niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
This is a particularly useful tool for a political interest group seeking political influence or possible power, as it reduces the overall criticism directed toward any of their proposals.
Output: Invalid
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.
Output: Valid
Gays are NOT asking for religious concecration/blessing or whatever of gay marriage, we are asking for our CIVIL RIGHT to be LEGALLY recognized as MARRIED by our COURTS of our SECULAR GOVERNMENT!
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
And it is really sad that people like him complain about being called things like "bigot" and claim that there is no evidence for such things, and then go and say disgusting things like what you just quoted.
Output: Invalid
Your analysis has absolutely no connection to showing how inhibiting gay marriage is in any way about "general welfare".
Output: Valid
I ask can you provide a passage from the New Testament which states which part/parts of the Old Testament have to be disregarded by followers of the New Covenant ?
Output: Invalid
The requirement that has always existed in Society is not that couples MUST procreate, but that they qualify as a normal nuclear family.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Their disorder is taken into account so they are given extra time, in the gay marriage case the 'disorder' is taken into account and they are allowed to marry someone fo the same sex.
Output: Valid
(Dallas, Texas) Recovering from the devastation of hurricane Katrina may be particularly difficult for same-sex couples who are not recognized in any of the three states directly hit by the storm or in those states where refugees have fled.
Output: Valid
ALso any program for rehabilitaiton works better if the poerson is religious and has family support.
Output: Invalid
The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Our government IS ALSO mean to be one that protects our civil rights.
Output: Valid
What about banning Gay Marriage is not being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life?
Output: Valid
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: Valid
The SOCUS would be unable to rule it unconstitutional because it would represent the newest Constitutional law, so whether or not it violated the previous 5th or 14th would become moot.
Output: Valid
For example, a married partner may be able to make medical decisions for a partner who is not capable of making his or her own choices.
Output: Valid
If gays deserve special treatment then I think single people should be given special priveleges to, to encourage them to create families and so they won't feel left out.
Output: Valid
So thinking a church is like a club membership and to be a member you have to abide by certain rules.
Output: Invalid
The ideal in Catholic thinking is to have sex whenever a couple wants, enjoying it, and let whatever happens happen.
Output: Invalid
The court finds (like they did in Washington) that the legislatures can reasonably believe that gay marriage will not further x,y, z causes and thus they can make a law against it.
Output: Valid
Yet certainly this nation could also be said to be P.O.ed that gays are not granted equality, for the topic is incredibly controversial.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
On the Federal level, the power of the majority is kept in check by the power of the Federal government and the power of the Federal government is kept in check by the power of the majority.
Output: Invalid
The point I had been trying to make was that the church cannot be blamed if people ignore half of their teachings.
Output: Invalid
If it is, as proponents suggest, discrimination to deny same-sex couples the privilege of marriage, then it is also discrimination to deny the privilege to anyone else who wants to get married.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
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: Valid
Polygamy has everything to do with religion (in particular, the patriarchal systems of certain fundamentalist cults) and nothing to do with same-sex couples wanting to commit as equals in a loving relationship.
Output: Valid
I know people who are going to oppose this are going to say "it's the happiness of the people that we want to see in them."
Output: Invalid
Do you think hurting people is fine and that helping people should be frowned upon?
Output: Invalid
You haven't shown how the latter is a bad thing, except by using bigoted rhetoric(it IS bad, it's perverted, it's deviant, it's wrong), not supported by logic.
Output: Invalid
If the government can say "gays can't marry" today, tomorrow they could say "Jews, Catholics, and atheists can't marry."
Output: Valid
I can only assume because you don't want to admit that perversion of marriage will rise out of same gender marriage.
Output: Valid
A valid argument against incestuous marriage would not have as its only premise "Marriage is defined as a legal bond between a man and a woman who are not x-apart related."
Output: Valid
The only thing the federal government should do is deal with foreign nations, and keep states from fighting.
Output: Invalid
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.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Lol man you are making religious people look bad man, views like yours is the reason more people are becoming none religious and even atheist.
Output: Invalid
Without same-sex marriage, opposite-sex couples are paying less than their share because of same-sex couples who pay more taxes without seeing any benefits.
