niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: People secure in their heterosexual identity or way of life, have nothing to concern themselves with if gays are being accepted.
 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: I don't believe in gay marriage but I have looked at all the arguments and made my decision.
 Sent2: My point is that using this stupid "I don't wanna, but I want the benefits anyways" argument to try and ignore the unjustified discrimination against gay marriage is stupid.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
 Sent2: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
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 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: 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: Some folks argue that the laws barring same-sex marriage are not discriminatory because gay people can get married to people of the opposite sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
 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: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: Meaning that a federal BAN on gay marriage is unconstitutional; but so is a federal law ALLOWING gay marriage.
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 people aren't going to accept "separate but equal" civil unions, and heterosexual people aren't going to want to allow gay people to have civil marriages.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: Throughout history, even ion remote times, marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.
Output: 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: 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.
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: 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: Marriage is for people who love and want to spend life with each other.
 Sent2: You are using a double-standard that is unfair not only to couples, but to their children, who end up losing the protection of having two married parents simply because other people don't like the sex of the two parents.
Output: Not 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: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
Output: 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: Even if it was certain that allowing same-sex marriage would allow these forms of marriage, that would only be a downside of legalizing same-sex marriage, it wouldn't be a reason that same-sex marriage itself is wrong.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Either all people should be allowed to marry the person of their choice or no one should be allowed to marry.
 Sent2: If gay couples are allowed to marry then any combination of marriage should be allowed as long as it involves consenting adults.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The governemnt should only be allows to give extra rights to common law marriages, whether sanctified in a church or a temple, between a man or a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
 Sent2: Man-woman marriage is legal and gets state goodies, but man-man and woman-woman marriages are illegal.
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: Remember that people who are not straight currently get married just for the benefits, and people who do not love each other currently get married just for the benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If inclusion of same sex couples being allowed to marry is what you call "redefining", then the inclusion of interracial couples would also be a "redefiniton."
 Sent2: If same sex "marriage" and not civil unions are allowed, then precedence will have been set for redefining marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is those opposed to gay rights who don't care about the commitment; it is those opposed who say that it does not matter how commited a same-sex couple is, same-sex couples can't have marriage.
 Sent2: Those people who are fighting against the rights of gays to marry do not want to see same-sex couples receive any rights or recognitions of their relationships.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 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: 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.
 Sent2: If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It seems to me that the anti gay crowd refuses to give gay couples the same respect they expect gay people to give them.
 Sent2: I 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: (and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
 Sent2: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
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: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
Output: 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: And as I pointed out, "most people who oppose gay marriage" are actually opposing gay marriage because they very much oppose gays in general.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: I know many gay couples who have adopted children and are loving parents.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If my rules were adopted then almost no one would get married, and those who get married have to breed if they don't they are no longer married.
 Sent2: What about gays who adopt should they only be allowed to get married because they adopted a child?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
 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: 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: The government has absolutely no right to tell people who they can and cannot get married to.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Only heterosexual acts and unions can actually produce offspring - so gay unions aren't really producing new taxpayers and citizens at all - their relations with the opposite sex are producing new taxpayers and citizens.
 Sent2: Marriage is a public sexual union that creates obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But when it comes to the other side of the coin, Gay marriage directly affects a couples ability to have their love and commitment viewed under the law and in society the same way heterosexual marriages are viewed and protected.
 Sent2: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
Output: 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: 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: 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: And as I pointed out, "most people who oppose gay marriage" are actually opposing gay marriage because they very much oppose gays in general.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The exact same argument could be used to support traditional marriage.
 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: Now, I am uncertain why gay people should not be allowed to have civil marriage and in fact many people (perhaps most) support civil unions.
 Sent2: Gay people aren't going to accept "separate but equal" civil unions, and heterosexual people aren't going to want to allow gay people to have civil marriages.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
 Sent2: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
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 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: Since people cannot come up with any tangible reason for denying same-sex couples marriage - and same-sex couple can at least quantify the harm of denying them marriage, who do you think wins the argument?
 Sent2: 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: 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: No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim thatpsychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as ��_��__��_��__��_��__normal��_��__��_��__ as heterosexuality.
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: If two people cannot do this for some legal reason, they are being denied equal rights unless marriage is completely outlawed within that nation.
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 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
Output: 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 personally think the gov't should get out of the business of marriage and institute civil unions defining and protecting rights for all parties involved provided they are able to give legal consent to enter the union.
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: Lastly gay isn't a civil right, you don't have a right to be gay.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
Output: 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: Marriage is a civil right, and gays can get married, but you don't know if gay marriage is a civil right?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Although this isn't my primary argument, it can easily be seen that same-sex marriage provides benefits equal to that of opposite-sex marriage and far greater than that of allowing a single individual to marry.
 Sent2: It is my INDIVIDUAL decision to marry someone of the same sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage is an official contract between two people, you can get married to whoever you want (provided they sign) and the government will enforce that contract to the scope of that contracts authority (two people).
