niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
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: Your argument that no-same-sex-marriage is not discriminatory on the basis that homosexuals can just marry people of the opposite sex could just as easily be used to argue that Jim Crow laws do not discriminate against Black people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
 Sent2: Possibly, but changing marriage to allow such between couples of the same sex is going against the custom and usage of societies throughout the ages.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The opponents of same-sex marriage refuse to allow gay people to be treated as equals.
 Sent2: Allowing gays to marry does not directly influence opponents lives!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One valid study would be a comparison of sexual fidelity between married male hetrosexuals and male homosexuals in legally recognized marriges.
 Sent2: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The government is not in the business of telling us why we marry someone, whether it is out of love or for some other reason.
 Sent2: Gay marriage is fine, but when the government says no there is no reason to rebel against the government.
Output: Not 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: As I've said I completely agree gays should be entitled to the full EQUAL benefits of straight marriages) but I don't see why I would need to get married anyway.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A federal just has struck down as unconstitutional California's ban on same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: Meaning that a federal BAN on gay marriage is unconstitutional; but so is a federal law ALLOWING gay marriage.
Output: 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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 Sent2: However allowing gay marriage will not automatically allow polygamous marriage...it may lend a little more wieght to it via precedent, but then interracial marriage has done the same for gay marriage even though the actual issues are different.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 Sent2: The opponents of same-sex marriage refuse to allow gay people to be treated as equals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 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: Not similar
Sent1: YOU call it "opposing the immoral influence", but the ACTIONS they take are to support the discrimination against gays.
 Sent2: So, you see, businesses will be forced to subsidize these gay marriages whether or not they agree with the practice or they'll get hauled into court by gays screaming "discrimination".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some religions i know to be against gay marriage, but if you analyse it enough, you'll find that gay marriage isn't destroying marriage, divorce is.
 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: The upshot for ��_��__��_��__��_��__pro-family��_��__��_��__ groups is that if heterosexuals keep screwing up marriage, by the time gay people finally win the right nationally, we won��_��__��_��__t want to use it.
 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: BUT I can't see where the line is drawn between the christian right wanting more couples to marry and gay couples marrying.
 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: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 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: If people are going to make a big deal out of two people of the same sex getting married, then people of different religions, people of no religion, even people guilty of adultery shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
 Sent2: The issue of same-sex marriage will determine whether marriage is about family or sexual preference, for we either give it to all families or all people of a specific sexual preference.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think gay rights should be a debate as long as there are people who believe that those who are gay should not have equal rights.
 Sent2: As with same-sex marriage, I believe that many of the arguments used to support gay rights can be used to support incestual marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have said before on other forums that gay marriage is not a threat to Christianity before but that really isnt the reason they dont want gay marriage to be legal.
 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: The Law of the Land, allows in many States for there to be Civil Unions between people and in some instances there is the premise that Law of the Land should accept Marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
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: As far as I know, homosexual people are not barred from marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People keep touting how marriage is a "religious" institution, but what if the government were trying to decide whether or not Christian marriages would have legal recognition?
 Sent2: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
 Sent2: Furthermore, polygamous marriage has a specific set of reasons why it should not be allowed, and those reasons do not apply to same-sex 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: The opponents of same-sex marriage refuse to allow gay people to be treated as equals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
 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: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
 Sent2: gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: if we say that same-sex couples should have the right to marry each other, then any two consenting adults should have the legal right to marry each other.
 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: So maybe instead of being wed you can coalesce, instead of husband and wife you can be a duo or a team and you wouldn't get married you would form an association.
 Sent2: You have the right to marry the person with whom you have chosen to form a lifelong committed partnership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
 Sent2: When a homosexual can be fired from his/her job because they are gay, discriminated against in housing because they are gay, and do not have the same rights marriage affords because they are gay, its a civil rights issue.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
 Sent2: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If the government "redresses" the grievances against gay marriage it will only establish the Christian faith further which is against the constitution.
 Sent2: Marriage outta government insures gays can't marry (unless the church break the Bible) because marriage is really a religious thing.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: Those who feel that same sex marriage should not be allowed are free to get married and divorced as many times as they like.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: What it did say is that ANY union that is not marriage, which obviously includes "gay marriage" from the previous line and also "civil unions", is FORBIDDEN from being recognized by the government.
