niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: I also think that most Americans are truly uninformed when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage.
 Sent2: I think the real issue is not "should gays be allowed to marry."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But this is not the same reason why some people have argued against legalizing same-sex marriage, where biological effects on the offspring of the couple are not an issue.
 Sent2: 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: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 Sent2: The only way that we can fight homophobia is by showing people that homosexuals deserve the same rights as straight couples.
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: 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: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
 Sent2: As society finds gay people increasingly acceptable and deserving of equal consideration under the law, including marriage law, judicial opinions will eventually follow.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 Sent2: I've actually had someone say that the purpose of marriage is to produce children so it should be between a woman and a man.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
 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 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 marriage is about two people of the same gender who want to commit to each other in a romantic relationship, and have the same legal rights and recognition as a straight couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 Sent2: But saying they should have marriage is taking a sacred religious bond and making it simply a union between two people who want to have sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: marriage is simply two people who love each other expressing that love and making a commitment, so why can't a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are in love make a commitment?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
 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: You did suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples would still be discriminated against, even if we allowed same-sex couples to marry.
 Sent2: We are not longer primitive, so we should allow any couple to marry, as we already allow with straight couples who do not have children.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: The fact is, homosexual marriage is anathema to many religious people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So you are right that a state law legalizing same-sex marriage does not give people the right to marry someone of foreign nationality of the same sex in order to give them U.S. citizenship.
 Sent2: 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: 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: I know many gay couples who have adopted children and are loving parents.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay people sometimes do get married to opposite-sex spouses, often because they are struggling with their sexual orientation and are trying, through marriage, to make themselves heterosexual.
 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: Since heterosexuals are provided the means to have a happy marriage and homosexuals are not, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.
 Sent2: Allowing straight marriage to provide for U.S. citizenship, while gays have no option (marriage or civil union).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: Does allowing same-sex couples to marry and have the same civil rights and governmental benefits that you currently enjoy impact the legality of your marriage?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Currently if you are a man and woman you are special because as a couple you can do something a gay couple can not.
 Sent2: The more you put same sex couples on the "outs" the more you do damage to ALL couples and families.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: Yet we've shown that we can have opposite-sex marriage without having everything else, haven't we?
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: And due to the fact that all people must be treated equally under the law because heterosexuals can get married then so must homosexuals be allowed to get married.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Since marriage (love) is legally sanctioned for all heterosexuals, the same rights and protection should be granted to homosexuals who choose to marry...or these "legalities" should be terminated completely.
 Sent2: While the amendment specifically banned gay marriage, it went further than similar bans in many states by prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The government has no say in who marries, but marriage should be used to raise a family, and children, and keep the family going.
 Sent2: Since same-sex couples are raising children, the children in these families deserve the right to have two parents who are legally married to each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: People secure in their heterosexual identity or way of life, have nothing to concern themselves with if gays are being accepted.
 Sent2: If two people should be allowed to "do their own business" in peace than why not gays?
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: Even though denying polygamous marriage is not actually a destruction of equality, one might still say, "Well, even though denying polygamous marriage isn't as bad as denying same-sex marriage, why do we deny it?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay marriage were made legal, the amendment would have to prohibit incestuous marriage and polygamy at the same time.
 Sent2: if homosexual couples pass the existing legal definition of marriage, why not ?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So I must ask you why exactly are you against same sex marriage when it has been shown that the ban on same sex marriage is just like the ban on interracial couples getting married?
 Sent2: 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: Considering that same-sex couples very often have children, it is just as important to make them financially secure and able to raise those children as it is to do so with opposite-sex couples.
 Sent2: Since same-sex couples are raising children, the children in these families deserve the right to have two parents who are legally married to each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: It is enough to show that legalizing same-sex marriage is not harmful to indicate that it should be allowed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There have been thousands of cases of so called gay people converting to straight, marrying and having children....
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
 Sent2: If gay couples are allowed to marry then any combination of marriage should be allowed as long as it involves consenting adults.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: When a homosexual can be fired from his/her job because they are gay, discriminated against in housing because they are gay, and do not have the same rights marriage affords because they are gay, its a civil rights issue.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only problem facing the bill right now is the governor who has said he believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, but who also has supported domestic same sex partners benefits.
 Sent2: It is the same thing with the same sex marriage because a man and a man or a woman and a woman should never be together.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I personally think state governments should not be able to grant marriages and should only be able to grant civil unions to everyone.
 Sent2: Due to the fact that legal marriages between heterosexual couples are granted federal recognition, benefits and interstate transportability which would be denied to Civil Unions if left up to individual states.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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 think its unfortunate that fanatics on both sides have managed to completely miss the difference between a religious sanctioned state (marriage) and equal rights under the law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: then why does the state allow couples who can't have children to get married or couples in their 70's and 80's to get married but won't let gay people get married?
