriage because it is not fair to them that only man and women who are in love can only get married.
 Sent2: Often the argument given in favor of gay marriage is that they want the right to marry the person they love.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It does hurt someone it hurts the people who are married and believe that marriage is and always will be defined as a man and women.
 Sent2: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 Sent2: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Straight people have marriages gay people have domestic partnerships they are practically the same thing why change it there's really no need to.
 Sent2: gay marriage is about two people of the same gender who want to commit to each other in a romantic relationship, and have the same legal rights and recognition as a straight couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 Sent2: But same-sex marriage doesn't cause disease transfer; gay people will have sex whether they have marriage or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 Sent2: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just because a homosexual may marry someone of the opposite sex does not suddenly justify keeping them from marrying a person of the opposite sex.
 Sent2: I realize that homosexuals are not attracted to members of the opposite sex and so they don't want to get married.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If two people cannot do this for some legal reason, they are being denied equal rights unless marriage is completely outlawed within that nation.
 Sent2: The fact that marriage is a civil right doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should get marriage, but certainly we are denying people civil rights if we deny them marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: But people make up the society, so you're really arguing that people should think same-sex marriage is wrong because people think same-sex marriage is wrong.
 Sent2: How people feel about polygamy has no relevance on same sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
 Sent2: I'm not saying I'm completely for gay marriage, but I believe that if two people love each other, they have the right to marry.
Output: Similar
Sent1: One one hand you seem to think that gay people don't have the right to get married at all--they do because you can get married anytime you want.
 Sent2: gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And by the way I know a lot of folks who have no issues with gays, gay couples, gay parents, etc. that oppose gay marriage.
 Sent2: the reason I ask is because I've never seen any studies done comparing the % of straight kids raised by homosexual couples and the % of homosexual kids raised by homosexuals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, you might try to say that by allowing same-sex marriage, we are violating one man's right to be comfortable knowing gays can't marry.
 Sent2: You're saying the right to marriage is satisfied as long as you are allowed to marry one person irrespective of who that person is or whatever qualities that person may have.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All they have to do is either write in that civil unions will give the same legal rights as marriage, or else list the same rights that marriage does.
 Sent2: It could be called gay marriage or civil unions as long as they have the same equal rights as a married heterosexual couple.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 Sent2: I know many gay couples who have adopted children and are loving parents.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
 Sent2: As far as I know, homosexual people are not barred from marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: My analogies always compare denying same-sex marriage to something bad, because I think denying same-sex marriage is very bad.
 Sent2: I don't mean to demonize those relationships, though I do mean to say that they are part of something which could be considered harmful, while same-sex couples are not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: My analogies always compare denying same-sex marriage to something bad, because I think denying same-sex marriage is very bad.
 Sent2: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
 Sent2: God did not introduce the concept of marriage, man did.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Maybe, if the courts were to allow gay marriage, it would be alright since it is not a religious institution, it doesn't break the Separation between Church and State ruled by the Supreme Court.
 Sent2: Marriages are for the Church to decide, Congress have no power to pass a legislation forcing religious institutions about marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: People will not suddenly interpret their commitment to their loved ones differently if same-sex marriage is legalized, nor even if self-marriage is legalized.
 Sent2: Now, why can't two people, who love each other very much, get married specifically because their partner happens to have the same body parts?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You: You left out that gay marriage is legalized by legislatures.
 Sent2: What you are missing is that if gay people have the right to marry then their marriage must be recognised under equal protection.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They're people with an attraction to children, with a very different attraction than homosexual men who are attracted to other men.
 Sent2: The only thing we are saying is that men who are attracted to other adult men should be allowed to get married, just as men who are attracted to other adult women should be allowed to get married.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 Sent2: What you are missing is that if gay people have the right to marry then their marriage must be recognised under equal protection.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
 Sent2: I'm curious about something from the other side of the fence...to those against same sex marriage, if a man gets a sex change and becomes a woman, should he/she be allowed to marry?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Civil unions would probably bring on the same financial problems that gay marriage would, although I don't agree with JP on all of this.
 Sent2: What I am saying is that if the term "civil union" was utilized unilatterally, meaning for all legal unions gay or straight, I would have no problem with it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Christians should live their own lives the way they want but what they recognise that others with different beliefs also live in society.
 Sent2: I have stated that I believe gays should be allowed to do whatever they want to each other but should not be allowed to 'marry' or encourage anyone else to engage in their own perverted life style.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
 Sent2: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Except blacks were barred from marriage to those that white people could marry, and white people were barred from marriage to those that black people could marry.
 Sent2: Marriage between whites and blacks was indeed prohibited because whites regarded blacks as inferior.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So long as we deny same-sex marriage, we admit to the government that they have the power to deny rights to minorities simply because the majority says so.
 Sent2: And right now, as long as marriage laws deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, they are unconstitutional.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But people make up the society, so you're really arguing that people should think same-sex marriage is wrong because people think same-sex marriage is wrong.
 Sent2: But concerning marriage per se it has always been a matter for society as a whole with it always being held as between people of the opposite sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 Sent2: The majority of americans dont want Gay marriage... Its obvious because not one state that has let the people actually vote on this issue has legallized it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: You know, if you aren't able to grasp the concept of the inconsistency of saying one is against gay marriage when saying they are for gay rights, I don't know what else to say.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't know of any supporters of gay and lesbian equal rights who want to strip anyone of their right to marry or deny anyone their fundamental rights.