 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: 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 can think of no reason why we should not extend the same rights that opposite-sex couples have to same-sex couples (and plenty of reasons why we should).
Output: Similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 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: in order for gay marriage to be permissible, the laws will have to be changed.
 Sent2: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
Output: Similar
Sent1: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
 Sent2: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We absolutely must give same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same legal benefits under the law, and the same access to legal institutions under the law, or we are promoting the idea that one is superior to the other.
 Sent2: If we allow same-sex couples to legally marry, does it in anyway water down any other marriage between opposite-sex couples?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 Sent2: Sure the 'traditional' marriage you're talking about has only been between a man and a woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We should not argue that gays should have the 'right' to marry we should argue that the definition of ' marriage' should be changed.
 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: I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
 Sent2: As with same-sex marriage, I believe that many of the arguments used to support gay rights can be used to support incestual marriage.
Output: Not 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: Man-woman marriage is legal and gets state goodies, but man-man and woman-woman marriages are illegal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim thatpsychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as ��_��__��_��__��_��__normal��_��__��_��__ as heterosexuality.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those rights and protections are indeed laws but are directed towards individuals within a legal marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
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: 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: That is saying the minority status of gays ourselves, is a problem that should prevent us from entering marriage.
 Sent2: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
Output: Not 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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: I can further explain that since you cannot prove same-sex couples are inferior, you are not justified in denying them marriage.
Output: 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: 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: Similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 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: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 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: If we look at the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment, we see that they intended the amendment to protect rights broadly and to apply to all persons.
 Sent2: The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of laws as they are, not as we might wish them to be.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you wish to argue for gay rights, realize that other things you may not agree with become a lot more possible.
 Sent2: Also, you said that race is an issue of acceptance of another group, but that it is possible to oppose gay marriage while fully accepting gays.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The courts didn't give people a say in overturning interracial marriage.
 Sent2: A RI couple said that there was nothing forbidding gays from getting married in RI, and the courts agreed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: When a homosexual can be fired from his/her job because they are gay, discriminated against in housing because they are gay, and do not have the same rights marriage affords because they are gay, its a civil rights issue.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Nor does this exclusion rationally further the State's legitimate interest in encouraging heterosexual married couples to procreate.
 Sent2: If the state has a legitimate state interest, then discrimination is justified.
Output: Not 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: 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: 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: A married gay person is unlikely to have sex with others while he/she is married so therefore, the virus would really be kept between the couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the lack of monogamy problem among gay men stems from the fact that homosexuality has always been hand-in-hand with promiscuity.
 Sent2: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 Sent2: If so, then states need at least a rational basis for making certain marriages illegal, and there is no rational basis for making marriage between people of the same sex illegal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think gay rights should be a debate as long as there are people who believe that those who are gay should not have equal rights.
 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: Not 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: 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: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
 Sent2: I think most gay people would never want to get married in a church, we want a civil marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Removing the polygamy bans would work both ways as well, women could marry multiple men.
 Sent2: The bottom line is that all these examples (3 or more in marriage, marriages to underage participants, men and men or woman and woman marriages, etc.) are all examples of removing criteria for what makes marriage unique.
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 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The family unit has been decimated by the high levels of single mothers, single fathers, abusive parents, neglective parents, high rates of divorce, rising rates of infeditelity, and those are just a few examples.
 Sent2: The divorce rate is over 50%, single parent families by choice are on the rise and plenty of messed up people had two parents.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Yes, i agree to that but two people with the same sex can't make babies.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So since I have never heard any one but anti gay people want a vote on marriage in the legislature or any where else I can ony assume that phyllis is anti gay therefore supports oppression and discrimination.
 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: 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: By defining marriage to be only legal if "between one man and one woman" these groups are forcing society by law to believe and teach ONLY WHAT THEIR RELIGIONS BELIEVE and teach about marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We can easily create a word for a legal gay union without destroying or changing the meaning of any other existing word...such as "marriage".
 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: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 Sent2: It seems that the only real argument against gay marriage is because the bible says it is wrong.
Output: 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: I'm not saying that companies should add gay partners to their insurance benefits, but I am saying that people have every right to get upset about it, since the companies survive on their money.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I didn't say marriage was about just reproduction you incoherent person, marriage is just friendship with sex added.