 Sent2: And some people, who happen to dislike gay people, should not be allowed to use the state to aim discriminatory laws against gay people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Instead, you are claiming that gays are trying to be able to marry people of the opposite sex, and claiming that the gay marriage movement is trying to argue that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
 Sent2: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: As with same-sex marriage, I believe that many of the arguments used to support gay rights can be used to support incestual marriage.
 Sent2: Moral belief may have been used to justify opposition on civil rights and women's rights, but I don't think gay lobbyists realize how much moral belief IS the basis for opposing gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 Sent2: How does that still justify denying marriage to same-sex couples if the same "privilege" is given to opposite sex couples?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Churches and other religious bodies are free to espouse what they choose, and people are free to believe as they choose about same-sex relations and marriage, and they are free to believe that such relations are sinful.
 Sent2: I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
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 have been considering whether same-sex marriage does harm to people, and it's quite clear that it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 Sent2: I think we who support same-sex marriage are very clear that we are fighting for freedom and equality of same-sex marriage, for all the non-heterosexual couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you would like us to have the rights then marriage is the only way to give us the same rights.
 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: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
 Sent2: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Would gay people being allowed to have the same legally recognized marriages that straight people have affect you in any way?
 Sent2: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
 Sent2: Marriage evolved because of moral and religious grounds rather than a mere union approved by the state... To debase marriage just to accomodate base desires of gay couples in disguise if a right is simply stupid...
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You want to be treated as a normal,respect the fundamental people and fundamental laws of this land.Support ban on homo marriages.
 Sent2: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 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: Any one who has voted yes to place these amendments into state constitutions because they have a religious belief that excludes gay people from marriage has also imposed those religious beliefs upon gay people.
 Sent2: How does the state ensure that gay people can exersize their right to marriage if the only person able to perform the marriage is exempted from perfoming the marriage based upon religious beliefs?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't think most religious peoples' opposition to gay marriage has to do with individual harm.
 Sent2: Laws against gay marriage are more harmful than beneficial as gay marriage will not harm straight people at all, but denying it will harm gay people.
Output: 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: 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: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
 Sent2: Denying the right to marry and deciding what is not recognized as marriage are the same thing, just phrased in different language so I think my explanation still stands.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 Sent2: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
Output: 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: the reason I ask is because I've never seen any studies done comparing the % of straight kids raised by homosexual couples and the % of homosexual kids raised by homosexuals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: marriage is simply two people who love each other expressing that love and making a commitment, so why can't a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are in love make a commitment?
 Sent2: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So you are right that a state law legalizing same-sex marriage does not give people the right to marry someone of foreign nationality of the same sex in order to give them U.S. citizenship.
 Sent2: 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 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 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: Gay people and those who support equal rights are trying to ensure that people will not use the laws to squash the personal liberties and equal rights of gay people.
 Sent2: Supporters of gay and lesbian equal rights want to make sure everyone has equal, fundamental rights.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Marriage outta government insures gays can't marry (unless the church break the Bible) because marriage is really a religious thing.
 Sent2: If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
Output: Not 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 believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: It IS valid to challenge the constitutionality (with Constitution A) of an anti-gay marriage LAW by arguing gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
 Sent2: It is NONSENSICAL to challenge the constitutionality (with Constitution B) of an anti-gay marriage AMENDMENT by arguing gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right without acknowledging that the constitution HAS CHANGED to say it isn't a right.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The majority of arguments against same sex marriage are religious in nature, and no government has the right to favor one religion over another.
 Sent2: If opposite-sex couples have marriage under the law, but same-sex couples do not, my religion is under attack.
Output: Similar
Sent1: But same-sex marriage doesn't cause disease transfer; gay people will have sex whether they have marriage or not.
 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: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 Sent2: A gay person could hit his spouse, a straight person could also do so, or a sibling marriage could have a baby with birth defects.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: The homosexual agenda's justification for demanding marriage has always been for the equal benefits which marriage affords couples who marry.
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: If gay people never formed families themselves, and never had children to look after, one could make an argument that gay marriage was an unnecessary concept.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 Sent2: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
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: And I never said someone should not be allowed to Mary do to their gender both men and women should be allowed to marry (each other) so it's not sexism at all really.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: I do not want gay deviant sex to be considered anything other than that, deviant.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage.
 Sent2: Moral belief may have been used to justify opposition on civil rights and women's rights, but I don't think gay lobbyists realize how much moral belief IS the basis for opposing gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Various state constitutions forbid gay marriage, and the people of California and other states have voted no on it several times also.
 Sent2: The people of several states determined that gay marriage is not a right in their constitution.
Output: 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: Gay marriage is fine, but when the government says no there is no reason to rebel against the government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I also don't think that in whatever case that comes before it, the Supreme Court is going to refer to gay couples being treated with "indifference."
