niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: You read the article over 1000 rights under Federal status are for married people... And even WITH Gay marriage legal in some states under DOMA, the Federal Government does not recognize them as legitimate!
 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: 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: But saying they should have marriage is taking a sacred religious bond and making it simply a union between two people who want to have sex.
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: Banning gay marriage is not against the constitution and how is banning it "enforcing religion" besides your a Christian aren't you?
Output: Similar
Sent1: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 Sent2: Supporters of same-sex marriage see the problem and want to directly fix that problem, they don't want to change all of marriage, only the one thing that is wrong with it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The homosexual agenda's justification for demanding marriage has always been for the equal benefits which marriage affords couples who marry.
 Sent2: 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: 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: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
 Sent2: Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If two men or two women are happy together, love each other, and want to be with each other forever why shouldn't they be allowed to get married??
 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: Similar
Sent1: Gay people aren't prevented from marrying each other, they just don't get the benefits that are given for it.
 Sent2: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: We are not longer primitive, so we should allow any couple to marry, as we already allow with straight couples who do not have children.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While I don't have a problem with gay marriage personally, I do support the power of the voters.
 Sent2: I am personally opposed to same sex marriage for religious reasons, but I support freedom of religion so I will vote to make it legal because people have the right to choose.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People want the government to say, "You are gay, so you don't deserve equal rights."
 Sent2: Are you saying that gay people who pay into the same systems, shouldn't also benefit?
Output: Similar
Sent1: You don't see terrorists targetting other countries that legalized same-sex marriage, after all.
 Sent2: And we do not have police looking into people's bedrooms to make sure they are having what you consider "natural sex" with each other in order to be considered really married.
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: 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".
Output: Similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 Sent2: The question is whether gay marriage should be allowed for the gays to benefit from exactly the reasons you claim you have no problem with(insurance and inheritance).
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: If you think the benefits given to married people are innapropriate or unjust, that is a different topic than denying people the right to marry the person they choose.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 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: Similar
Sent1: People talk about rights and that it's their right to be married if they so choose.
 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: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: And the only one who somehow thinks that fighting for gay marriage is the only means to qualify as fighting for civil rights?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: How does the state ensure that gay people can exersize their right to marriage if the only person able to perform the marriage is exempted from perfoming the marriage based upon religious beliefs?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Gay activists argue that government needs to grant same-sex marriage rights to homosexuals so they will have visitation rights.
 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: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
 Sent2: Having the government recognize gay marriage over the will of the people influences people's children into thinking gay marriage is acceptable.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I rather give gays their rights than to live in a country that says it's equal, yet won't allow two lesbians to have the same marital status as a man and a woman.
 Sent2: This fight is about equal rights for gay people; I believe that equality is all that is needed for acceptance, and it sounds to me that you believe the same.
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: 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: I am not married and if I were I would make no promises nor demands of you except to respect your rights and respect my 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: Not similar
Sent1: You are in effect saying that no post-menopausal women like me should have the right to marry anyone.
 Sent2: I didn't say marriage was about just reproduction you incoherent person, marriage is just friendship with sex added.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
 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: 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 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: 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: 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: If we allow same-sex couples to legally marry, does it in anyway water down any other marriage between 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: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
 Sent2: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Lambda Legal brought the case under the state Constitution, saying gay New Yorkers weren��_��__��_��__t being treated equally under the law because they couldn��_��__��_��__t marry
 Sent2: Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in March 2004 seeking marriage licenses for same-sex couples in New York, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the state Constitution��_��__��_��__s guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Marriage in fact may be a right,... But as Foundit reluctantly acknowledged earlier,... the government has the right to draw the line 'somewhere' between what it will and what it will not recognize.
 Sent2: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
Output: Similar
Sent1: Unlike same sex couples, children do not have the ability to establish their rights any other way.
 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: 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: 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: Those people who are fighting against the rights of gays to marry do not want to see same-sex couples receive any rights or recognitions of their relationships.
