niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
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: Are you saying that gay people who pay into the same systems, shouldn't also benefit?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In other words, since same-sex couples do not "naturally" have children, they do not need the protections of marriage as opposed to opposite sex couples.
 Sent2: By the way allowing same sex marriage does'nt automatically mean their going to have or adopt children, also Lesbians can still have children wether they are married or not
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
 Sent2: Not to mention visitation rights in hospitals, or any one of the thousands of rights denied gay couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: recognition and considered a "civil right" to have their marriages recognized has been made to stop marriage from being redefined for YOUR movement.
 Sent2: Do not married couples whose marriages have been recognized by the state have the right to stay married and not have their civil marriages dissolved by the voters simply because of the animus of those voters against them?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 Sent2: 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??
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 Sent2: Gay couples were granted the same legal rights, but not the title, as married couples on Feb. 19 when New Jersey became the third state to offer civil unions.
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: The only thing we are saying is that men who are attracted to other adult men should be allowed to get married, just as men who are attracted to other adult women should be allowed to get married.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
 Sent2: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: My arguments are based on my reasoned opinion that to be a truly free and equal society, acting according to our founding principles in the Declaration of Independence, we should grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.
 Sent2: The idea that we should disallow same-sex marriage simply because it is a norm in society implies that we do not have a reason to deny same-sex marriage except for the norms of the society.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Gays can enter into civil unions, straights can enter into civil unions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Actually, I believe the tenth amendment states that we have rights not listed in the Constitution (I think it is the tenth, I may be wrong).
 Sent2: I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights do you believe each state should have the right not to recognize any marriage - for instance the states that had laws prohibiting interracial marriages?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 Sent2: If enough people eventually support gay marriage, then you'll have gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
 Sent2: Now, why can't two people, who love each other very much, get married specifically because their partner happens to have the same body parts?
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: BUT keep in mind I'm not saying that gays should be allowed to get married in every church - No church should have to do anything they don't believe in (thats why we are allowed to have different faiths) .
Output: Not similar
Sent1: the issue of gay marriage should not amount to a gag-rule.
 Sent2: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Possibly, but changing marriage to allow such between couples of the same sex is going against the custom and usage of societies throughout the ages.
 Sent2: And of course the unspoken result of gay marriage will be the demand that all forms of perversions of traditional marriages must now be allowed because the precedent has been set with same sex marriages.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
 Sent2: You stated that changing same-sex marriage infringes upon people's rights because it devalues their marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If civil unions do not provide the same benefits and protections as marriage, then civil unions are clearly not equal to marriage, and again, gay people are being treated as less-than-equal citizens.
 Sent2: If the state wants to offer legal protections and benefits to straight married couples, it cannot constitutionally refuse equal protections to gay ones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 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: 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: 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 think gay rights should be a debate as long as there are people who believe that those who are gay should not have equal rights.
 Sent2: 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: Even though I have no issue with gays or gay marriage, JP is right - unprotected gay sex is less safe than unprotected heterosexual sex, especially in regards to HIV transmission.
 Sent2: 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: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 Sent2: So how can allowing gays to marry discredit this so called "traditional marriage" any worse than what hetero's already have?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and 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: 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: If we allow same-sex couples to legally marry, does it in anyway water down any other marriage between opposite-sex couples?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: in order for gay marriage to be permissible, the laws will have to be changed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If a State seeks to define marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman, then so be it, provided there be an avenue for civil union.
 Sent2: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
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 we say that same-sex couples should have the right to marry each other, then any two consenting adults should have the legal right to marry each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Same sex marriage can cause a perfect union of two people the same as M/F and can make a mockery or marriage just as many M/F unions currently do.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I agree that IF gay marriage is made legal it should be done through the legislature and not the courts.
 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: You: You left out that gay marriage is legalized by legislatures.
 Sent2: Lastly gay isn't a civil right, you don't have a right to be gay.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Civil Unions are the governments jb and due to the 14th amendment everyone is equal under due process of law.
 Sent2: The 14th ammendment say that everyone should have equal protection under the law, If marriage is a staight thing, then everyone isn't getting equal protection.
Output: Similar
Sent1: People keep touting how marriage is a "religious" institution, but what if the government were trying to decide whether or not Christian marriages would have legal recognition?
 Sent2: If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People talk about rights and that it's their right to be married if they so choose.
 Sent2: What's going on now with the gay marriage stuff is simply to get their marriage to be legally recognized so that they can have certian "rights" when it comes to things like social security and inheritance, etc.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 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 seems to me that the anti gay crowd refuses to give gay couples the same respect they expect gay people to give them.
 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: The homosexual agenda's justification for demanding marriage has always been for the equal benefits which marriage affords couples who marry.