 Sent2: There are several amendments guaranteeing rights that were not given before, and I can't see any reason why gay marriage should be any exception to this precedent.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a State seeks to define marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman, then so be it, provided there be an avenue for civil union.
 Sent2: The constitution allows the government to define marriage between a man and a woman, but the reason for defining it that way can't be because they want to use the Christian definition.
Output: Similar
Sent1: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
 Sent2: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
Output: Similar
Sent1: What it did say is that ANY union that is not marriage, which obviously includes "gay marriage" from the previous line and also "civil unions", is FORBIDDEN from being recognized by the government.
 Sent2: Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: 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: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: Often the argument given in favor of gay marriage is that they want the right to marry the person they love.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I would agree with most of what you are saying, the only place I seem to be unable to follow you is through the gay marriage to moral vacuum.
 Sent2: I say it applies to everyone and if the law said "if you are gay you can't marry" then I'd say that denied equal protection.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One one hand you seem to think that gay people don't have the right to get married at all--they do because you can get married anytime you want.
 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: However, a man and a woman are both "persons" under the law and are not treated differently under the law.
 Sent2: However, I could counter this by pointing out that the law treats everyone the same in terms of gay/straight marriage, as well, because any man can get married to any woman at any time and obtain those exact same benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 Sent2: Since marriage (love) is legally sanctioned for all heterosexuals, the same rights and protection should be granted to homosexuals who choose to marry...or these "legalities" should be terminated completely.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Not so long ago gay sex was considered beyond the pale let alone gay marriage so really morals have nothing to do with the gay marriage debate.
 Sent2: Also, promiscuity and unsafe sex are not relevent to a discussion on gay marriage, as those who are promiscuous and unsafe don't want to marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: And some people, who happen to dislike gay people, should not be allowed to use the state to aim discriminatory laws against gay people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A valid argument against incestuous marriage would not have as its only premise "Marriage is defined as a legal bond between a man and a woman who are not x-apart related."
 Sent2: It wasn't seeking to redefine what marriage is, it was about applying marriage (as it already was--between a man and a woman) to inter-racial couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
 Sent2: As I stated in an earlier post, I believe that gay marriage has to be undertaken from a federal standpoint.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: And don't let anyone tell you that because you oppose same sex marriage because your beliefs are derived from the bible that you are practicing religiously based discrimination.
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: Show me, specifically, how same-sex marriage, accepted and legalized or not, has any affect on those who want to marry themselves and their rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I'm saying heterosexuals are group A and homosexuals are group B and that group A and group B are equal.
 Sent2: How can it rationally be equal if group A can marry someone that group B is not allowed to marry?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
 Sent2: Well then I guess you're right... I guess it should be okay for gays to get married but I don't think they should have the same natural rights as a heterosexual couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some folks argue that the laws barring same-sex marriage are not discriminatory because gay people can get married to people of the opposite sex.
 Sent2: But gay people can do that too; if people are going to marry not for love but for benefits, gays can do that by marrying someone of the opposite sex just for the benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It's called gay rights because it is gay 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: Not similar
Sent1: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 Sent2: Without same-sex marriage, opposite-sex couples are paying less than their share because of same-sex couples who pay more taxes without seeing any benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
 Sent2: People can deny rights to same-sex couples, claiming that same-sex marriage is a threat to society all they want, but if they don't have any evidence to back that up, then they are still morally evil.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 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: that marriage itself is optional, not the norm ��_��__��_��__��_��__ that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren��_��__��_��__t heroic, we must not be called to marry.
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: So since I have never heard any one but anti gay people want a vote on marriage in the legislature or any where else I can ony assume that phyllis is anti gay therefore supports oppression and discrimination.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you listen to people talking about the benefits of marriage upon society (Note, DIFFERENT from the benefits the government gives married couples)...
 Sent2: 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: 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 still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Not allowing gay marriage will not increase love, but increase hate.
 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: If you don't like the fact that gays want to have the same marriage rights and benefits as heteros, move to a middle-eastern country - you'd fit right in there if your latest posts say anything about you.
 Sent2: Does allowing same-sex couples to marry and have the same civil rights and governmental benefits that you currently enjoy impact the legality of your marriage?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
Output: 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: And I never said someone should not be allowed to Mary do to their gender both men and women should be allowed to marry (each other) so it's not sexism at all really.
Output: 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: 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: The exact same argument could be used to support traditional marriage.
 Sent2: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
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 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: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--opposite sex).
 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: 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: It wasn't seeking to redefine what marriage is, it was about applying marriage (as it already was--between a man and a woman) to inter-racial couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gay marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
 Sent2: Our choices are not limited to either not allow gay marriage, or else allow any type of "arrangement".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 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: I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
 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: 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: 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: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: One one hand you seem to think that gay people don't have the right to get married at all--they do because you can get married anytime you want.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage is privilege not a right, because not every heterosexual couple even gets granted the right to marry... the state has a right to regulate what impacts the welfare of the union as whole.