 Sent2: 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: I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
 Sent2: I believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
 Sent2: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
Output: Not 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: So long as we deny same-sex marriage, we admit to the government that they have the power to deny rights to minorities simply because the majority says so.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is usually just as religiously important to same-sex couples to be married as it is for opposite-sex couples, and no one should be able to tell those people that the government cannot recognize their relationship.
 Sent2: 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.
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 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: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 Sent2: I didn't say marriage was about just reproduction you incoherent person, marriage is just friendship with sex added.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay couples are allowed to marry then any combination of marriage should be allowed as long as it involves consenting adults.
 Sent2: 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: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
 Sent2: If gay marriage is or is not legalized, it has no affect on laws against polygamy.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: Gay couples have marriage certificates, they have wedding ceremonies, they get married in churches.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the concept of 'harm' is to decide whether or not gay people should be allowed to redefine the institution of marriage, then gay rights groups have little to stand on.
 Sent2: Gay marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If heterosexuals want marriage to be limited to one type of union they should be working to put marriage back in the church's hands and fighting for civil unions for all Americans not just gay Americans.
 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: And if people have a "religious belief" whereby they don't think blacks should vote, or that interracial marriage should occur, should governmental officials who have those "religious beliefs" just be allowed to ignore their duty?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
 Sent2: While the amendment specifically banned gay marriage, it went further than similar bans in many states by prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
 Sent2: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
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: 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: 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: Honestly I think that there is no difference in love if people are of different sex or no, the feelings and the affection are important.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It seems to me that the anti gay crowd refuses to give gay couples the same respect they expect gay people to give them.
 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 rather give gays their rights than to live in a country that says it's equal, yet won't allow two lesbians to have the same marital status as a man and a woman.
 Sent2: Like I said before, it doesn't matter if the law explicitly states either "homosexuals cannot marry" or "homosexual marriages are not permitted", the end result is the same: discrimination.
Output: 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: Unless you change the legal definition of marriage, you can't allow two men to get married to each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
 Sent2: If same sex "marriage" and not civil unions are allowed, then precedence will have been set for redefining marriage.
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: 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: 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: The more you put same sex couples on the "outs" the more you do damage to ALL couples and families.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
 Sent2: The majority of americans dont want Gay marriage... Its obvious because not one state that has let the people actually vote on this issue has legallized it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I personally believe people are born with a predisposition toward homosexuality which can either be cultivated or repressed, but everyone has the ability to make decisions in their life.
 Sent2: Personally I am indifferent towards gay people, they should have the same rights as everyone else, because I don't think a what a person does in the bedroom should have any bearing on their public lives.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people who don't voice an opinion in favor of gay civil unions are enabling the discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual couples to continue.
 Sent2: Now, I am uncertain why gay people should not be allowed to have civil marriage and in fact many people (perhaps most) support civil unions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is usually just as religiously important to same-sex couples to be married as it is for opposite-sex couples, and no one should be able to tell those people that the government cannot recognize their relationship.
 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: that marriage itself is optional, not the norm ��_��__��_��__��_��__ that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren��_��__��_��__t heroic, we must not be called to marry.
 Sent2: As Stanley Kurtz convincingly argues, however, the slippery slope following gay marriage will lead to polyamory rather than traditional polygamy, because ��_��__��_��__��_��__what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality:��_��__��_��__
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I feel like you are keeping gay marriage and gay rights separate in your mind, and I think that that is a very wrong assumption.
 Sent2: Also do I get to stop you from getting married because I don't feel people with your hair color should be allowed to get married?
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: 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: Either all people should be allowed to marry the person of their choice or no one should be allowed to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
 Sent2: You can't justify gay sex or illicit heterosexual sin.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
 Sent2: I argue with personal conviction, because I believe that our society as a whole will be better when same-sex couples have equal marriage rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: The more you put same sex couples on the "outs" the more you do damage to ALL couples and families.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
 Sent2: 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.
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: It wasn't seeking to redefine what marriage is, it was about applying marriage (as it already was--between a man and a woman) to inter-racial couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: Because consenting adults should have the authority to marry and be entitled to the same benefits as all heterosexual couples who perform a ceremony showing their commitment as life partners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: #NAME?