 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: Similar
Sent1: But people make up the society, so you're really arguing that people should think same-sex marriage is wrong because people think same-sex marriage is wrong.
 Sent2: But this is not the same reason why some people have argued against legalizing same-sex marriage, where biological effects on the offspring of the couple are not an issue.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Doesn't really matter what the public is thinking, under current laws marriage is a states issue and unless that state has an ammendment the courts could rule in favor of gay marriage based on the 14th ammendment.
 Sent2: Marriage is and always has been a state issue and the federal government did not have the power to intervene on states issues.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: If you are going to argue that the government is being fundamentally unfair in terms of marriage, then it needs to reform marriage, not just gay marriage.
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'm a little unsure about the part about denying marriage status to gays who have obtained it from out of state simply because I don't know.
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 should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 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: All opponents of same-sex marriage care about is getting their own religious beliefs put into law, no matter the cost.
 Sent2: In the case of same-sex marriage, I have to assume that we are not giving benefits to people based on their religious beliefs regarding what constitutes a marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's 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: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you consider sexual deviancy as normal then you can consider gay sex as normal.
 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: recognition and considered a "civil right" to have their marriages recognized has been made to stop marriage from being redefined for YOUR movement.
 Sent2: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
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: What you are missing is that if gay people have the right to marry then their marriage must be recognised under equal protection.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
 Sent2: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
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: We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Either all people should be allowed to marry the person of their choice or no one should be allowed to marry.
 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: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Man-woman marriage is legal and gets state goodies, but man-man and woman-woman marriages are illegal.
 Sent2: Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights do you believe each state should have the right not to recognize any marriage - for instance the states that had laws prohibiting interracial marriages?
 Sent2: I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
Output: Not 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: It is my INDIVIDUAL decision to marry someone of the same sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 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: 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.
 Sent2: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It doesn't mean we shouldn't or won't give benefits to same-sex couples or to different-sex couples, or to other types of 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: Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: 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?
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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You did suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples would still be discriminated against, even if we allowed same-sex couples to marry.
 Sent2: It is enough to show that legalizing same-sex marriage is not harmful to indicate that it should be allowed.
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: Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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's not even really a religious confliction that I have with same sex marriage.
 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: We have to agree to disagree if a new gay marriage law is a personal right, or if it is a public decision.
 Sent2: It is a personal choice that is made from personal beliefs so who are we to say that gay couples do not have the right to enjoy all of the benefits that straight couples do?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay marriage is fine, but when the government says no there is no reason to rebel against the government.
 Sent2: If you are going to argue that the government is being fundamentally unfair in terms of marriage, then it needs to reform marriage, not just gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If same sex marriage bans discriminate exclusively against gays, then polygamy bans discriminate exclusively against polygamists.
 Sent2: Does it mention specifically that gays have the right to same sex marriage, or does it simply state in general terms that gays should not be discriminated against?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yet we've shown that we can have opposite-sex marriage without having everything else, haven't we?
 Sent2: We should not argue that gays should have the 'right' to marry we should argue that the definition of ' marriage' should be changed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 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: When anyone can marry anyone else then homosexuals should be allowed to marry.Until then gays should not be an elite sexual deviant lifestyle over other sexual deviant lifestyles.
 Sent2: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage is already a civil right everyone has--you have it too, because you can marry someone of opposite-gender right now.
 Sent2: The definition you'll hear from conservatives is more along the lines of: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Carrying out marriages properley you mean loving each other unconditionally until parted by death, Gay people are capable of this, so should be allowed to marry.
 Sent2: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: 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: 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: It's not even really a religious confliction that I have with same sex marriage.
 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 YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 Sent2: The burden of proof is not necessarily on you to show why homosexuality is harmful but to show why denying same-sex marriage is helpful.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: That way we can keep the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and gays can still have a "union" with other gays.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights do you believe each state should have the right not to recognize any marriage - for instance the states that had laws prohibiting interracial marriages?
 Sent2: It does not state in law that same-sex marriage is a civil right any more than it states you marrying you sister is a civil right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
 Sent2: Lesbians and gays can be joined in a legal ceremony, recognized by church and state, but it doesn't have to be called a "marriage".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 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: I don't know if you live in California or not, but I do, so I know that a homosexual couple who have a civil union would have the same rights as a traditional heterosexual married couple.
 Sent2: It could be called gay marriage or civil unions as long as they have the same equal rights as a married heterosexual couple.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
Output: Similar
Sent1: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
 Sent2: My problem with that statement, though, is that the bible makes references where it says that a marrige is to be strictly between only one man and one woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.
 Sent2: The point of the matter was that a reasonable person could believe that gay marriage would not benefit children and thus since benefiting children is a state interest the law is ok.
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 don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: After all the sex that has happened out there, gay sex or straight anal sex (which actually has more participants than gay anal sex), if somebody could "get sick" from it, they would have by now.
