niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
 Sent2: Lesbians and gays can be joined in a legal ceremony, recognized by church and state, but it doesn't have to be called a "marriage".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 Sent2: By reducing marriage to only a legal agreement, you've not only denigrated the marriages of many people, but many gay people as well who claim to have a marriage even though they don't have a license.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 Sent2: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And some people, who happen to dislike gay people, should not be allowed to use the state to aim discriminatory laws against gay people.
 Sent2: All we have to do is eliminate the laws that discriminate against gay people.
Output: 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 for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yes you are because you believe it is a sin and want to stop two men from getting married doesn't mean everyone believes it is a sin.
 Sent2: To claim that homosexuals have equal rights is to decieve yourself; marriage has a set of restrictions that precisely say, "If you want to be married, you've got to stop being homosexual."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 Sent2: Also, the acceptance of gays would decrease the number of children born from gay parents in denial, thus also decreasing the population and therefore the amount of food consumed so that the children of heterosexual parents could be better fed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think people should be allowed to live their lives to where they can fully enjoy it.
 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: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since heterosexuals are provided the means to have a happy marriage and homosexuals are not, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.
 Sent2: Because it doesn't work as well, the argument that gays and straights have equal opportunity for marriage is fallacious because it assumes that opposite-sex marriage works equally for everyone.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Homosexual marriage is something that religious people disagree with by drawing a false line between right and wrong.
 Sent2: If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And of course the unspoken result of gay marriage will be the demand that all forms of perversions of traditional marriages must now be allowed because the precedent has been set with same sex marriages.
 Sent2: If same sex "marriage" and not civil unions are allowed, then precedence will have been set for redefining marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: But this is not the same reason why some people have argued against legalizing same-sex marriage, where biological effects on the offspring of the couple are not an issue.
 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: the issue of gay marriage should not amount to a gag-rule.
 Sent2: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 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: I think we have no choice but to challenge people's myths and stereotypes and assumptions about us gay people.
 Sent2: I do not think that gay people should be discriminated against, but I do feel that people should not be forced to accept a group of people whose beliefs they do not agree with.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: what may lead to incestuous marriage is if siblings or related people who love each other and want to live together under the legal union of marriage.
 Sent2: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: then why does the state allow couples who can't have children to get married or couples in their 70's and 80's to get married but won't let gay people get married?
 Sent2: Answer me this then why does society allow couples who can't have children to get married or couples in their 70's and 80's to get married but won't let gay people get married?
Output: 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: 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: Similar
Sent1: The reason that we "Mormons" opposed gay marriage so vocally is that giving gays the right to marry is that it endangers the traditional family.
 Sent2: If gays marry no one gets hurt and gay families win.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 Sent2: Marriage is just a legal procedure which allows the authorities to keep track of relationships.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: what may lead to incestuous marriage is if siblings or related people who love each other and want to live together under the legal union of marriage.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
 Sent2: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: Marriage is a civil right, and gays can get married, but you don't know if gay marriage is a civil right?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But if a law discriminates against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, then the law should stand unless it is applied differently to gay people than to heterosexuals.
 Sent2: And some people, who happen to dislike gay people, should not be allowed to use the state to aim discriminatory laws against gay people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 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: Similar
Sent1: Let me re-explain myself: If we legalize same-sex marriage, everyone will have an equal right to bestow their marriage benefits on one other person that they fall in love with.
 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: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: Gay marriage should be legal, because by now we should have equal rights, and that's what this is about.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Also, the state legislature could pass a law which applies to both marriage and civil unions, but the governor could line-item-veto the benefits to civil unions.
 Sent2: The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (with age of consent) to join in a civil union.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And due to the fact that all people must be treated equally under the law because heterosexuals can get married then so must homosexuals be allowed to get married.