 Sent2: "Gay Marriage" is not any where close to being on par with "heterosexual marriage" where the "general welfare" concerns of the nation have to be addressed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: The government has absolutely no right to tell people who they can and cannot get married to.
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: God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I didn't say marriage was about just reproduction you incoherent person, marriage is just friendship with sex added.
 Sent2: You stated that changing same-sex marriage infringes upon people's rights because it devalues their marriage.
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: 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: It is my sincere feeling that short of redifineing marriage that all gays should have the same benefits afforded married straight couples........
 Sent2: I do not disagree with homosexual couples being afforded the same tax breaks and employer benefits afforded to married homosexual couples pending a legal contract.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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 believe I have made it completely clear that the government should change only the legal institution of marriage, and you're acting like I'm saying the government should force religions to accept same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
 Sent2: But saying they should have marriage is taking a sacred religious bond and making it simply a union between two people who want to have sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: And (even thought it's been said many times in this debate) if the ability to conceive a child was somehow the litmus test for marriage then sterile couples wouldn't be allowed to marry either.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Marriage was never defined as between a Man and Woman until religious Zealots pushed the Government to define it in such a way to deny Gay people their right to marry.
 Sent2: 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: Not similar
Sent1: Possibly, and if so they are satisfied with the present situation regarding gay marriage but I am guessing that many more want society to allow them to marry.
 Sent2: I 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: 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: Yes, i agree to that but two people with the same sex can't make babies.
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: Since same-sex couples are raising children, the children in these families deserve the right to have two parents who are legally married to each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact is; Neither voting nor the Government recognition of a marriage is a non conditional right.
 Sent2: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
Output: Similar
Sent1: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
 Sent2: By denying homosexuals the right to marry you are creating a second class of people; you are discriminating against them by saying that they are not worthy of long-term, legally recognised relationships, yet heterosexuals are.
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 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: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: While the presence of gay marriage being legal may "influence" children in some menial way, it does NOT "damage the right of people to believe what they wish".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
 Sent2: Straight people have marriages gay people have domestic partnerships they are practically the same thing why change it there's really no need to.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I personally think state governments should not be able to grant marriages and should only be able to grant civil unions to everyone.
 Sent2: I believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We have been considering whether same-sex marriage does harm to people, and it's quite clear that it does not.
 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: If you listen to people talking about the benefits of marriage upon society (Note, DIFFERENT from the benefits the government gives married couples)...
 Sent2: I believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: Those who support gay marriage have determined that it is a civil right.
Output: 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: The majority of arguments against same sex marriage are religious in nature, and no government has the right to favor one religion over another.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: Now a gay man may not wish to marry a gay woman (or vice versa) but the government does not inherently prohibit marriage between gay persons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: Well then I guess you're right... I guess it should be okay for gays to get married but I don't think they should have the same natural rights as a heterosexual couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So your saying that if gay people are allowed to marry...then marriage becomes pointless and heterosexual couples will stop having sex and our species will parish?
 Sent2: Stopping gay people from getting married is not accepting our right to live as we please.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: Those who support gay marriage have determined that it is a civil right.
Output: Similar
Sent1: when we say should gays be allowed to get "married" we mean, "should they have the right to be allowed official union"
 Sent2: We don't necessarily have a right to officially recognized gay marriage, but we have every right to tell the government if we want it or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
 Sent2: We are not longer primitive, so we should allow any couple to marry, as we already allow with straight couples who do not have children.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: if 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: Since same-sex couples are raising children, the children in these families deserve the right to have two parents who are legally married to each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I agree that IF gay marriage is made legal it should be done through the legislature and not the courts.
 Sent2: if homosexual couples pass the existing legal definition of marriage, why not ?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
 Sent2: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
 Sent2: Remember that gay marriage is not further down the line than straight marriage.
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: 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: A point I have made in the past is that the same legal arguments folks are advancing in the courts to have same-sex marriage recognized could quite possibly also apply to people who would seek to have polygamous marriages recognized.
 Sent2: I 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: 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: As I've said I completely agree gays should be entitled to the full EQUAL benefits of straight marriages) but I don't see why I would need to get married anyway.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A point I have made in the past is that the same legal arguments folks are advancing in the courts to have same-sex marriage recognized could quite possibly also apply to people who would seek to have polygamous marriages recognized.
 Sent2: Therefore as I said using traditional marriage as an argument against same-sex marriage is just like using traditional marriage as an argument against interracial marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
 Sent2: I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
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: For example, you might try to say that by allowing same-sex marriage, we are violating one man's right to be comfortable knowing gays can't marry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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