 Sent2: The comparison of gay marriage to voting is tenuous when one realizes that voting has been a constitutional gurantee specifically stated from early on.
Output: 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: 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: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
 Sent2: Straight people have marriages gay people have domestic partnerships they are practically the same thing why change it there's really no need to.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
 Sent2: However, the issue of rights is not the same as it was with race because homosexuals are not barred from marriage with anyone heterosexuals could not also marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't see terrorists targetting other countries that legalized same-sex marriage, after all.
 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: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
 Sent2: Remember that gay marriage is not further down the line than straight marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Lets look at the polygamy claim, since no one else can marry more than one person no one is being discriminated against.
 Sent2: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: if homosexual couples pass the existing legal definition of marriage, why not ?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 Sent2: Why shouldn't they be given the right to marry, people with disorders that will prevent them having children can marry, people with disorders that would seriously harm any child they have can marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The more you put same sex couples on the "outs" the more you do damage to ALL couples and families.
 Sent2: Does allowing same-sex couples to marry and have the same civil rights and governmental benefits that you currently enjoy impact the legality of your marriage?
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 fact is, homosexual marriage is anathema to many religious people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia argued that their law prohibiting inter-racial marriages did provide equal protection, because it treated everyone equally in denying people the right to marry someone of a different race.
 Sent2: That violates the principle of equal protection before the law, because some married couples are getting state goodies on the basis of their being opposite genders.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 Sent2: I do not disagree with homosexual couples being afforded the same tax breaks and employer benefits afforded to married homosexual couples pending a legal contract.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: 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: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 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: However, a man and a woman are both "persons" under the law and are not treated differently under the law.
 Sent2: But it does not matter whether there are fundamental differences; we should not give each religion a different set of rights under the law, and we should not give men and women a different set of rights under the law.
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: Those who support gay marriage have determined that it is a civil right.
Output: Not 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: 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.
Output: 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: 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: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 Sent2: Gay couples have marriage certificates, they have wedding ceremonies, they get married in churches.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yet we've shown that we can have opposite-sex marriage without having everything else, haven't we?
 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: And by the way I know a lot of folks who have no issues with gays, gay couples, gay parents, etc. that oppose gay marriage.
 Sent2: As far as I know, homosexual people are not barred from 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: Throughout history, even ion remote times, marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.
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: 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: By denying homosexuals the right to marry you are creating a second class of people; you are discriminating against them by saying that they are not worthy of long-term, legally recognised relationships, yet heterosexuals are.
 Sent2: If you think the benefits given to married people are innapropriate or unjust, that is a different topic than denying people the right to marry the person they choose.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
 Sent2: If the situation were inverted and heterosexuals were not allowed to marry and gays only were able to would you consider it equal treatment for herteosexuals?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage.
 Sent2: 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: 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: 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: The difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage(besides the fact that animals were meant to be paired heterosexually) is that GAY COUPLES CANNOT PROCREATE" at one point.
 Sent2: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage.
 Sent2: Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I didn't say marriage was about just reproduction you incoherent person, marriage is just friendship with sex added.
 Sent2: I've read many responses claiming that marriage is not about sex or making babies,... so on what basis (if any) would you deny two brothers or two sisters the "right" to marry each other?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: Also do I get to stop you from getting married because I don't feel people with your hair color should be allowed to get married?
Output: Not 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: People want the government to say, "You are gay, so you don't deserve equal rights."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: 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 fact is, homosexual marriage is anathema to many religious people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
 Sent2: You stated that changing same-sex marriage infringes upon people's rights because it devalues their marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
 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: 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.
 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: 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: 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: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
 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: If there are cases where we can not determine what sex a person is, how can we determine if they are homosexual or not?
 Sent2: Same-sex couples do not have that choice currently, and all we are talking about is giving them that choice.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 Sent2: And as I pointed out, "most people who oppose gay marriage" are actually opposing gay marriage because they very much oppose gays in general.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay activists argue that government needs to grant same-sex marriage rights to homosexuals so they will have visitation rights.
