niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: As far as explaining the world to your children: Why not just explain that some people love other people who happen to be the same sex as they are?
 Sent2: Let me re-explain myself: If we legalize same-sex marriage, everyone will have an equal right to bestow their marriage benefits on one other person that they fall in love with.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Well, I disagree that it discriminates against unmarried heterosexual couples; those couples still have the choice to get married to recieve the benefits of marriage or stay unmarried.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, if a state Congress passes a bill that grants additional benefits to marriages and civil unions, a governor could simply line-item veto the benefit to civil unions, which then means that the benefits would apply only to marriage.
 Sent2: 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: Similar
Sent1: But this isn't what is happening; people are denying gay people the right to marry completely, and they are granting no reason except "my religion should be law, and yours should not."
 Sent2: Also, any citizen can have access to the government's marriage licenses as opposed to religious institutions which can deny them to people, and who may not appeal to people of different religions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I didn't say marriage was about just reproduction you incoherent person, marriage is just friendship with sex added.
 Sent2: Because it is not between a man and woman, it is not right to call this a 'marriage', in saying this, I am in no way trying to demean the relationship two people of the same gender can have.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We are asking that this restriction be removed so that the right to marriage is allowed to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
 Sent2: - We 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: 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: Currently if you are a man and woman you are special because as a couple you can do something a gay couple can not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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: 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: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: FFC basically says that one state must recognize the marriages of other states and DOMA basically says "states don't have to recognize gay marriages of other states".
 Sent2: These recognitions are not only federal but vary state to state, for instance some states recognize 1st cousin marriages while others don't, as I recall, the age of consent to marry also differs among states.
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: 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: If gay marriage is or is not legalized, it has no affect on laws against polygamy.
 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: Your argument is like insisting that people should be able to get the marriage benefits even if they don't want to get the marriage license.
 Sent2: I think they are now advocating everyone to be allowed to get all marriage benefits even if they have no desire to be married because they are concerned about being inclusive to all.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I do wish there was a way for gay couples to recieve the same benefits in government as married couples, but I don't believe in homosexual marriage.
 Sent2: I do not want to make special laws just for myself; I believe that the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones who seek to do that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
 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: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
 Sent2: Because it is not between a man and woman, it is not right to call this a 'marriage', in saying this, I am in no way trying to demean the relationship two people of the same gender can have.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: Because it is not between a man and woman, it is not right to call this a 'marriage', in saying this, I am in no way trying to demean the relationship two people of the same gender can have.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Their religious beliefs tell them that THEY should not be gay, or marry somebody of the same gender.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 Sent2: Kronus is right the people, who don't like same sex marriage, want to deny samesex couples marriage, even though there is nothing in the law, or constitution that says same sex couples can't be married.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
 Sent2: When asked if gay marriage should be allowed to exist equally with marriage, but with a different name, gay rights advocates respond that this would separate it from marriage and cause discrimination.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People can live in a common law union but I disagree with same sex marriage because traditionally marriage is a union between heterosexual couples.
 Sent2: If opposite-sex couples have marriage under the law, but same-sex couples do not, my religion is under attack.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
 Sent2: Opponents have criticized the ban as discrimination against gays and lesbians and warn it could harm heterosexual families if domestic partner benefits, powers of attorney and common law marriage are called into question.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If inclusion of same sex couples being allowed to marry is what you call "redefining", then the inclusion of interracial couples would also be a "redefiniton."
 Sent2: The more you put same sex couples on the "outs" the more you do damage to ALL couples and families.
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: Allowing use will have literally no impact on people who are not gay couples looking to call their union a marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay couples are allowed to marry then any combination of marriage should be allowed as long as it involves consenting adults.
 Sent2: Our choices are not limited to either not allow gay marriage, or else allow any type of "arrangement".
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think we who support same-sex marriage are very clear that we are fighting for freedom and equality of same-sex marriage, for all the non-heterosexual couples.
 Sent2: 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: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
 Sent2: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
 Sent2: Without legal gay marriage, gay partners don't have to worry about common law statutes being used against them by their partner.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is the same thing with the same sex marriage because a man and a man or a woman and a woman should never be together.
 Sent2: Because it is not between a man and woman, it is not right to call this a 'marriage', in saying this, I am in no way trying to demean the relationship two people of the same gender can have.
Output: Similar
Sent1: And once they accomplish that special right, according to the American legal process, every other non traditional marriage interest will have a precedent setting case law in which to justify their own reason for having a non traditional marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
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: 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: 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 feel like you are keeping gay marriage and gay rights separate in your mind, and I think that that is a very wrong assumption.