 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: Marriage outta government insures gays can't marry (unless the church break the Bible) because marriage is really a religious thing.
 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: 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.
 Sent2: Some religions i know to be against gay marriage, but if you analyse it enough, you'll find that gay marriage isn't destroying marriage, divorce is.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I can only assume because you don't want to admit that perversion of marriage will rise out of same gender marriage.
 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: Also, promiscuity and unsafe sex are not relevent to a discussion on gay marriage, as those who are promiscuous and unsafe don't want to marry.
 Sent2: A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 Sent2: A civil partnership between two homosexual men or two lesbian women should be called a homosexual civil partnership.
Output: 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: if we say that same-sex couples should have the right to marry each other, then any two consenting adults should have the legal right to marry each other.
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: As we have seen the growth of egalitarian marriages and of women being able to earn higher incomes, we have also seen the coming out of gay couples and the increasing visibility of gay couples raising children.
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: "Gay Marriage" is not any where close to being on par with "heterosexual marriage" where the "general welfare" concerns of the nation have to be addressed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: And the question isn't whether civil rights is being voted on, but whether or not changing the institution of marriage is a civil right to begin with.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 Sent2: All I am asking is that you accept that my marriage is just as valid under my religion as yours is under your religion, and that we are all entitled to the same civil rights.
Output: Similar
Sent1: No one is imposing any moral codes on anyone by allowing same sex couples the right of marriage.
 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: Lots of straight people have anal sex and lots of gay people don't, but I don't hear you calling straights "unnatural".
 Sent2: if being gay was as popular as being straight, being straight would be as "unnatural" as being gay is.
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: 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: what has marrage got to do with love and adult relationships being gay isnt illegal so why not give them a chance to celabrate there love with friends and familys
 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: Marriage as written in a dictionary- the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities.
 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: Not 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: 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: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 Sent2: Although this isn't my primary argument, it can easily be seen that same-sex marriage provides benefits equal to that of opposite-sex marriage and far greater than that of allowing a single individual to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So maybe instead of being wed you can coalesce, instead of husband and wife you can be a duo or a team and you wouldn't get married you would form an association.
 Sent2: Sure the 'traditional' marriage you're talking about has only been between a man and a woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact is, homosexual marriage is anathema to many religious people.
 Sent2: Homosexual marriage is something that religious people disagree with by drawing a false line between right and wrong.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The exact same argument could be used to support traditional marriage.
 Sent2: As with same-sex marriage, I believe that many of the arguments used to support gay rights can be used to support incestual marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if I belong to a faith that allows for same sex marriage, should the constitution have the right to ban it even if the constitution protects my faith in the freedom to practice it?
 Sent2: If opposite-sex couples have marriage under the law, but same-sex couples do not, my religion is under attack.
Output: 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: 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: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 Sent2: 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.
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: Several people here have argued (some without disclosing their reasoning behind their argument) that same-sex marriage is not a right, that such a right has never existed, and and therefore is not being taken away or denied.
Output: Not 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: 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: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
 Sent2: Allowing use will have literally no impact on people who are not gay couples looking to call their union a marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Some folks argue that the laws barring same-sex marriage are not discriminatory because gay people can get married to people of the opposite sex.
 Sent2: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The Law of the Land, allows in many States for there to be Civil Unions between people and in some instances there is the premise that Law of the Land should accept Marriage.
 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: Marriage is already a civil right everyone has--you have it too, because you can marry someone of opposite-gender right now.
 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: 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: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Even though I have no issue with gays or gay marriage, JP is right - unprotected gay sex is less safe than unprotected heterosexual sex, especially in regards to HIV transmission.
 Sent2: Not so long ago gay sex was considered beyond the pale let alone gay marriage so really morals have nothing to do with the gay marriage debate.
Output: Not 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: 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: Many social conservatives argue that benefits are provided to married couples because, in turn, married couples benefit society.
 Sent2: Marriage is really a non-issue since it offers no economic advantages and it doesn`t carry any significant cultural or social benefits either.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I also think that most Americans are truly uninformed when it comes to the issue of 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 already a civil right everyone has--you have it too, because you can marry someone of opposite-gender right now.
 Sent2: Well guess what, if you FORCE Gays to ONLY marry those of the opposite gender it is the equivelence to an arranged 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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: (and I don't know why that would make a real difference) Also, we weren't changing the definition of marriage.
