niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
But Peters maintains that those who champion gay rights are undermining the moral fiber of society and that this assault on traditional values creates an environment in which killing sprees can more easily occur.
Output: Valid
For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman.
Output: Invalid
That's a real adult attitude when dealing with an enemy who has vowed to NEVER STOP THEIR COWARDLY ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS UNTIL THEY HAVE UTTERLY AND TOTALLY DESTROYED US.
Output: Invalid
I demanded facts rather than common sense to back up your assertion that facts and common sense are antithetical (not different, mind you, but antithetical).
Output: Invalid
We give married couples marriage benefits TO STRENGTHEN the marriage, because marriage STRENGTHENS society.
Output: Valid
They are bigots who wish to force their bigotry on other people.
Output: Invalid
But today I stand by the side of the group who is in the right, and I will not leave that group's side while they are morally right.
Output: Invalid
Evidently, they want the right to marry only because they do not want heterosexuals to have something they can��_��__��_��__t have.
Output: Valid
For example, masturbation would be another example whereby the sperm's "purpose" would not be satisfied, so masturbation was immoral.
Output: Valid
Heterosexual sex between two consenting, disease free adults is no more likely to kill someone than heterosexual sex between two consenting, disease free adults.
Output: Valid
The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, are less confined by gender stereotypes, and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves.
Output: Valid
Finally, if you're saying marriage is for the purpose of reproduction then do you feel we should add restrictions to prevent heterosexual couples who are sterile from getting married?
Output: Valid
We're just saying that they don't deserve "tax exempt" status if they are going to stray from the real reason that they are supposed to be "tax exempt" in the first place.
Output: Invalid
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.
Output: Invalid
Namecalling and violence are wrong, REGARDLESS of where people fall on the issue of gay marriage.
Output: Valid
Yet you have no trouble understanding that any of those groups of people are not the same thing.
Output: Invalid
You wave your hands alot, but refuse to state A)what gays have said and B) what gays have done that amounts to hypocracy.
Output: Invalid
If we want to distinguish between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, we can simply say, "same-sex marriage" or "opposite-sex marriage".
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
Ok so if you dont have to have the ability to have children to get married then why are you using that as an argument against same sex marriage?
Output: Valid
Same-sex couples are denied over 1,000 benefits, rights, and protections that federal law affords to married, heterosexual couples, as well as hundreds of such protections at the state level.
Output: Valid
a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
A society creates the concept of rights, and what is a right, through a process of, hopefully, logical and rational debate.
Output: Invalid
As long as the M word and CU words aren't used same sex couples can have all the benefits.
Output: Valid
A significant proportion of homosexuals are apparently satisfied with their sexual orientation, show nosignificant signs of manifest psychopathology (other than their homosexuality, if this is considered by itselfpsychopathology), and are able to function quite effectively.
Output: Valid
Technically though marriage is not discrimination, because gays are still allowed to marry the opposite sex.
Output: Valid
But with people who approach it like you, it doesn't matter cause if you say "gay marriage", the whole "RIGHT REQUIREMENTS" instituted by the constitution just magically goes out the window.
Output: Valid
To claim that homosexuals have equal rights is to decieve yourself; marriage has a set of restrictions that precisely say, "If you want to be married, you've got to stop being homosexual."
Output: Valid
So what compelling reason does the government have for allowing gay marriage and NOT allowing incestuous marriages?
Output: Valid
I would argue that in many cases, it is probably the dominating situation created by having sex with a child that draws many child molesters.
Output: Invalid
No one is imposing any moral codes on anyone by allowing same sex couples the right of marriage.
Output: Valid
And when all the world that we know is following something and everything that we have been taught since the day we were born is being contradicted by this strong innate feeling, it's a staggering feeling.
Output: Invalid
Yes, on paper, gays aren't constitutionally discriminated against, though many on your side of the fence have been agitating to change that with the anti-marriage constitutional amendment.
Output: Valid
Will your marriage (or anyone elses) cease to mean something, suddenly become meaningless?