 Sent2: People getting together and just doing their own contracts does not get the government out of marriage because contracts are only legal if they are upheld by the law.
Output: Not 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 know many gay couples who have adopted children and are loving parents.
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: Any legislature could grant additional benefits to marriage with as much ease as it takes to leave off the words "and civil unions".
Output: Similar
Sent1: BUT I can't see where the line is drawn between the christian right wanting more couples to marry and gay couples marrying.
 Sent2: I think most gay people would never want to get married in a church, we want a civil marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Society rewards heterosexual marriage as a means of perpetuating society.
 Sent2: A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And due to the fact that all people must be treated equally under the law because heterosexuals can get married then so must homosexuals be allowed to get married.
 Sent2: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
Output: 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: 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: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
 Sent2: How is allowing gay couples to marry an "anything goes" version of marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: There is no good reason behind giving marriage benefits to people based on their sex and there are plenty of reasons to do just the opposite.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 Sent2: Legalizing same-sex marriage will enhance family stability and provide greater protections for more children, specificaly the children of gay parents.
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: Allowing use will have literally no impact on people who are not gay couples looking to call their union a marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The French government has solved the problem of redefining marriage by creating a legal union between any two eligible persons regardless of gender that allows the couple to have rights equal to those that are legally married.
 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: 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?
 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: The fact that I (as have many men and women) failed (due to weakness against temptations driven by nature) to respect a marriage by commiting adultery has no bearing on same-sex marriage.
 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: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
 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: 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: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
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: I didn't say marriage was about just reproduction you incoherent person, marriage is just friendship with sex added.
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: 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.
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: The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
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: One thing is certain: you don't automatically get to have gay marriage put in the same catagory as women's and blacks' right to vote, interracial marriage, etc.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 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: And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
 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: 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: 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: If the state wants to offer legal protections and benefits to straight married couples, it cannot constitutionally refuse equal protections to gay ones.
 Sent2: Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Neither gay nor straight parents have any right to be a parent to someone else's child.
 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: Gay marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
 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: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
 Sent2: It is my sincere feeling that short of redifineing marriage that all gays should have the same benefits afforded married straight 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: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since heterosexuals are provided the means to have a happy marriage and homosexuals are not, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.
 Sent2: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
Output: Similar
Sent1: And some people, who happen to dislike gay people, should not be allowed to use the state to aim discriminatory laws against gay people.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So long as we deny same-sex marriage, we admit to the government that they have the power to deny rights to minorities simply because the majority says so.
 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: 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: BUT I can't see where the line is drawn between the christian right wanting more couples to marry and gay couples marrying.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Back to the issue (if you can), there are no significant differences between the arguement for gay marriage recognition, and say, co-habitation recognition, or polygamy marriage recognition.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There are those who believe that they should be allowed to marry minors and that laws forbidding them from doing so is a violation of their rights.
 Sent2: While many believe that passing laws and constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage is an act that shows how they are honoring what their religions defines as marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
 Sent2: It's human rights man, people have the right to do what they want, if they want to marry a gay then let them be.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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 HAVE seen where the gays appear to be shunning recognition by wanting to blend in homogeneously with all married couples thereby losing some of their own identity.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And due to the fact that all people must be treated equally under the law because heterosexuals can get married then so must homosexuals be allowed to get married.
 Sent2: The opponents of same-sex marriage refuse to allow gay people to be treated as equals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: I have explained how denying same-sex marriage harms same-sex couples.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Nothing would prevent straight couples from the exact same marriage whether gay people can marry or not.
 Sent2: Remember that gay marriage is not further down the line than straight marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Just as YOU are being denied the benefits without getting married (as marriage is federally--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: Not similar
Sent1: Yes, i agree to that but two people with the same sex can't make babies.
 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: Nor does this exclusion rationally further the State's legitimate interest in encouraging heterosexual married couples to procreate.
 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: 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: Accepting gay marriage/sex is accepting deviant sex/marriage...black people are not deviant...maybe you think so but I dont
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: If it's not literally in there, and the system doesn't allow for interpretation to include gay people, then there is nothing for the anti-same-sex marriage side to worry about.
 Sent2: It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: It's called gay rights because it is gay rights.
 Sent2: They only time responses are against gay couples having the rights granted hetero couples is when they are lumped together and called 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 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: 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: A civil partnership between two homosexual men or two lesbian women should be called a homosexual civil partnership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Fact is that Marriage was defined by DOMA to intentionally deny Gay people the right, the fact that it was untested until then is beside the point.
 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: But same-sex marriage doesn't cause disease transfer; gay people will have sex whether they have marriage or not.
 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: 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.
 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: Gay activists argue that government needs to grant same-sex marriage rights to homosexuals so they will have visitation rights.