 Sent2: Supporters of gay and lesbian equal rights want to make sure everyone has equal, fundamental rights.
Output: Similar
Sent1: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
 Sent2: Laws against gay marriage are more harmful than beneficial as gay marriage will not harm straight people at all, but denying it will harm gay people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex just because same-sex couples have the right to marry legally.
 Sent2: It is my INDIVIDUAL decision to marry someone of the same sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It's not even really a religious confliction that I have with same sex marriage.
 Sent2: If opposite-sex couples have marriage under the law, but same-sex couples do not, my religion is under attack.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In other words, since same-sex couples do not "naturally" have children, they do not need the protections of marriage as opposed to opposite sex couples.
 Sent2: Since same-sex couples are raising children, the children in these families deserve the right to have two parents who are legally married to each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now a gay man may not wish to marry a gay woman (or vice versa) but the government does not inherently prohibit marriage between gay persons.
 Sent2: Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: I think absolutely no reasonable argument can be made suggesting that same-sex marriage might cause any harm, and I think that no reasonable argument can be made which suggests that same-sex marriage will not help people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
 Sent2: As I've said many times already, there are more similarities when it comes to gay marriage, to all other legal marriages.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is the same thing with the same sex marriage because a man and a man or a woman and a woman should never be together.
 Sent2: Gay marriage is wrong the reason is because in every definition of marriage it includes man and woman not man and man or women and women it is women and man.
Output: Similar
Sent1: WMS: Thank you, yes, of course, all adult citizens should be afforded complete access to all rights, protections and benefits allowed and afforded by law, to which is attached to legally recognized marriage.
 Sent2: Those rights and protections are indeed laws but are directed towards individuals within a legal marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A gay person could hit his spouse, a straight person could also do so, or a sibling marriage could have a baby with birth defects.
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If we allow same-sex couples to legally marry, does it in anyway water down any other marriage between opposite-sex couples?
 Sent2: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: We don't necessarily have a right to officially recognized gay marriage, but we have every right to tell the government if we want it or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While the amendment specifically banned gay marriage, it went further than similar bans in many states by prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.
 Sent2: They don't have the right to get involved in anything to do with marriage, yet they passed DOMA to specifically disallow Gay Married couples the same RIGHTS that Hetero couples have.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
 Sent2: Straight people have marriages gay people have domestic partnerships they are practically the same thing why change it there's really no need to.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Possibly, and if so they are satisfied with the present situation regarding gay marriage but I am guessing that many more want society to allow them to marry.
 Sent2: It seems to me that the anti gay crowd refuses to give gay couples the same respect they expect gay people to give them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And if people have a "religious belief" whereby they don't think blacks should vote, or that interracial marriage should occur, should governmental officials who have those "religious beliefs" just be allowed to ignore their duty?
 Sent2: Their religious beliefs tell them that THEY should not be gay, or marry somebody of the same gender.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
 Sent2: Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I call opposing same-sex marriage evil because I believe that it is evil, and I am trying to explain why I disapprove of opposing same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: There are a lot of in this country who believe that same sex marriage is just as oddball as the ones I mentioned
Output: Not similar
Sent1: marriage is simply two people who love each other expressing that love and making a commitment, so why can't a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are in love make a commitment?
 Sent2: Now, why can't two people, who love each other very much, get married specifically because their partner happens to have the same body parts?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 Sent2: You can look at this as single people, married people, and gay couples that can't marry but are not single.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
 Sent2: Allowing straight marriage to provide for U.S. citizenship, while gays have no option (marriage or civil union).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
 Sent2: In the case of same-sex marriage, I have to assume that we are not giving benefits to people based on their religious beliefs regarding what constitutes a marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
 Sent2: Those who support gay marriage have determined that it is a civil right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
 Sent2: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Remember that people who are not straight currently get married just for the benefits, and people who do not love each other currently get married just for the benefits.
 Sent2: If you think the benefits given to married people are innapropriate or unjust, that is a different topic than denying people the right to marry the person they choose.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For starters, prove to me that gay sex is natural with something more substantial than "it exists in nature", and explain in detail that if in fact it is natural, why is it natural.
 Sent2: I mean i'm not saying that homosexuals compare to that in any way, what i'm saying is that yes the natural thing to do is to have sex between a man and a woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage.
 Sent2: When asked if gay marriage should be allowed to exist equally with marriage, but with a different name, gay rights advocates respond that this would separate it from marriage and cause discrimination.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The argument in favor of same-sex marriage is based on religion often as well; whole bunches of people hold religious beliefs which state that marriage is between any two people who are not related by family.
 Sent2: How does the state ensure that gay people can exersize their right to marriage if the only person able to perform the marriage is exempted from perfoming the marriage based upon religious beliefs?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
 Sent2: How does that still justify denying marriage to same-sex couples if the same "privilege" is given to opposite sex couples?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Throughout history, even ion remote times, marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.
 Sent2: And Christian doctrine teaches that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If a State seeks to define marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman, then so be it, provided there be an avenue for civil union.
 Sent2: If same sex "marriage" and not civil unions are allowed, then precedence will have been set for redefining marriage.
Output: Not similar