 Sent2: But in this case, if you allow HETEROSEXUALS to have marriages, then preventing HOMOSEXUALS from having marriages IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: If you don't like the fact that gays want to have the same marriage rights and benefits as heteros, move to a middle-eastern country - you'd fit right in there if your latest posts say anything about you.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
 Sent2: If the state wants to offer legal protections and benefits to straight married couples, it cannot constitutionally refuse equal protections to gay ones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: There are a lot of in this country who believe that same sex marriage is just as oddball as the ones I mentioned
 Sent2: I do not want to make special laws just for myself; I believe that the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones who seek to do that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 Sent2: Gay people aren't going to accept "separate but equal" civil unions, and heterosexual people aren't going to want to allow gay people to have civil marriages.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: FFC basically says that one state must recognize the marriages of other states and DOMA basically says "states don't have to recognize gay marriages of other states".
 Sent2: Lesbians and gays can be joined in a legal ceremony, recognized by church and state, but it doesn't have to be called a "marriage".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 Sent2: What about gays who adopt should they only be allowed to get married because they adopted a child?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And the only one who somehow thinks that fighting for gay marriage is the only means to qualify as fighting for civil rights?
 Sent2: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
Output: Similar
Sent1: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
 Sent2: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The conservatives would argue that by offering same sex marriage that their persute of happiness is denied by gay people even existing and that they have to look at us.
 Sent2: 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?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 Sent2: Currently if you are a man and woman you are special because as a couple you can do something a gay couple can not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
 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: 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: So I must ask you why exactly are you against same sex marriage when it has been shown that the ban on same sex marriage is just like the ban on interracial couples getting married?
Output: Similar
Sent1: If it is, as proponents suggest, discrimination to deny same-sex couples the privilege of marriage, then it is also discrimination to deny the privilege to anyone else who wants to get married.
 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: I am a conservative, and I don't understand how people who consider themselves to be conservative can also be against gay marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And the only one who somehow thinks that fighting for gay marriage is the only means to qualify as fighting for civil rights?
 Sent2: I think the reason there has been resistance to redefine marriage is that people really know that this is not a civil rights issue, despite attempts by the gay lobby to paint it that way.
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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay people and those who support equal rights are trying to ensure that people will not use the laws to squash the personal liberties and equal rights of gay people.
 Sent2: And some people, who happen to dislike gay people, should not be allowed to use the state to aim discriminatory laws against gay people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Unlike same sex couples, children do not have the ability to establish their rights any other way.
 Sent2: By the way allowing same sex marriage does'nt automatically mean their going to have or adopt children, also Lesbians can still have children wether they are married or not
Output: Not similar
Sent1: As with same-sex marriage, I believe that many of the arguments used to support gay rights can be used to support incestual marriage.
 Sent2: I should make my case using same-sex marriage, for preventing the government from using sex or sexual orientation as a means for denying marriage will not violate anyone else's rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A point I have made in the past is that the same legal arguments folks are advancing in the courts to have same-sex marriage recognized could quite possibly also apply to people who would seek to have polygamous marriages recognized.
 Sent2: I do not want to make special laws just for myself; I believe that the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones who seek to do that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You throw out this absurd claim that allowing gay marriage will allow other changes, but people reply back and show that there ARE LEGITIMATE STATE INTERESTS for preventing the other desired forms.
 Sent2: Unless you change the legal definition of marriage, you can't allow two men to get married to each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gays marry no one gets hurt and gay families win.
 Sent2: But not allowing gay marriage hurts all homosexual couples to a greater extent than the prior.
Output: Similar
Sent1: There are a lot of in this country who believe that same sex marriage is just as oddball as the ones I mentioned
 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: Not similar
Sent1: We are asking that this restriction be removed so that the right to marriage is allowed to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Removing the polygamy bans would work both ways as well, women could marry multiple men.
 Sent2: Man-woman marriage is legal and gets state goodies, but man-man and woman-woman marriages are illegal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: It's human rights man, people have the right to do what they want, if they want to marry a gay then let them be.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Though I didn't vote, I do financially support ACLJ against gay marriage simply because a union between same sex couples can easily have their rights established through adoption, wills, or power of attorneys.
 Sent2: Show me, specifically, how same-sex marriage, accepted and legalized or not, has any affect on those who want to marry themselves and their rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with gay marriage, I do have a problem with the invasion of people's rights to believe that gay union is wrong.