 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: 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: If the situation were inverted and heterosexuals were not allowed to marry and gays only were able to would you consider it equal treatment for herteosexuals?
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: 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: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
 Sent2: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 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: As long as the M word and CU words aren't used same sex couples can have all the benefits.
 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: Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: I believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
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: Now, I am uncertain why gay people should not be allowed to have civil marriage and in fact many people (perhaps most) support civil unions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I 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 believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Back to the issue (if you can), there are no significant differences between the arguement for gay marriage recognition, and say, co-habitation recognition, or polygamy marriage recognition.
 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: 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 concerning marriage per se it has always been a matter for society as a whole with it always being held as between people of the opposite sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Churches and other religious bodies are free to espouse what they choose, and people are free to believe as they choose about same-sex relations and marriage, and they are free to believe that such relations are sinful.
 Sent2: Let them marry and have the same government benefits, but let the church decide who its priests are.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You do not have a civil right to be gay... it is not a fundamental liberty our US Constitution charges a value for.
 Sent2: Lastly gay isn't a civil right, you don't have a right to be gay.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If there are cases where we can not determine what sex a person is, how can we determine if they are homosexual or not?
 Sent2: But one who teaches that homosexuality is wrong, yet who sees violence against homosexuals and also states that we should not harm them cannot be blamed for violence.
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: As far as I know, homosexual people are not barred from marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay activists argue that government needs to grant same-sex marriage rights to homosexuals so they will have visitation rights.
 Sent2: Those people who are fighting against the rights of gays to marry do not want to see same-sex couples receive any rights or recognitions of their relationships.
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: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.
 Sent2: And right now, as long as marriage laws deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, they are unconstitutional.
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: Unless you change the legal definition of marriage, you can't allow two men to get married to each other.
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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: Legitimate state interests which do not match up with your generic claim of "general welfare" and are not applicable to gay marriage... emoticonXGood
 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: Similar
Sent1: If heterosexuals want marriage to be limited to one type of union they should be working to put marriage back in the church's hands and fighting for civil unions for all Americans not just gay Americans.
 Sent2: Gays can enter into civil unions, straights can enter into civil unions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There are other reasons for doing this, first off the most important thing is not what you want to call it, names are simply labels, the fact is that homosexuals will get their equal rights.
 Sent2: People want the government to say, "You are gay, so you don't deserve equal rights."
Output: Similar
Sent1: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
 Sent2: Now, I am uncertain why gay people should not be allowed to have civil marriage and in fact many people (perhaps most) support civil unions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay marriage is wrong the reason is because in every definition of marriage it includes man and woman not man and man or women and women it is women and man.
 Sent2: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: As society finds gay people increasingly acceptable and deserving of equal consideration under the law, including marriage law, judicial opinions will eventually follow.
 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: If we allow same-sex couples to legally marry, does it in anyway water down any other marriage between opposite-sex couples?
 Sent2: We are not longer primitive, so we should allow any couple to marry, as we already allow with straight couples who do not have children.
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: Those who support gay marriage have determined that it is a civil right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yet we've shown that we can have opposite-sex marriage without having everything else, haven't we?
 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: Since heterosexuals are provided the means to have a happy marriage and homosexuals are not, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.
 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: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: Churches and other religious bodies are free to espouse what they choose, and people are free to believe as they choose about same-sex relations and marriage, and they are free to believe that such relations are sinful.
Output: 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: Moral belief may have been used to justify opposition on civil rights and women's rights, but I don't think gay lobbyists realize how much moral belief IS the basis for opposing gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is those opposed to gay rights who don't care about the commitment; it is those opposed who say that it does not matter how commited a same-sex couple is, same-sex couples can't have marriage.
 Sent2: I don't care if calling it "marriage" offends people, or violates what they call the sanctity of marriage, gays should have the same RIGHTS that a married couple gets.
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: Gay rights activists have continued to press for full marriage equality, saying civil unions do not satisfy a state Supreme Court ruling that entitles gay couples to the same benefits as married couples.
Output: Similar