niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
 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: 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: Your argument that no-same-sex-marriage is not discriminatory on the basis that homosexuals can just marry people of the opposite sex could just as easily be used to argue that Jim Crow laws do not discriminate against Black people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: There are a lot of in this country who believe that same sex marriage is just as oddball as the ones I mentioned
 Sent2: In the case of same-sex marriage, I can state that it is harmless and it helps many people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But if a law discriminates against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, then the law should stand unless it is applied differently to gay people than to heterosexuals.
 Sent2: That is not the case with gay marriage laws - only gay people are realistically impacted.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gays marry no one gets hurt and gay families win.
 Sent2: While homosexual marriage may not physically hurt anyone, physical injuries are not the only type of injuries that can be inflicted to a person, to a family or to a nation.
Output: Similar
Sent1: gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
 Sent2: If gay marriage is or is not legalized, it has no affect on laws against polygamy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yes, i agree to that but two people with the same sex can't make babies.
 Sent2: There is a very big difference between someone who is attracted to and falls in love with someone of the same sex and someone who is attracted to children of the same sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I wouldnt mind letting religion have the word marriage and the government have civil unions to where both straight and gay couples have civil unions and if you want to go to a church to get married then you can.
 Sent2: I don't particularly care for the idea of "civil unions" because it forms a "separate, but equal" marriage system, that will only lead to continued discrimination.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Placing children with gay couples is unnecessary and harmful - if group homes are the only alternative then it is argued such environments are more healthy and indeed normal than farming kids out to gays
 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: One of the interesting developments in recent years has been the rush by people in many states to amend their marriage statutes so that they explicitly say that marriage is between one man and one woman.
 Sent2: The government has absolutely no right to tell people who they can and cannot get married to.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This is not going to change as same-sex marriage becomes legal in more places.
 Sent2: I'm curious about something from the other side of the fence...to those against same sex marriage, if a man gets a sex change and becomes a woman, should he/she be allowed to marry?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia argued that their law prohibiting inter-racial marriages did provide equal protection, because it treated everyone equally in denying people the right to marry someone of a different race.
 Sent2: All citizens are protected under the law for equal treatment.
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: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: I feel like you are keeping gay marriage and gay rights separate in your mind, and I think that that is a very wrong assumption.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: The homosexual agenda's justification for demanding marriage has always been for the equal benefits which marriage affords couples who marry.
 Sent2: Regardless of the morality (or immorality) of gay sex and marriage, if people need benefits they need benefits.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Legalizing same-sex marriage will enhance family stability and provide greater protections for more children, specificaly the children of gay parents.
 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: The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: If you wish to argue for gay rights, realize that other things you may not agree with become a lot more possible.
 Sent2: People want the government to say, "You are gay, so you don't deserve equal rights."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That is saying the minority status of gays ourselves, is a problem that should prevent us from entering marriage.
 Sent2: That way we can keep the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and gays can still have a "union" with other gays.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: There are plenty of incredibly committed same-sex couples today, and there will be a few more if same-sex marriage is legalized because our laws teach people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: The only thing we are saying is that men who are attracted to other adult men should be allowed to get married, just as men who are attracted to other adult women should be allowed to get married.
Output: Similar
Sent1: As I have pointed out, gay people engage in the same varied kinds of sexual behavior as heterosexuals do.
 Sent2: For me and many gay people same sex marriage is both moral and ethical.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is enough to show that legalizing same-sex marriage is not harmful to indicate that it should be allowed.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: It has to do with ALL INDIVIDUALS (not just those who are gay) being able to freely and legally marry according to the dictates of their OWN FAITH , the same as every heterosexual couple.
Output: Not 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: 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: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Many social conservatives argue that benefits are provided to married couples because, in turn, married couples benefit society.
 Sent2: The argument for same-sex marriage is not whimsical, and our arguments are based on what will benefit society.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The courts didn't give people a say in overturning interracial marriage.
 Sent2: I say the government has no place supporting secular humanists over people of faith, just so that illicit gay marriage can pass muster.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
 Sent2: I know many gay couples who have adopted children and are loving parents.