 Sent2: I think the reason there has been resistance to redefine marriage is that people really know that this is not a civil rights issue, despite attempts by the gay lobby to paint it that way.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But let us not forget the more fundamental point that same-sex marriage does not encourage promiscuity; it does just the opposite.
 Sent2: And unlike discouraging smoking, if we discourage same-sex marriage, we are only encouraging promiscuity and irresponsible sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
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: 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: Currently if you are a man and woman you are special because as a couple you can do something a gay couple can not.
 Sent2: Sure the 'traditional' marriage you're talking about has only been between a man and a woman.
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: The idea that we should disallow same-sex marriage simply because it is a norm in society implies that we do not have a reason to deny same-sex marriage except for the norms of the society.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think you're getting off course here and playing semantic games--the point I was making was that people haven't said THEIR marriages will be affected by gay marriage, at least from what I've seen.
 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: The governemnt should only be allows to give extra rights to common law marriages, whether sanctified in a church or a temple, between a man or a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
 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: Well, if that's a reason to ban homosexuals from marriage, then along the same line of thought, then any couple that is infertile or chooses not to have children should not be permitted to get married.
 Sent2: But this is not the same reason why some people have argued against legalizing same-sex marriage, where biological effects on the offspring of the couple are not an issue.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 Sent2: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 Sent2: People want the government to say, "You are gay, so you don't deserve equal rights."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
 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: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I say it applies to everyone and if the law said "if you are gay you can't marry" then I'd say that denied equal protection.
 Sent2: The 14th ammendment say that everyone should have equal protection under the law, If marriage is a staight thing, then everyone isn't getting equal protection.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If we were then it would be a reasonable argument, but one of our amendments gives us Freedom of Religion, therefore those who are gay may not even acknowledge a religion.
 Sent2: Gays are NOT asking for religious concecration/blessing or whatever of gay marriage, we are asking for our CIVIL RIGHT to be LEGALLY recognized as MARRIED by our COURTS of our SECULAR GOVERNMENT!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
 Sent2: If gay marriage is or is not legalized, it has no affect on laws against polygamy.
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 did suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples would still be discriminated against, even if we allowed same-sex couples to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While they should have allowed gays to get married, it is progress, but they will eventually find out that seperate but equal will not work.
 Sent2: What about gays who adopt should they only be allowed to get married because they adopted a child?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: We are doing it because doing otherwise would devalue the institution in many people's eyes, much the same way as calling a gay marriage a civil union would devalue gay marriages in many people's eyes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: Same-sex couples should have the equal right to marry legally because it benefits society to support stable families, and it especially benefits children to live in stable families with two married parents.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
 Sent2: Marriage is about the people getting married, strangers not approving in a marriage should not even be a factor to be considered.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
 Sent2: Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Output: Similar
Sent1: That way we can keep the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and gays can still have a "union" with other gays.
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
 Sent2: When someone says "gays can't get married" that's really not accurate.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's weird indeed that all states except one allow single gay people to adopt children, but many do not allow gay couples to be adoptive parents together.
 Sent2: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
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: Gay people sometimes do get married to opposite-sex spouses, often because they are struggling with their sexual orientation and are trying, through marriage, to make themselves heterosexual.
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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: FFC basically says that one state must recognize the marriages of other states and DOMA basically says "states don't have to recognize gay marriages of other states".
 Sent2: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
Output: Not 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: I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 Sent2: Gay marriage is fine, but when the government says no there is no reason to rebel against the government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Often the argument given in favor of gay marriage is that they want the right to marry the person they love.
 Sent2: It's human rights man, people have the right to do what they want, if they want to marry a gay then let them be.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
 Sent2: Marriage is and always has been a state issue and the federal government did not have the power to intervene on states issues.
Output: 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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Well, if that's a reason to ban homosexuals from marriage, then along the same line of thought, then any couple that is infertile or chooses not to have children should not be permitted to get married.
 Sent2: Even if it was certain that allowing same-sex marriage would allow these forms of marriage, that would only be a downside of legalizing same-sex marriage, it wouldn't be a reason that same-sex marriage itself is wrong.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The people of several states determined that gay marriage is not a right in their constitution.
