niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 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: I am a conservative, and I don't understand how people who consider themselves to be conservative can also be against gay marriage.
 Sent2: I have seen only two arguments (and one of them is restated here) for gay marriage to not be a thing: we have to protect the sanctity of marriage or marriage should only be for people who can reproduce.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I 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 have explained how denying same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: It is enough to show that legalizing same-sex marriage is not harmful to indicate that it should be allowed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If as the court ruled marriage is about children then none of these groups should not be allowed to get married.
 Sent2: How can it rationally be equal if group A can marry someone that group B is not allowed to marry?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
 Sent2: However allowing gay marriage will not automatically allow polygamous marriage...it may lend a little more wieght to it via precedent, but then interracial marriage has done the same for gay marriage even though the actual issues are different.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Many of those who oppose same sex marriage have forgotten that gay people still get married in their hearts and that not having a piece of paper will not stop people from feeling like they are married.
 Sent2: 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: 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: Marriages are for the Church to decide, Congress have no power to pass a legislation forcing religious institutions about marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
 Sent2: As I stated in an earlier post, I believe that gay marriage has to be undertaken from a federal standpoint.
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: If we broaden the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, wouldn't heterosexual unmarried couples still be discriminated against?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All opponents of same-sex marriage care about is getting their own religious beliefs put into law, no matter the cost.
 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: I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
 Sent2: While I don't have a problem with gay marriage personally, I do support the power of the voters.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yes, i agree to that but two people with the same sex can't make babies.
 Sent2: However, the number of people who engage in sex with people of the same gender of themselves is much higher than the number of people who have sex with animals, children, and those who kill people or are kleptomaniacs.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
 Sent2: Some suggest gay marriage will merely undermine one of our most fundamental societal institutions, causing countless straight couples to get divorced because exclusion of gays was the only thing holding their marriage together.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 Sent2: There have been thousands of cases of so called gay people converting to straight, marrying and having children....
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: Practical problems are not a good justification to ban civil liberties, especially when the argument for gay marriage is not that it's "easy" but that it's "right".
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: On a personal level I don't care if homosexuals get married or not but I disagree with the idea that the state and federal government don't have a right to define marriage terms.
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: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Same-sex couples should have the equal right to marry legally because it benefits society to support stable families, and it especially benefits children to live in stable families with two married parents.
 Sent2: Legalizing same-sex marriage will enhance family stability and provide greater protections for more children, specificaly the children of gay parents.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If the government "redresses" the grievances against gay marriage it will only establish the Christian faith further which is against the constitution.
 Sent2: discrimination against gay marriage is based solely on religious beliefs and amounts to establishment of religion
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
 Sent2: On a personal level I don't care if homosexuals get married or not but I disagree with the idea that the state and federal government don't have a right to define marriage terms.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If you are saying that Massachusetts and California decided correctly because marriage is a common law institution, I would have to disagree.
 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: You don't see terrorists targetting other countries that legalized same-sex marriage, after all.
 Sent2: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
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 for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
 Sent2: The people of several states determined that gay marriage is not a right in their constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: If you listen to people talking about the benefits of marriage upon society (Note, DIFFERENT from the benefits the government gives married couples)...
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 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: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Gay rights activists have continued to press for full marriage equality, saying civil unions do not satisfy a state Supreme Court ruling that entitles gay couples to the same benefits as married couples.
 Sent2: Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Output: 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: While many believe that passing laws and constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage is an act that shows how they are honoring what their religions defines as marriage.
Output: 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: Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Gay people aren't prevented from marrying each other, they just don't get the benefits that are given for it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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: Similar
Sent1: There have been thousands of cases of so called gay people converting to straight, marrying and having children....
 Sent2: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
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: And Christian doctrine teaches that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
Output: Not 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: The fact that marriage is a civil right doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should get marriage, but certainly we are denying people civil rights if we deny them marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You: You left out that gay marriage is legalized by legislatures.
 Sent2: If you are for freedom, vote to legalize gay rights.
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: Marriage is already a civil right everyone has--you have it too, because you can marry someone of opposite-gender right now.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: Since you are heterosexual and have rallied against gay rights/gay marriage you have done this and are therefore imposing your religion on others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They feel they are backed by millenia of social and society norms whereby marriage is between two people of opposite gender.
 Sent2: But concerning marriage per se it has always been a matter for society as a whole with it always being held as between people of the opposite sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: the reason I ask is because I've never seen any studies done comparing the % of straight kids raised by homosexual couples and the % of homosexual kids raised by homosexuals.
 Sent2: I do not want gay deviant sex to be considered anything other than that, deviant.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: QuoteI} thank the Red Cross for recognizing gay couples, but the Feds fo not.....another reason gay marriage isn't just a right but a necessity
 Sent2: I thank the Red Cross for recognizing gay couples, but the Feds fo not.....another reason gay marriage isn't just a right but a necessity.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If your religion or culture disallows gay marriage, that's fine.