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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If we want to distinguish between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, we can simply say, "same-sex marriage" or "opposite-sex marriage".
 Sent2: - We need to understand that disagreeement over whether gays should be allowed to have legal same sex marriage is not "gay-bashing."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact that it is impractical to offer the benefits of marriage across many people is really far more important than the inequality, since the inequality would only be helping some families while hurting no others.
 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: As had been suggested before, I do not know of a single act of violence committed against someone because he opposed gay rights, yet I know of many opponents of gay rights who committed violence against gay people.
 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: However, a man and a woman are both "persons" under the law and are not treated differently under the law.
 Sent2: In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia argued that their law prohibiting inter-racial marriages did provide equal protection, because it treated everyone equally in denying people the right to marry someone of a different race.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: The more you put same sex couples on the "outs" the more you do damage to ALL couples and families.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, you might try to say that by allowing same-sex marriage, we are violating one man's right to be comfortable knowing gays can't marry.
 Sent2: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Especially since gays are equal in that they have the same rights to marry as straight people do.
 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: Similar
Sent1: However, a man and a woman are both "persons" under the law and are not treated differently under the law.
 Sent2: 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.
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: 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: BUT I can't see where the line is drawn between the christian right wanting more couples to marry and gay couples marrying.
 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: 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: 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: 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: Not all heterosexual couples have children, and not all gay couples are childless.
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: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So if someone is against same sex marriage then they are for hurting my family.
 Sent2: It is my INDIVIDUAL decision to marry someone of the same sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This fight is about equal rights for gay people; I believe that equality is all that is needed for acceptance, and it sounds to me that you believe the same.
 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: Similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 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: Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
 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: 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 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: 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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: And I WILL point out that the issue is whether gays have the right to be treated equally with respect to marriage - not whether they are to be treated equally with respect to gay marriage.
 Sent2: Gay people are not being treated any different from anybody else with respect to the issue of gay marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
 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 government has no say in who marries, but marriage should be used to raise a family, and children, and keep the family going.
 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: I believe that marriage is about commitment and that the government should therefore grant the benefits of marriage to every committed couple.
 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: 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 gay rights should be a debate as long as there are people who believe that those who are gay should not have equal rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 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: 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 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: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
 Sent2: The argument for same-sex marriage is not whimsical, and our arguments are based on what will benefit society.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: What amazes me is someone could actually believe a constitutional ban on gay marriage is in anyway a contributing factor to divorce rates.
 Sent2: However, I think that this will not work, because homosexuality and higher divorce rates are not corrolated, as higher divorce rates exist in countries that don't even have legalized gay marriage.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gays don't call their unions marriage, we have commitment ceremonies not weddings.
 Sent2: If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: My civil rights, freedom, and religious liberty should never be curtailed because it is an affront to you and your religion.
 Sent2: All I am asking is that you accept that my marriage is just as valid under my religion as yours is under your religion, and that we are all entitled to the same civil rights.
Output: Similar
Sent1: But if a law discriminates against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, then the law should stand unless it is applied differently to gay people than to heterosexuals.
 Sent2: Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
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: 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.
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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
 Sent2: We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have no problem with gay marriage, I do have a problem with the invasion of people's rights to believe that gay union is wrong.
 Sent2: I 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: And of course the unspoken result of gay marriage will be the demand that all forms of perversions of traditional marriages must now be allowed because the precedent has been set with same sex marriages.
 Sent2: if homosexual couples pass the existing legal definition of marriage, why not ?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Not allowing gay marriage will not increase love, but increase hate.
 Sent2: But not allowing gay marriage hurts all homosexual couples to a greater extent than the prior.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the people of one state want to call it marriage, so be it.
 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: Lastly gay isn't a civil right, you don't have a right to be gay.
 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: 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: 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: 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.
 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: Removing the polygamy bans would work both ways as well, women could marry multiple men.
 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: 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: As Stanley Kurtz convincingly argues, however, the slippery slope following gay marriage will lead to polyamory rather than traditional polygamy, because ��_��__��_��__��_��__what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to bisexuality:��_��__��_��__
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: All citizens are protected under the law for equal treatment.
Output: 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: The people of several states determined that gay marriage is not a right in their constitution.