 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: Similar
Sent1: However, a man and a woman are both "persons" under the law and are not treated differently under the law.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: 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: But really the only thing we have to know on the issue of same sex marriage is the Supreme Court believes marriage is a right and right now gay couples do not have that right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: Of course, if we ended government involvement in marriage, gays would have their rights without having a "stamp of approval."
Output: Not 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: 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: If the state wants to offer legal protections and benefits to straight married couples, it cannot constitutionally refuse equal protections to gay ones.
 Sent2: The homosexual agenda's justification for demanding marriage has always been for the equal benefits which marriage affords couples who marry.
Output: Similar
Sent1: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
 Sent2: It is my sincere feeling that short of redifineing marriage that all gays should have the same benefits afforded married straight couples........
Output: Not 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: What about gays who adopt should they only be allowed to get married because they adopted a child?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, the number of people who engage in sex with people of the same gender of themselves is much higher than the number of people who have sex with animals, children, and those who kill people or are kleptomaniacs.
 Sent2: Yet gay pride organizations and activists are trying to portray this small percentage of people who happen to engage in the perversion of sex with people of their own gender the same as an ethnic group.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: The burden of proof is not necessarily on you to show why homosexuality is harmful but to show why denying same-sex marriage is helpful.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A variety of research has also been done on the issue of comparing parenting of gay parents to straight parents, and gays are proven to be just as good parents as straights.
 Sent2: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I pointed out to you that the same argument could be made against interracial marriage - so what if we'd force people to allow the government to grant benefits to a new group?
 Sent2: Are you saying that gay people who pay into the same systems, shouldn't also benefit?
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: When people turn down government benefits because they do not meet the criteria, those people are always and every time being discriminated against, and those people are always and every time denied rights.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
 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: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and 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: 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 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.
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: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
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: There is a very big difference between someone who is attracted to and falls in love with someone of the same sex and someone who is attracted to children of the same sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: In the case of same-sex marriage, I can think of no reason why we should not extend the same rights that opposite-sex couples have to same-sex couples (and plenty of reasons why we should).
Output: Similar
Sent1: In fact, public poll after public poll shows a MAJORITY of Americans do not want the FEDERAL constitution to forbid gay marriage.
 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: Similar
Sent1: If the state wants to offer legal protections and benefits to straight married couples, it cannot constitutionally refuse equal protections to gay ones.
 Sent2: Allowing straight marriage to provide for U.S. citizenship, while gays have no option (marriage or civil union).
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you listen to people talking about the benefits of marriage upon society (Note, DIFFERENT from the benefits the government gives married couples)...
 Sent2: Many social conservatives argue that benefits are provided to married couples because, in turn, married couples benefit society.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 Sent2: It is my sincere feeling that short of redifineing marriage that all gays should have the same benefits afforded married straight couples........
Output: Similar
Sent1: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
 Sent2: Same sex marriage can cause a perfect union of two people the same as M/F and can make a mockery or marriage just as many M/F unions currently do.
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: All we have to do is eliminate the laws that discriminate against gay people.
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: Now, my question is if you believe that same sex marriage is wrong, then do you think pedophiles and convicted rapist should still have the right to marry?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This is not going to change as same-sex marriage becomes legal in more places.
 Sent2: But when it comes to the other side of the coin, Gay marriage directly affects a couples ability to have their love and commitment viewed under the law and in society the same way heterosexual marriages are viewed and protected.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Same-sex marriage does not encourage people do move into the pedophile group; that group still has no sexual or marriage rights under the law.
 Sent2: People can live in a common law union but I disagree with same sex marriage because traditionally marriage is a union between heterosexual couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
 Sent2: But not allowing gay marriage hurts all homosexual couples to a greater extent than the prior.
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 people of several states determined that gay marriage is not a right in their constitution.
Output: Similar
Sent1: A second key D.O.M.A. component prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if recognized by one of the states.
 Sent2: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
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: 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.
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: Therefore as I said using traditional marriage as an argument against same-sex marriage is just like using traditional marriage as an argument against interracial marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: theres a difference to people who arent used to vast differences, especially in something like marriage, but its equal and the same to people who have been exposed to diversity within society.
 Sent2: If people are going to make a big deal out of two people of the same sex getting married, then people of different religions, people of no religion, even people guilty of adultery shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 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