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: Gays can enter into civil unions, straights can enter into civil unions.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 Sent2: i agree with gay marriage because it is not fair to them that only man and women who are in love can only get married.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: in order for gay marriage to be permissible, the laws will have to be changed.
 Sent2: Yes, but gays would also want laws changed to accomodate THEIR form of marriage as well.
Output: 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: Evidently, they want the right to marry only because they do not want heterosexuals to have something they can��_��__��_��__t have.
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: 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 believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
 Sent2: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
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: And right now, as long as marriage laws deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, they are unconstitutional.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: No one is imposing any moral codes on anyone by allowing same sex couples the right of marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Well, if that's a reason to ban homosexuals from marriage, then along the same line of thought, then any couple that is infertile or chooses not to have children should not be permitted to get married.
 Sent2: 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: Not similar
Sent1: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
 Sent2: I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
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: 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: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 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: 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 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: Now outside of this country things are very different I know, but I still don't think gay marriage is going to significantly impact this.
 Sent2: I also think moving from state to state for gays would become more of an economical issue than because of other reasons (i.e. like what that state has to offer it's residents).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Many of those who oppose same sex marriage have forgotten that gay people still get married in their hearts and that not having a piece of paper will not stop people from feeling like they are married.
 Sent2: Edit: BTW gay people are being kept from their rights because same sex marriage isnt legal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Gay people aren't prevented from marrying each other, they just don't get the benefits that are given for it.
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: 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: Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: So you are right that a state law legalizing same-sex marriage does not give people the right to marry someone of foreign nationality of the same sex in order to give them U.S. citizenship.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and with gay marriage, everyone will have the right to marry someone of the same AND opposite sex.
 Sent2: But gay people can do that too; if people are going to marry not for love but for benefits, gays can do that by marrying someone of the opposite sex just for the benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Same-sex couples do not have that choice currently, and all we are talking about is giving them that choice.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 Sent2: The government has absolutely no right to tell people who they can and cannot get married to.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But with people who approach it like you, it doesn't matter cause if you say "gay marriage", the whole "RIGHT REQUIREMENTS" instituted by the constitution just magically goes out the window.
 Sent2: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: Many social conservatives argue that benefits are provided to married couples because, in turn, married couples benefit society.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
 Sent2: Marrying someone of the same sex is forbidden whether you are gay and straight, and marriage of the opposite sex is legal whether you are gay and straight.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is the same thing with the same sex marriage because a man and a man or a woman and a woman should never be together.
 Sent2: 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: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: I think most gay people would never want to get married in a church, we want a civil marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 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: Similar
Sent1: Christians should live their own lives the way they want but what they recognise that others with different beliefs also live in society.
 Sent2: If they knew their history they would know Christians don't have the copywrite on the word marriage!
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: 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: All citizens are protected under the law for equal treatment.
 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: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
 Sent2: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
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: But same-sex marriage doesn't cause disease transfer; gay people will have sex whether they have marriage or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It does hurt someone it hurts the people who are married and believe that marriage is and always will be defined as a man and women.
 Sent2: Gay marriage is wrong the reason is because in every definition of marriage it includes man and woman not man and man or women and women it is women and man.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 Sent2: The fact is, homosexual marriage is anathema to many religious people.
Output: 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: 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: 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: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We are asking that this restriction be removed so that the right to marriage is allowed to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
 Sent2: 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: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: Allowing use will have literally no impact on people who are not gay couples looking to call their union a marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We are asking that this restriction be removed so that the right to marriage is allowed to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
 Sent2: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If gay marriage were made legal, the amendment would have to prohibit incestuous marriage and polygamy at the same time.
 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: If you wish to argue for gay rights, realize that other things you may not agree with become a lot more possible.
 Sent2: And as much as you may not like it, you having a lot of people agree with you is not necessarily a good reason for denying rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Bible distinctively states that Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and the example given is of Adam and Eve being married and joined before God, by God.
 Sent2: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
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: Accepting gay marriage/sex is accepting deviant sex/marriage...black people are not deviant...maybe you think so but I dont
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the genders are equal under the law, then restricting marriage based on gender is unconstitutional.
 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: There are relatively few gay people in the world, and the number of families headed by same-sex couples is tiny compared with the number of divorced parents and remarried parents and single parents.