 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: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
 Sent2: It is a personal choice that is made from personal beliefs so who are we to say that gay couples do not have the right to enjoy all of the benefits that straight couples do?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, you might try to say that by allowing same-sex marriage, we are violating one man's right to be comfortable knowing gays can't marry.
 Sent2: 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 both know that as long as marriage is kept for opposite-sex couples alone, then opposite-sex couples will be elevated above same-sex couples under the law.
 Sent2: If opposite-sex couples have marriage under the law, but same-sex couples do not, my religion is under attack.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
 Sent2: But in this case, if you allow HETEROSEXUALS to have marriages, then preventing HOMOSEXUALS from having marriages IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Let me re-explain myself: If we legalize same-sex marriage, everyone will have an equal right to bestow their marriage benefits on one other person that they fall in love with.
 Sent2: 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: 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: Looking at the situation logically, the people who would use same-sex marriage, the people who might love someone of the same sex, are homosexuals and bisexuals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, you might try to say that by allowing same-sex marriage, we are violating one man's right to be comfortable knowing gays can't marry.
 Sent2: 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: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: If gays marry no one gets hurt and gay families win.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: By the way allowing same sex marriage does'nt automatically mean their going to have or adopt children, also Lesbians can still have children wether they are married or not
 Sent2: What about gays who adopt should they only be allowed to get married because they adopted a child?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But people make up the society, so you're really arguing that people should think same-sex marriage is wrong because people think same-sex marriage is wrong.
 Sent2: Since people cannot come up with any tangible reason for denying same-sex couples marriage - and same-sex couple can at least quantify the harm of denying them marriage, who do you think wins the argument?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Either all people should be allowed to marry the person of their choice or no one should be allowed to marry.
 Sent2: People talk about rights and that it's their right to be married if they so choose.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Except blacks were barred from marriage to those that white people could marry, and white people were barred from marriage to those that black people could marry.
 Sent2: Just as elderly people should not be barred from marrying because they cannot reproduce, so gay people should not be barred from marrying because they cannot reproduce with each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I'm not saying that companies should add gay partners to their insurance benefits, but I am saying that people have every right to get upset about it, since the companies survive on their money.
 Sent2: I think their point is that homosexual tax payers should not benefit from marriage benefits as the heterosexual community will receive more benefits if they don't include homosexual life partners in the benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Same-sex marriage does not encourage people do move into the pedophile group; that group still has no sexual or marriage rights under the law.
 Sent2: Edit: BTW gay people are being kept from their rights because same sex marriage isnt legal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
 Sent2: If same sex "marriage" and not civil unions are allowed, then precedence will have been set for redefining marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
 Sent2: Gay people are not being treated any different from anybody else with respect to the issue of gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage is a civil right, and gays can get married, but you don't know if gay marriage is a civil right?
 Sent2: Those who support gay marriage have determined that it is a civil right.
Output: Similar
Sent1: This is not going to change as same-sex marriage becomes legal in more places.
 Sent2: If gay marriage were made legal, the amendment would have to prohibit incestuous marriage and polygamy at the same time.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In a free society, the government does not deny rights or benefits to its people without a good reason; it does not deny those rights and benefits unless they are harmful.
 Sent2: Thus, even if same-sex marriage brought no benefits, there would be no reason to keep it illegal; a free and equal society does not deny rights or benefits to anyone, unless it has a very good reason to.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If the government can say "gays can't marry" today, tomorrow they could say "Jews, Catholics, and atheists can't marry."
 Sent2: The government has absolutely no right to tell people who they can and cannot get married to.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Furthermore, you don't see people like Arch says that celebrities who get married for stunts aren't ruining marriage.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Since you are heterosexual and have rallied against gay rights/gay marriage you have done this and are therefore imposing your religion on others.
 Sent2: 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: In other words, since same-sex couples do not "naturally" have children, they do not need the protections of marriage as opposed to opposite sex couples.
 Sent2: 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: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: How on earth can anyone think that the government cares who you love or want to spend your life with!?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Namecalling and violence are wrong, REGARDLESS of where people fall on the issue of gay marriage.
 Sent2: Homosexual marriage is something that religious people disagree with by drawing a false line between right and wrong.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
 Sent2: if homosexual couples pass the existing legal definition of marriage, why not ?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You did suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples would still be discriminated against, even if we allowed same-sex couples to marry.
 Sent2: The more you put same sex couples on the "outs" the more you do damage to ALL couples and families.
Output: Not 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: 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: 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 not mess with nature and their natural cycle and so we should not let same sex marriage be allowed
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In as much as "marriage" is a right (I don't see it as an absolute right) all men and all women have an equal right to marry.
 Sent2: 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: 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.