 Sent2: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
Output: 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: 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: It's weird indeed that all states except one allow single gay people to adopt children, but many do not allow gay couples to be adoptive parents together.
 Sent2: then why does the state allow couples who can't have children to get married or couples in their 70's and 80's to get married but won't let gay people get married?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While many believe that passing laws and constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage is an act that shows how they are honoring what their religions defines as marriage.
 Sent2: Without legal gay marriage, gay partners don't have to worry about common law statutes being used against them by their partner.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In the case of same-sex marriage, homosexuals are completely denied equality, for they are not even allowed the same marriage benefits that others recieve without changing their sexuality.
 Sent2: Let me re-explain myself: If we legalize same-sex marriage, everyone will have an equal right to bestow their marriage benefits on one other person that they fall in love with.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So you are right that a state law legalizing same-sex marriage does not give people the right to marry someone of foreign nationality of the same sex in order to give them U.S. citizenship.
 Sent2: How would you like it if same sex marriage was normal and you weren't allowed to marry the opposite gender even though you truly love them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A point I have made in the past is that the same legal arguments folks are advancing in the courts to have same-sex marriage recognized could quite possibly also apply to people who would seek to have polygamous marriages recognized.
 Sent2: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: Without legal gay marriage, gay partners don't have to worry about common law statutes being used against them by their partner.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Many of those who oppose same sex marriage have forgotten that gay people still get married in their hearts and that not having a piece of paper will not stop people from feeling like they are married.
 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: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Any one who has voted yes to place these amendments into state constitutions because they have a religious belief that excludes gay people from marriage has also imposed those religious beliefs upon gay people.
 Sent2: The fact is, homosexual marriage is anathema to many religious people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It's human rights man, people have the right to do what they want, if they want to marry a gay then let them be.
 Sent2: Gay people should be allowed to get married if they want to this is the 21st Century there is no reason why they should not be allowed the same rights as everyone else
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you don't like the fact that gays want to have the same marriage rights and benefits as heteros, move to a middle-eastern country - you'd fit right in there if your latest posts say anything about you.
 Sent2: To claim that homosexuals have equal rights is to decieve yourself; marriage has a set of restrictions that precisely say, "If you want to be married, you've got to stop being homosexual."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 Sent2: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think we who support same-sex marriage are very clear that we are fighting for freedom and equality of same-sex marriage, for all the non-heterosexual couples.
 Sent2: Well then I guess you're right... I guess it should be okay for gays to get married but I don't think they should have the same natural rights as a heterosexual couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now outside of this country things are very different I know, but I still don't think gay marriage is going to significantly impact this.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It could be called gay marriage or civil unions as long as they have the same equal rights as a married heterosexual couple.
 Sent2: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay people should be allowed to get married if they want to this is the 21st Century there is no reason why they should not be allowed the same rights as everyone else
 Sent2: People can deny rights to same-sex couples, claiming that same-sex marriage is a threat to society all they want, but if they don't have any evidence to back that up, then they are still morally evil.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The conservatives would argue that by offering same sex marriage that their persute of happiness is denied by gay people even existing and that they have to look at us.
 Sent2: We should not argue that gays should have the 'right' to marry we should argue that the definition of ' marriage' should be changed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriages are for the Church to decide, Congress have no power to pass a legislation forcing religious institutions about marriage.
 Sent2: Also, marriage is not just a religious institution (especially to those who choose to marry, who are not religious), and the common law requires no particular ceremony to validate the celebration of marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 Sent2: Well, I disagree that it discriminates against unmarried heterosexual couples; those couples still have the choice to get married to recieve the benefits of marriage or stay unmarried.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think they are now advocating everyone to be allowed to get all marriage benefits even if they have no desire to be married because they are concerned about being inclusive to all.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
 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: Gay activists argue that government needs to grant same-sex marriage rights to homosexuals so they will have visitation rights.
 Sent2: What they want legalized is something that the government calls marriage and conveys with it the same rights and responsibilities that are conveyed upon what the government calls marriage between people of opposite sexes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 Sent2: If you don't like the fact that gays want to have the same marriage rights and benefits as heteros, move to a middle-eastern country - you'd fit right in there if your latest posts say anything about you.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
 Sent2: Marrying someone of the same sex is forbidden whether you are gay and straight, and marriage of the opposite sex is legal whether you are gay and straight.