 Sent2: Banning gay marriage is not against the constitution and how is banning it "enforcing religion" besides your a Christian aren't you?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If people are going to make a big deal out of two people of the same sex getting married, then people of different religions, people of no religion, even people guilty of adultery shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
 Sent2: 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: A RI couple said that there was nothing forbidding gays from getting married in RI, and the courts agreed.
 Sent2: I agree that IF gay marriage is made legal it should be done through the legislature and not the courts.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
 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: 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: Edit: BTW gay people are being kept from their rights because same sex marriage isnt legal.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The reason that we "Mormons" opposed gay marriage so vocally is that giving gays the right to marry is that it endangers the traditional family.
 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: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: I don't care if one's religion says that marriage is a special institution for straight people, for white people, for blondes, or for anyone else, but the law cannot do that.
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 argument for same-sex marriage is not whimsical, and our arguments are based on what will benefit society.
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 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: You're saying the right to marriage is satisfied as long as you are allowed to marry one person irrespective of who that person is or whatever qualities that person may have.
 Sent2: Marriage is already a civil right everyone has--you have it too, because you can marry someone of opposite-gender right now.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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".
 Sent2: Having the government recognize gay marriage over the will of the people influences people's children into thinking gay marriage is acceptable.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
 Sent2: But when the government is promoting heterosexual marriage, it isn't because promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage is a good thing, and it isn't because heterosexual couples deserve more money or more benefits than same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You did suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples would still be discriminated against, even if we allowed same-sex couples to marry.
 Sent2: So I must ask you why exactly are you against same sex marriage when it has been shown that the ban on same sex marriage is just like the ban on interracial couples getting married?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Are you implying that heterosexuals are entitled to whatever "it" is, but homosexual individuals are not?
 Sent2: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The argument in favor of same-sex marriage is based on religion often as well; whole bunches of people hold religious beliefs which state that marriage is between any two people who are not related by family.
 Sent2: But concerning marriage per se it has always been a matter for society as a whole with it always being held as between people of the opposite sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 Sent2: Meaning that a federal BAN on gay marriage is unconstitutional; but so is a federal law ALLOWING gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
 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: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
 Sent2: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You: You left out that gay marriage is legalized by legislatures.
 Sent2: Banning gay marriage is not against the constitution and how is banning it "enforcing religion" besides your a Christian aren't you?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: True, the courts have ruled that denying gay people the right to marry is a violation of their human rights.
 Sent2: Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gay marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
 Sent2: Not to mention visitation rights in hospitals, or any one of the thousands of rights denied gay couples.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 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: 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: I don't care if calling it "marriage" offends people, or violates what they call the sanctity of marriage, gays should have the same RIGHTS that a married couple gets.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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).
 Sent2: Are you saying that gay people who pay into the same systems, shouldn't also benefit?
Output: Similar
Sent1: If gays deserve special treatment then I think single people should be given special priveleges to, to encourage them to create families and so they won't feel left out.
 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 marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
 Sent2: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the state wants to offer legal protections and benefits to straight married couples, it cannot constitutionally refuse equal protections to gay ones.
 Sent2: The 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: 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: Who is it ok for a man and a women (both of consenting age) to fall in love, and get married, but horrible for two women (both of consenting age) to do the same?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
 Sent2: gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.
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: No one is imposing any moral codes on anyone by allowing same sex couples the right of marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Nobody is asking you to be gay, marry a man, or even like gay people.
 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: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
 Sent2: Same-sex couples should have the equal right to marry legally because it benefits society to support stable families, and it especially benefits children to live in stable families with two married parents.
Output: Not similar
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: 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: You know, if you aren't able to grasp the concept of the inconsistency of saying one is against gay marriage when saying they are for gay rights, I don't know what else to say.
 Sent2: I feel like you are keeping gay marriage and gay rights separate in your mind, and I think that that is a very wrong assumption.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
 Sent2: Now, although it is technically true that everyone is granted the right to opposite-sex marriage and no one is granted the right to same-sex marriage, this means nothing more than "heterosexuals will use marriage, while homosexuals will not."
Output: 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: A married gay person is unlikely to have sex with others while he/she is married so therefore, the virus would really be kept between the couple.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
 Sent2: I have explained how denying same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I thought marriage was a secular event, and only a religious event should a couple want to make it one.
 Sent2: If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
Output: Similar
Sent1: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
 Sent2: Yet we've shown that we can have opposite-sex marriage without having everything else, haven't we?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This would only be true if homosexuals were trying to marry and at the same time take away heterosexuals equality to marriage.