 Sent2: They only time responses are against gay couples having the rights granted hetero couples is when they are lumped together and called gay marriage.
Output: Not 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: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do not want gay deviant sex to be considered anything other than that, deviant.
 Sent2: I do not want to make special laws just for myself; I believe that the opponents of same-sex marriage are the ones who seek to do that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
 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: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
 Sent2: I see nothing in there of the rest of the bill of rights for that matter that affirms a right to gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That is saying the minority status of gays ourselves, is a problem that should prevent us from entering marriage.
 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: In the case of same-sex marriage, homosexuals are completely denied equality, for they are not even allowed the same marriage benefits that others recieve without changing their sexuality.
 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 marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
 Sent2: Religious opposition to gay marriage falls under a moralistic opinion category.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
 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: 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: Before you state that same-sex couples cannot have children, understand that such a claim is a myth propogated by people whose religious values do not permit having sex outside a marriage or using a surrogate parent.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But those who want to engage in same-sex marriage do care.
 Sent2: If a church does not want to perform a same-sex marriage, the church should have the right to deny it based on religious reasons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I rather give gays their rights than to live in a country that says it's equal, yet won't allow two lesbians to have the same marital status as a man and a woman.
 Sent2: 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: 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: 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.
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: 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: B= A If you support (B) a ban on same sex marriage you support (A) slavery.
 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: I agree that IF gay marriage is made legal it should be done through the legislature and not the courts.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
 Sent2: But the question of whether inter-racial marriages must be recognized by law and whether same-sex marriages must be recognized by law are still different questions, and each must be evaluated on its own merits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: I do not disagree with homosexual couples being afforded the same tax breaks and employer benefits afforded to married homosexual couples pending a legal contract.
 Sent2: 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: If you listen to people talking about the benefits of marriage upon society (Note, DIFFERENT from the benefits the government gives married couples)...
 Sent2: It would require that the government not provide any benefits to any married couples (same sex or not)and their families.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Their religious beliefs tell them that THEY should not be gay, or marry somebody of the same gender.
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: 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: And the only one who somehow thinks that fighting for gay marriage is the only means to qualify as fighting for civil rights?
 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: Although this isn't my primary argument, it can easily be seen that same-sex marriage provides benefits equal to that of opposite-sex marriage and far greater than that of allowing a single individual to marry.
 Sent2: There is no good reason behind giving marriage benefits to people based on their sex and there are plenty of reasons to do just the opposite.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
 Sent2: It seems to me that the anti gay crowd refuses to give gay couples the same respect they expect gay people to give them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But the question of whether inter-racial marriages must be recognized by law and whether same-sex marriages must be recognized by law are still different questions, and each must be evaluated on its own merits.
 Sent2: In that sense, the case for states recognizing legal same-sex marriage is even stronger under the equal protection argument than was the case for states recognizing legal inter-racial marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The only way that we can fight homophobia is by showing people that homosexuals deserve the same rights as straight couples.
 Sent2: Since we're talking about what rights heterosexual people have versus what rights homosexual people have, the only logical conclusion is that both groups have the same rights since marrying whomever you love is not a right.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage can be redefined to include other arrangements people may want (right now, same-sex couples are trying to do this) then most certainly it can be redefined to include more people in a relationship to have it apply to.
 Sent2: How people feel about polygamy has no relevance on same sex couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: 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.
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: There is precidence for marriages not being recognized state to state, outside of same sex marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
 Sent2: If we legalize polygamy, those in polygamous relationships will be able to bestow their marriage benefits on an unlimited number of people while those in monogamous relationships will only be allowed to bestow those benefits on a single person.
Output: Not 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: It is about heterosexuality; you can only get marriage if you are a heterosexual.
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 have no objection to anyone believing that homossexuality and / or same-sex marriage is immoral.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages.
 Sent2: The federal DOMA was an effort to quarantine same-sex marriage, to exclude same-sex couples from federal rights and benefits even if states were to legalize same-sex marriage, which several have done since 1996.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 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: 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: Remember, part of what defines marriage is that it is between a man and woman.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 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: 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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: 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.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: God did not introduce the concept of marriage, man did.
 Sent2: And Christian doctrine teaches that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: As "segregation" SCOTUS rulings showed us, "separate but equal" is not constitutional for separating groups with no legitimate state interest for such separation.
 Sent2: If the state has a legitimate state interest, then discrimination is justified.
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: 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: 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: As I have stated above, polygamous relationships are already recognized and are already equal under the law to those of monogamous couples.
Output: Not 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: Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
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: But saying they should have marriage is taking a sacred religious bond and making it simply a union between two people who want to have sex.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It seems to me that the anti gay crowd refuses to give gay couples the same respect they expect gay people to give them.
 Sent2: I 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: gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.
 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: 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: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
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 the government can say "gays can't marry" today, tomorrow they could say "Jews, Catholics, and atheists can't marry."
Output: Not similar