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: In fact it is worse, if we ban drugs and find that it was the wrong decision at least it is possible to ban them again, allowing gay marriage is a once only decision .
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't have the right to have love in your marriage, though ;)
 Sent2: How would you like it if same sex marriage was normal and you weren't allowed to marry the opposite gender even though you truly love them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the reason there has been resistance to redefine marriage is that people really know that this is not a civil rights issue, despite attempts by the gay lobby to paint it that way.
 Sent2: 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: If same sex marriage bans discriminate exclusively against gays, then polygamy bans discriminate exclusively against polygamists.
 Sent2: If gay marriage were made legal, the amendment would have to prohibit incestuous marriage and polygamy at the same time.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In 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: if we say that same-sex couples should have the right to marry each other, then any two consenting adults should have the legal right to marry each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gay marriage is or is not legalized, it has no affect on laws against polygamy.
 Sent2: if homosexual couples pass the existing legal definition of marriage, why not ?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You don't see terrorists targetting other countries that legalized same-sex marriage, after all.
 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: 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.
 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: Gay marriage should be legal, because by now we should have equal rights, and that's what this is about.
 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: 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: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also, marriage is not just a religious institution (especially to those who choose to marry, who are not religious), and the common law requires no particular ceremony to validate the celebration of marriage.
 Sent2: If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: For example, if a state Congress passes a bill that grants additional benefits to marriages and civil unions, a governor could simply line-item veto the benefit to civil unions, which then means that the benefits would apply only to marriage.
 Sent2: The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (with age of consent) to join in a civil union.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 far as I know, homosexual people are not barred from marriage.
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: 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: Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
 Sent2: Changing the current state of marriage to allow same sex marriage will not effect straight marriages at all.
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: However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous 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: However this is about if it's a civil right, I don't believe any marriage is a civil right, if you truly love someone you don't need a ring and a certificate to say so.
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: We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
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: Allowing straight marriage to provide for U.S. citizenship, while gays have no option (marriage or civil union).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Just cause gay marriage is legal doesn't mean anybody "accepts" us.
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: In the case of same-sex marriage, I can think of no reason why we should not extend the same rights that opposite-sex couples have to same-sex couples (and plenty of reasons why we should).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They're people with an attraction to children, with a very different attraction than homosexual men who are attracted to other men.
 Sent2: 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?
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 no objection to anyone believing that homossexuality and / or same-sex marriage is immoral.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Those who see marriage today as a legal right would continue to see it as such.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Are you implying that heterosexuals are entitled to whatever "it" is, but homosexual individuals are not?
 Sent2: If you are running a heterosexual sex club, then certainly you are entitled to exclude homosexuals.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: Are you implying that heterosexuals are entitled to whatever "it" is, but homosexual individuals are not?
 Sent2: Currently if you are a man and woman you are special because as a couple you can do something a gay couple can not.
Output: 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 think the reason there has been resistance to redefine marriage is that people really know that this is not a civil rights issue, despite attempts by the gay lobby to paint it that way.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If a person and a monkey are in love, they should be allowed to marry.
 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: 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: 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: The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
 Sent2: Civil unions would probably bring on the same financial problems that gay marriage would, although I don't agree with JP on all of this.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For example, if a state Congress passes a bill that grants additional benefits to marriages and civil unions, a governor could simply line-item veto the benefit to civil unions, which then means that the benefits would apply only to marriage.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't think we were supposed to be falling in love with the same sex and if we do feel that attraction it is easy to stop it.
 Sent2: Honestly I think that there is no difference in love if people are of different sex or no, the feelings and the affection are important.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: If the husband and wife are comfortable with that situation (as presumably the gay couple would be), then the government doesn't care to get involved to disqualify the marriage...
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Bible distinctively states that Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and the example given is of Adam and Eve being married and joined before God, by God.
 Sent2: God did not introduce the concept of marriage, man did.
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 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: 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.
 Sent2: Having the "right" to marry someone we don't want to marry is no right at all.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is my INDIVIDUAL decision to marry someone of the same sex.