Output: Similar
Sent1: My analogies always compare denying same-sex marriage to something bad, because I think denying same-sex marriage is very bad.
 Sent2: Denying the right to marry and deciding what is not recognized as marriage are the same thing, just phrased in different language so I think my explanation still stands.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This is not going to change as same-sex marriage becomes legal in more places.
 Sent2: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since it has been framed as an issue of prejudice, and since progressive ideals against prejudice are among the most universally appealing, people are more likely to accept the position for gay marriage without questioning it as much.
 Sent2: Since it has been framed as an issue of prejudice, and since progressive ideals against prejudice are among the most universally appealing, people are more likely to accept the position for gay marriage without questioning it as much.��_��__��_��__
Output: Similar
Sent1: The question is whether or not gay marriage is 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: There might be some unforseen harm in same-sex marriage, but if that harm cannot be listed or spoken of, then we have no right banning same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: We have been considering whether same-sex marriage does harm to people, and it's quite clear that it does not.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: I say the government has no place supporting secular humanists over people of faith, just so that illicit gay marriage can pass muster.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: It doesn't mean that state has to recoginze your marriage if you move in though.
Output: Not similar
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: Due to the fact that legal marriages between heterosexual couples are granted federal recognition, benefits and interstate transportability which would be denied to Civil Unions if left up to individual states.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 Sent2: How people feel about polygamy has no relevance on same sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Anything granted is not a right, things that are granted are priviledges.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you don't like the fact that gays want to have the same marriage rights and benefits as heteros, move to a middle-eastern country - you'd fit right in there if your latest posts say anything about you.
 Sent2: Are you saying that gay people who pay into the same systems, shouldn't also benefit?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You did suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples would still be discriminated against, even if we allowed same-sex couples to marry.
 Sent2: If we broaden the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, wouldn't heterosexual unmarried couples still be discriminated against?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Unlike same sex couples, children do not have the ability to establish their rights any other way.
 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: While I don't have a problem with gay marriage personally, I do support the power of the voters.
 Sent2: Though I didn't vote, I do financially support ACLJ against gay marriage simply because a union between same sex couples can easily have their rights established through adoption, wills, or power of attorneys.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: a man and a women getting together to be friends, lovers and helpers to each other.
 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: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
 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: Before you state that same-sex couples cannot have children, understand that such a claim is a myth propogated by people whose religious values do not permit having sex outside a marriage or using a surrogate parent.
 Sent2: Ok so if you dont have to have the ability to have children to get married then why are you using that as an argument against same sex marriage?
Output: Similar
Sent1: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous 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: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 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: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 Sent2: To legalize same-sex marriage is a move to strengthen families, not to weaken them.
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: In fact, public poll after public poll shows a MAJORITY of Americans do not want the FEDERAL constitution to forbid gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriages are public acts bestowed with all the state rights.
 Sent2: Um, no ... there would still be no federal rights bestowed upon gay couples, not to mention prtability if a spouse was to migrate with his or her partner to another country.
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: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: The opponents of same-sex marriage refuse to allow gay people to be treated as equals.
Output: 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: Considering that same-sex couples very often have children, it is just as important to make them financially secure and able to raise those children as it is to do so with opposite-sex couples.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Our country was made on the basis of freedom to be who you want to be and worship what you want to worship.
 Sent2: But because our nation strives toward equality and religious freedom, if you do not feel that marriage is for everyone, then you need to keep it out of the laws, because putting it into law hurts people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since you are heterosexual and have rallied against gay rights/gay marriage you have done this and are therefore imposing your religion on others.
 Sent2: But you *don't* have the right to use your beliefs as a reason to deny civil rights to homosexuals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 Sent2: Yes, i agree to that but two people with the same sex can't make babies.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
 Sent2: It is NONSENSICAL to challenge the constitutionality (with Constitution B) of an anti-gay marriage AMENDMENT by arguing gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right without acknowledging that the constitution HAS CHANGED to say it isn't a right.
Output: Similar