 Sent2: Since heterosexuals are provided the means to have a happy marriage and homosexuals are not, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
 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: 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: The argument in favor of same-sex marriage is based on religion often as well; whole bunches of people hold religious beliefs which state that marriage is between any two people who are not related by family.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But to receive government recognition of their marriage or (better put) the government "promoted" aspects of their marriage,... they must conform their relationship to fit the government's definition.
 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: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: Marriage is a civil right, and gays can get married, but you don't know if gay marriage is a civil right?
Output: Similar
Sent1: If there are cases where we can not determine what sex a person is, how can we determine if they are homosexual or not?
 Sent2: The issue of same-sex marriage will determine whether marriage is about family or sexual preference, for we either give it to all families or all people of a specific sexual preference.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All citizens are protected under the law for equal treatment.
 Sent2: Equal protection under the law means that consenting non related individuals have their relationships protected.
Output: 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 is about the people getting married, strangers not approving in a marriage should not even be a factor to be considered.
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 still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Are you admitting it is a special "gravy train" for opposite sex- couples ONLY?
 Sent2: Marriage will be a special form of civil union that only opposite-sex couples are allowed to engage in.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
 Sent2: The general gay-marriage argument resolves around securing an equality of rights for those with a different sexual preference, its not based around "Gays have love too, therefore marriage".
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: 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: If there are cases where we can not determine what sex a person is, how can we determine if they are homosexual or not?
 Sent2: 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: 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: 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: Marriage outta government insures gays can't marry (unless the church break the Bible) because marriage is really a religious thing.
 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: The only rampant discrimination against homosexuals is not recognizing their union as marriage by the government.
 Sent2: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
Output: Similar
Sent1: I rather give gays their rights than to live in a country that says it's equal, yet won't allow two lesbians to have the same marital status as a man and a woman.
 Sent2: Personally I am indifferent towards gay people, they should have the same rights as everyone else, because I don't think a what a person does in the bedroom should have any bearing on their public lives.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I have stated that I believe gays should be allowed to do whatever they want to each other but should not be allowed to 'marry' or encourage anyone else to engage in their own perverted life style.
 Sent2: I 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: 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: These recognitions are not only federal but vary state to state, for instance some states recognize 1st cousin marriages while others don't, as I recall, the age of consent to marry also differs among states.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: I can further explain that since you cannot prove same-sex couples are inferior, you are not justified in denying them marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
 Sent2: Allowing straight marriage to provide for U.S. citizenship, while gays have no option (marriage or civil union).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Anyone can be gay but only homosexuals are sexually attracted to their own sex.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
 Sent2: With gay marriage, the issue is changing marriage to be something it's not, to whatever.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also, the state legislature could pass a law which applies to both marriage and civil unions, but the governor could line-item-veto the benefits to civil unions.
 Sent2: Gay rights activists have continued to press for full marriage equality, saying civil unions do not satisfy a state Supreme Court ruling that entitles gay couples to the same benefits as married couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 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: If you consider sexual deviancy as normal then you can consider gay sex as normal.
 Sent2: I do not want gay deviant sex to be considered anything other than that, deviant.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Even though denying polygamous marriage is not actually a destruction of equality, one might still say, "Well, even though denying polygamous marriage isn't as bad as denying same-sex marriage, why do we deny it?
 Sent2: 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: Try to have a marriage without the government's role.
 Sent2: 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?
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Gay people aren't prevented from marrying each other, they just don't get the benefits that are given for it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
 Sent2: 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: 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: Gay rights activists have continued to press for full marriage equality, saying civil unions do not satisfy a state Supreme Court ruling that entitles gay couples to the same benefits as married couples.
Output: Similar
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 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The courts didn't give people a say in overturning interracial marriage.
 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: If people are going to make a big deal out of two people of the same sex getting married, then people of different religions, people of no religion, even people guilty of adultery shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
 Sent2: Either all people should be allowed to marry the person of their choice or no one should be allowed to marry.
Output: 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: 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: Certainly the arguments of freedom and equality apply as equally to same-sex marriage as they do to incestuous marriage, but foundation of the debate is the harms incestuous marriage creates.
 Sent2: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people who don't voice an opinion in favor of gay civil unions are enabling the discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual couples to continue.
 Sent2: Gay rights activists have continued to press for full marriage equality, saying civil unions do not satisfy a state Supreme Court ruling that entitles gay couples to the same benefits as married couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage outta government insures gays can't marry (unless the church break the Bible) because marriage is really a religious thing.
 Sent2: 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: They simply say they are against gay marriage and therefore would support making sure marriage is not redefined.
 Sent2: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
Output: Similar
Sent1: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
 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: 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 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: 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: It WILL take a Constitutional amendment for it to say that homosexuals are less than equal.
Output: Not similar