 Sent2: If opposite-sex couples have marriage under the law, but same-sex couples do not, my religion is under attack.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The individual in a polygamous relationship is not denied the benefits of marriage, and he does not have to change his relationship to get those benefits, and therefore the individual is certainly not denied equality.
 Sent2: Someone in a homosexual relationship is not able to give anyone else those benefits unless he chooses someone completely outside of the relationships, someone arbitrary, who is not actually part of the family.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't mean to demonize those relationships, though I do mean to say that they are part of something which could be considered harmful, while same-sex couples are not.
 Sent2: I mean, I can't think of any good analogy for denying same-sex marriage.
Output: Not 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: You can not make the argument that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of they can not breed with each other and not also make the argument that 70 year olds can not marry.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Man-woman marriage is legal and gets state goodies, but man-man and woman-woman marriages are illegal.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: What about gays who adopt should they only be allowed to get married because they adopted a child?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This fight is about equal rights for gay people; I believe that equality is all that is needed for acceptance, and it sounds to me that you believe the same.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Since heterosexuals are provided the means to have a happy marriage and homosexuals are not, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.
 Sent2: If the situation were inverted and heterosexuals were not allowed to marry and gays only were able to would you consider it equal treatment for herteosexuals?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Yet we've shown that we can have opposite-sex marriage without having everything else, haven't we?
 Sent2: We both know that as long as marriage is kept for opposite-sex couples alone, then opposite-sex couples will be elevated above same-sex couples under the law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Marriage between a man and a woman is the norm.Marriage between 2 men, 2 women, a man and 2 women, a man and his sister is not......
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
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 often question how many gay rights activists are actually gay, since most of the gay people I know adamantly disagree with the agenda being promoted by those who claim to represent them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Same-sex marriage does not encourage people do move into the pedophile group; that group still has no sexual or marriage rights under the law.
 Sent2: 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 you seek to deny anyone their civil rights based upon your religious views then you are the enemy of freedom.
 Sent2: My civil rights, freedom, and religious liberty should never be curtailed because it is an affront to you and your religion.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Marriages are public acts bestowed with all the state rights.
 Sent2: I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights do you believe each state should have the right not to recognize any marriage - for instance the states that had laws prohibiting interracial marriages?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This is not going to change as same-sex marriage becomes legal in more places.
 Sent2: To legalize same-sex marriage is a move to strengthen families, not to weaken them.
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: Just as elderly people should not be barred from marrying because they cannot reproduce, so gay people should not be barred from marrying because they cannot reproduce with each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: DOMAs probably won't stand up to the scrutiny of liberal activist judges when it comes to gay marriage because of the equal protection clause.........Constitutional amendments will.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Marriages are public acts bestowed with all the state rights.
 Sent2: If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
 Sent2: The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: 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: 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: I think absolutely no reasonable argument can be made suggesting that same-sex marriage might cause any harm, and I think that no reasonable argument can be made which suggests that same-sex marriage will not help people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those people's religion would certainly not call it a "marriage".
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: second of all, gay marriage is a RIGHT as it is with any other straight person.
Output: Not 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: The only arguments you have against incestuous marriages is a moral one or an icky factor and both of these can be applied just as effectively to a gay marriage.
Output: Not 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: 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: Similar
Sent1: We absolutely must give same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same legal benefits under the law, and the same access to legal institutions under the law, or we are promoting the idea that one is superior to the other.
 Sent2: if we say that same-sex couples should have the right to marry each other, then any two consenting adults should have the legal right to marry each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 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: Those rights and protections are indeed laws but are directed towards individuals within a legal marriage.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
 Sent2: Gay marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
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: By granting heterosexuals marriage and homosexuals civil unions, our laws are teaching people that homosexual relationships are not spiritually sanctioned, that they are not really committed, and that they are simply inferior.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right?
 Sent2: If opposite-sex couples have marriage under the law, but same-sex couples do not, my religion is under attack.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think you're getting off course here and playing semantic games--the point I was making was that people haven't said THEIR marriages will be affected by gay marriage, at least from what I've seen.
 Sent2: I feel like you are keeping gay marriage and gay rights separate in your mind, and I think that that is a very wrong assumption.
Output: Not similar