 Sent2: Just as elderly people should not be barred from marrying because they cannot reproduce, so gay people should not be barred from marrying because they cannot reproduce with each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Also there are laws that pertain to marriage made to protect and promote the interest of children and spouses.
 Sent2: The point of the matter was that a reasonable person could believe that gay marriage would not benefit children and thus since benefiting children is a state interest the law is ok.
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: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gays can enter into civil unions, straights can enter into civil unions.
 Sent2: What I am saying is that if the term "civil union" was utilized unilatterally, meaning for all legal unions gay or straight, I would have no problem with it.
Output: Similar
Sent1: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
 Sent2: However allowing gay marriage will not automatically allow polygamous marriage...it may lend a little more wieght to it via precedent, but then interracial marriage has done the same for gay marriage even though the actual issues are different.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The problem is that the media only focuses on the civil rights battle, so the average person has no one has any idea who gay people are; they know only that gays are asking for the right to marry.
 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: 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.
 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: Similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 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: Treating people identically is not the same as treating them equally, because not all people are the same.
 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: In as much as "marriage" is a right (I don't see it as an absolute right) all men and all women have an equal right to marry.
 Sent2: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as 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: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 Sent2: In other words, since same-sex couples do not "naturally" have children, they do not need the protections of marriage as opposed to opposite sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
 Sent2: Remember that gay marriage is not further down the line than straight marriage.
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: I have seen only two arguments (and one of them is restated here) for gay marriage to not be a thing: we have to protect the sanctity of marriage or marriage should only be for people who can reproduce.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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: Similar
Sent1: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
 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: BUT I can't see where the line is drawn between the christian right wanting more couples to marry and gay couples marrying.
 Sent2: I am a conservative, and I don't understand how people who consider themselves to be conservative can also be against gay marriage.
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: It does not state in law that same-sex marriage is a civil right any more than it states you marrying you sister is a civil right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Societies define marriage, because they find it a valuable institution for many reasons, such as raising children, providing financial and legal protection for families, and other such good things.
 Sent2: The government has no say in who marries, but marriage should be used to raise a family, and children, and keep the family going.
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: But in this case, if you allow HETEROSEXUALS to have marriages, then preventing HOMOSEXUALS from having marriages IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I have seen only two arguments (and one of them is restated here) for gay marriage to not be a thing: we have to protect the sanctity of marriage or marriage should only be for people who can reproduce.
 Sent2: We should not argue that gays should have the 'right' to marry we should argue that the definition of ' marriage' should be changed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: If same sex "marriage" and not civil unions are allowed, then precedence will have been set for redefining marriage.
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'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: BUT I can't see where the line is drawn between the christian right wanting more couples to marry and gay couples marrying.
 Sent2: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
 Sent2: Gay marriage should be legal, because by now we should have equal rights, and that's what this is about.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: Problem is ... when people continually get their state's to make laws that say only heterosexual people can marry each other, then those religions that will and want to marry gays and honor their marriages, now cannot.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In other words, since same-sex couples do not "naturally" have children, they do not need the protections of marriage as opposed to opposite sex couples.
 Sent2: 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 we say that same-sex couples should have the right to marry each other, then any two consenting adults should have the legal right to marry each other.
 Sent2: 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: I think gay rights should be a debate as long as there are people who believe that those who are gay should not have equal rights.
 Sent2: I think the reason there has been resistance to redefine marriage is that people really know that this is not a civil rights issue, despite attempts by the gay lobby to paint it that way.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And since they claim HIV/AIDS is a consequence of being gay, do they want  to increase the risk of infection for straight women by insisting that such women be the only marriage partners gay men are allowed to have?
 Sent2: Not allowing gay marriage will not increase love, but increase hate.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think gay rights should be a debate as long as there are people who believe that those who are gay should not have equal rights.
 Sent2: 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: Similar
Sent1: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.
 Sent2: But not allowing gay marriage hurts all homosexual couples to a greater extent than the prior.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage was never defined as between a Man and Woman until religious Zealots pushed the Government to define it in such a way to deny Gay people their right to marry.
 Sent2: By defining marriage to be only legal if "between one man and one woman" these groups are forcing society by law to believe and teach ONLY WHAT THEIR RELIGIONS BELIEVE and teach about marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think the reason there has been resistance to redefine marriage is that people really know that this is not a civil rights issue, despite attempts by the gay lobby to paint it that way.
 Sent2: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
Output: 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: And Christian doctrine teaches that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
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: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
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: Gay people should be allowed to get married if they want to this is the 21st Century there is no reason why they should not be allowed the same rights as everyone else
Output: 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: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
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: While homosexual marriage may not physically hurt anyone, physical injuries are not the only type of injuries that can be inflicted to a person, to a family or to a nation.
Output: Not similar