Output: Valid
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: Valid
It is not a state power for the legislature (or the people) to create unconstitutional legislation.
Output: Valid
I say let gay people know the joys of divorce, splitting of assets, custody, alimony, child support, the whole nine yards!
Output: Valid
The MORE important point is that if God had no problem with polygamy, it pretty much makes the Bowers-video moot in terms of using THAT particular attack of hypocrisy against Christians.
Output: Valid
We have to agree to disagree if a new gay marriage law is a personal right, or if it is a public decision.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
(No, I'm not saying homsexuality is like either of these issues; I'm simply saying that indeed many Catholics and the Catholic church leadership takes it just as seriously as what they consider to be sin).
Output: Valid
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: Valid
And then they might have to decide whether this means that all same-sex couples must have the right to marry, because some of them can be legally married.
Output: Valid
And your mythology says it is wrong, but anybody who thinks your mythology is speaking from "God" is failing to pay attention to the DETAILS of your mythology.
Output: Invalid
I believe I have made it completely clear that the government should change only the legal institution of marriage, and you're acting like I'm saying the government should force religions to accept same-sex couples.
Output: Valid
I'm sure plenty of pro-choicers would say pro-lifers are using false claims, and many pro-lifers would say many pro-choicers are using false claims.
Output: Invalid
1)In this case it is clear they are and if you weren't sure from the first quote and the lengthy explanation in that court case then the slaughterhouse case just blatantly said it as well.
Output: Invalid
3 now, if you say you want to keep state and church seperate, wouldnt thinking of the religious mans feelings be doing just the oppisite?
Output: Invalid
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: Valid
Then again if I suffer damages because of someone elses actions then I am entitled to sue for damages.
Output: Invalid
2) NARTH's article DID NOT show any "higher homosexual activity" because of legalized gay marriage.
Output: Valid
As I've said many times already, there are more similarities when it comes to gay marriage, to all other legal marriages.
Output: Valid
I put forth that their opposition is MORE ACCURATELY recognized as opposition against GAYS, and "marriage only man + woman" is just an excuse to that ends.
Output: Valid
To bad for you, gay "rights" aren't covered under the constitution...which is probably why you support the "evolving" constitution where you have 5 outta 9 people decide what the consitution should say.
Output: Valid
I think they have stated that they would return to granting those benefits if a court rules that they can legally do so, but they will not do unless it does.
Output: Invalid
Removing the polygamy bans would work both ways as well, women could marry multiple men.
Output: Valid
He claims on the religion forum that his church prayer groups have been responsible for an HIV + patient to become HIV-, and that other' cancers have disappeared through their prayers.
Output: Invalid
Furthermore, the response misses the point of my argument, which is that society has so far not applied the "stability in marriage" paradigm to heterosexuals, so its unfair to apply it to homosexuals.
Output: Valid
As "segregation" SCOTUS rulings showed us, "separate but equal" is not constitutional for separating groups with no legitimate state interest for such separation.
Output: Valid
No, I do not just 'trust' judges any more than I would trust an elected public official in other branches of government.
Output: Invalid
The State (government) has the right, indeed the Constitutional responsibility to "promote the general welfare."
Output: Invalid
Many men will acknowledge they are more open with their friends than with their wives and that they are fiercely loyal to their friends.
Output: Invalid
But it is NOT discriminatory to not recognize marriage rights for somebody who CHOOSES NOT TO MARRY.
Output: Valid
And you say gays are entitled to every privilege the rest of us are and then you suggest that being gay would negatively effect the "values" of a child, so that shouldn't be allowed.
Output: Valid
The justices just went several steps further and made ALL sodomy laws unconstitutional, not just the ones that were specific to homosexual sodomy.
Output: Valid
If the bulk of gay rights people at the time had put their foot down early on regarding the pederasty issues among 'the faithful', this wouldn't be a skeleton in the closet today for your movement.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Gay Marriage is not a religious issue it is a civil rights issue.
Output: Valid
By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental.
Output: Invalid
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.
Output: Valid