 Sent2: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage 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: 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: And I WILL point out that the issue is whether gays have the right to be treated equally with respect to marriage - not whether they are to be treated equally with respect to gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 Sent2: Marriage is already a civil right everyone has--you have it too, because you can marry someone of opposite-gender right now.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If anything, as things stand now, it is the same sex couples paying more of their taxes to support the heterosexual couples; income taxes, social security taxes, inheirantence taxes, property taxes, as examples.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
 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: Similar
Sent1: You: You left out that gay marriage is legalized by legislatures.
 Sent2: Currently if you are a man and woman you are special because as a couple you can do something a gay couple can not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage can be redefined to include other arrangements people may want (right now, same-sex couples are trying to do this) then most certainly it can be redefined to include more people in a relationship to have it apply to.
 Sent2: 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."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In the case of same-sex marriage, I can state that it is harmless and it helps many people.
 Sent2: I think absolutely no reasonable argument can be made suggesting that same-sex marriage might cause any harm, and I think that no reasonable argument can be made which suggests that same-sex marriage will not help people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and with gay marriage, everyone will have the right to marry someone of the same AND opposite sex.
 Sent2: 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.
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: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People secure in their heterosexual identity or way of life, have nothing to concern themselves with if gays are being accepted.
 Sent2: The problem is not the mindset of homosexuals, the problem is that people assume the worst, when in reality gay people are just as committed in their relationships as straight people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
 Sent2: Gay marriage is wrong the reason is because in every definition of marriage it includes man and woman not man and man or women and women it is women and man.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
 Sent2: When asked if gay marriage should be allowed to exist equally with marriage, but with a different name, gay rights advocates respond that this would separate it from marriage and cause discrimination.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The usual reason given for banning first-cousin marriage is because there is a risk of offspring of first cousins having biological problems.
 Sent2: I suspect that those who advocate banning such marriages will argue that marriage between blood relatives brings a danger of biological problems for children who are the offspring of such marriages.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If two people cannot do this for some legal reason, they are being denied equal rights unless marriage is completely outlawed within that nation.
 Sent2: And right now, as long as marriage laws deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, they are unconstitutional.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
 Sent2: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's weird indeed that all states except one allow single gay people to adopt children, but many do not allow gay couples to be adoptive parents together.
 Sent2: Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Output: 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: It does hurt someone it hurts the people who are married and believe that marriage is and always will be defined as a man and women.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
 Sent2: If the husband and wife are comfortable with that situation (as presumably the gay couple would be), then the government doesn't care to get involved to disqualify the marriage...
Output: Not similar
Sent1: As the passage of these bans show, society does not appear ready to accept gay marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 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: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: concerning homosexual marriage, allowing this type of legal union also raises the question of multiple partner marriages, or marriage of siblings/close family.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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 really don't think people get married with their innitial intention of having kids, at least not as their primary purpose.
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: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think we who support same-sex marriage are very clear that we are fighting for freedom and equality of same-sex marriage, for all the non-heterosexual couples.
 Sent2: I know I went into the benefits of allowing same-sex couples to adopt, but I also spoke on same-sex marriage promoting equality, freedom, and happiness.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 Sent2: concerning homosexual marriage, allowing this type of legal union also raises the question of multiple partner marriages, or marriage of siblings/close family.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
 Sent2: In as much as "marriage" is a right (I don't see it as an absolute right) all men and all women have an equal right to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The DOMAS Defense of Marriage Acts may be overturend under the equal protection phrase of the Constitution but each individual states constitutional amendments will stand...........
 Sent2: The 14th ammendment say that everyone should have equal protection under the law, If marriage is a staight thing, then everyone isn't getting equal protection.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: When a good argument can be shown that the government's REAL interest is prejudice, then the "legitimate state interest" but be shown more solidly.
 Sent2: If the state has a legitimate state interest, then discrimination is justified.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: I do not think that gay people should be discriminated against, but I do feel that people should not be forced to accept a group of people whose beliefs they do not agree with.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If a church does not want to perform a same-sex marriage, the church should have the right to deny it based on religious reasons.
 Sent2: No one should be denied the right to marry no matter who they love and recently in the UK Quaker and Jewish churches have said that if a same sex marriage law is passed they all perform the ceremonies :)
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There are a lot of in this country who believe that same sex marriage is just as oddball as the ones I mentioned
 Sent2: 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: 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: You stated that changing same-sex marriage infringes upon people's rights because it devalues their marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't care if one's religion says that marriage is a special institution for straight people, for white people, for blondes, or for anyone else, but the law cannot do that.
 Sent2: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and with gay marriage, everyone will have the right to marry someone of the same AND opposite sex.
 Sent2: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
Output: Not 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: Just cause gay marriage is legal doesn't mean anybody "accepts" us.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now, I am uncertain why gay people should not be allowed to have civil marriage and in fact many people (perhaps most) support civil unions.
 Sent2: Allowing straight marriage to provide for U.S. citizenship, while gays have no option (marriage or civil union).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 Sent2: I think they are now advocating everyone to be allowed to get all marriage benefits even if they have no desire to be married because they are concerned about being inclusive to all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Laws against gay marriage are more harmful than beneficial as gay marriage will not harm straight people at all, but denying it will harm gay people.
 Sent2: If gays marry no one gets hurt and gay families win.
Output: 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 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: There are relatively few gay people in the world, and the number of families headed by same-sex couples is tiny compared with the number of divorced parents and remarried parents and single parents.
 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: My analogies always compare denying same-sex marriage to something bad, because I think denying same-sex marriage is very bad.
 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: 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: If gays deserve special treatment then I think single people should be given special priveleges to, to encourage them to create families and so they won't feel left out.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a church does not want to perform a same-sex marriage, the church should have the right to deny it based on religious reasons.
 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: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
 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: If you seek to deny anyone their civil rights based upon your religious views then you are the enemy of freedom.
 Sent2: But you *don't* have the right to use your beliefs as a reason to deny civil rights to homosexuals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: All they have to do is either write in that civil unions will give the same legal rights as marriage, or else list the same rights that marriage does.
 Sent2: What they want legalized is something that the government calls marriage and conveys with it the same rights and responsibilities that are conveyed upon what the government calls marriage between people of opposite sexes.
Output: 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: We don't necessarily have a right to officially recognized gay marriage, but we have every right to tell the government if we want it or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: He could have used his clout as the mayor of SF to help gay couples sue the state to change the law against gay marriage.
 Sent2: in order for gay marriage to be permissible, the laws will have to be changed.
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: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
 Sent2: I do not think that gay people should be discriminated against, but I do feel that people should not be forced to accept a group of people whose beliefs they do not agree with.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
 Sent2: then why does the state allow couples who can't have children to get married or couples in their 70's and 80's to get married but won't let gay people get married?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as 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: Similar
Sent1: The federal DOMA was an effort to quarantine same-sex marriage, to exclude same-sex couples from federal rights and benefits even if states were to legalize same-sex marriage, which several have done since 1996.
 Sent2: Same-sex couples are denied over 1,000 benefits, rights, and protections that federal law affords to married, heterosexual couples, as well as hundreds of such protections at the state level.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Supporters of gay and lesbian equal rights want to make sure everyone has equal, fundamental rights.
 Sent2: When asked if gay marriage should be allowed to exist equally with marriage, but with a different name, gay rights advocates respond that this would separate it from marriage and cause discrimination.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay activists argue that government needs to grant same-sex marriage rights to homosexuals so they will have visitation rights.
 Sent2: They don't have the right to get involved in anything to do with marriage, yet they passed DOMA to specifically disallow Gay Married couples the same RIGHTS that Hetero couples have.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 Sent2: It does hurt someone it hurts the people who are married and believe that marriage is and always will be defined as a man and women.
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: What they want legalized is something that the government calls marriage and conveys with it the same rights and responsibilities that are conveyed upon what the government calls marriage between people of opposite sexes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I can only assume because you don't want to admit that perversion of marriage will rise out of same gender marriage.
 Sent2: I do not want to make special laws just for myself; I believe that the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones who seek to do that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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'm not saying I'm completely for gay marriage, but I believe that if two people love each other, they have the right to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Lastly gay isn't a civil right, you don't have a right to be gay.
 Sent2: A civil partnership between two homosexual men or two lesbian women should be called a homosexual civil partnership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
 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: Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and with gay marriage, everyone will have the right to marry someone of the same AND opposite sex.
 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: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 Sent2: 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: 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: 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: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
 Sent2: If gay marriage is or is not legalized, it has no affect on laws against polygamy.
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: 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: 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 are asking that this restriction be removed so that the right to marriage is allowed to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Stopping gay people from getting married is not accepting our right to live as we please.
 Sent2: Just cause gay marriage is legal doesn't mean anybody "accepts" us.
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: Many of those who oppose same sex marriage have forgotten that gay people still get married in their hearts and that not having a piece of paper will not stop people from feeling like they are married.
Output: Not similar