Output: Valid
Finally, seeing as there is nothing wrong with gay people (their lifestyles are fine, and have absolutely zero effect on my life), if approving of gay marriage is akin to approving of their lifestyles, great.
Output: Valid
And the reality is that they have been fighting to use the word (instead of focusing on getting their benefits) and that approach has stalled their efforts as evidenced by the backlash.
Output: Valid
Even though I have no issue with gays or gay marriage, JP is right - unprotected gay sex is less safe than unprotected heterosexual sex, especially in regards to HIV transmission.
Output: Valid
What others do in the bedroom is none of your or my business, and who I marry is none of your business either.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
No, in Denmark, the rates of cohabilitation and out of wedlock births went up and heterosexual marriage is declining because the population sees the same sex marriage as an excuese to live lifestyles where traditional family is outdated.
Output: Valid
The bottom line is that all these examples (3 or more in marriage, marriages to underage participants, men and men or woman and woman marriages, etc.) are all examples of removing criteria for what makes marriage unique.
Output: Valid
If the genders are equal under the law, then restricting marriage based on gender is unconstitutional.
Output: Valid
Making a case against gay marriage on god alone is a weak position.
Output: Valid
what has marrage got to do with love and adult relationships being gay isnt illegal so why not give them a chance to celabrate there love with friends and familys
Output: Valid
Now you are claiming that the dictionary does not say this, that all it says is that deviant means "departing from usual or accepted standards."
Output: Invalid
Someone doesn't like gay marriage cause it's 'icky'...Ok, that 'effects' them a little.
Output: Valid
Republicans who spoke against the bill said that voters rejected gay marriage when they Passed Proposition 22 in 2000.
Output: Valid
If the Constitution doesn't prevent the government from enacting draconian measures that restrict people's personal freedoms, then what use is it at all?
Output: Valid
I am routinely amused by people of prejudice, who obviously know little about gays, trying to tell gay people what gays are like...
Output: Valid
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: Valid
These recognitions are not only federal but vary state to state, for instance some states recognize 1st cousin marriages while others don't, as I recall, the age of consent to marry also differs among states.
Output: Valid
It could be that homosexual love or attraction is seen as having no more meaning, purpose or significance than a creature courting a stuffed animal, in comparison to heterosexual love or attraction.
Output: Valid
It is not unjust to oppose granting to homosexual couples benefits that in justice should belong to marriage alone.
Output: Valid
It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed.
Output: Valid
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in March 2004 seeking marriage licenses for same-sex couples in New York, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the state Constitution��_��__��_��__s guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers.
Output: Valid
That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards."
Output: Invalid
And due to the fact that all people must be treated equally under the law because heterosexuals can get married then so must homosexuals be allowed to get married.
Output: Valid
You need rights established in the raising of children of your mate if something happens to them.
Output: Valid
It could, fairly rationally, be argued that same-sex marriage is in fact fundamentally different from marriage, and not necessarily in the amount of love each person has for the other.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Many social conservatives argue that benefits are provided to married couples because, in turn, married couples benefit society.
Output: Valid
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."
Output: Valid
It is those opposed to gay rights who don't care about the commitment; it is those opposed who say that it does not matter how commited a same-sex couple is, same-sex couples can't have marriage.
Output: Valid
Those harmful behaviors seemed to look like the things generally associated with a younger population whch made me wonder if the same results was done reversed how things would change
Output: Invalid
Books have been written on how certain human actions should be treated and tolerated.
Output: Invalid
Let me re-explain myself: If we legalize same-sex marriage, everyone will have an equal right to bestow their marriage benefits on one other person that they fall in love with.
Output: Valid
I got an idea why don't you have an open mind and not close yourself off from reality by sticking your head in the sand and ignoring peoples rights and liberties in this country.
Output: Invalid
As I have pointed out, gay people engage in the same varied kinds of sexual behavior as heterosexuals do.
Output: Valid
If you consider sexual deviancy as normal then you can consider gay sex as normal.
Output: Valid
And redefining marriage for 96% of the population to satisfy the demands of 4% so they can have an unnatural sexual relationship is anything but progressive.
Output: Valid
You ARE IGNORING A SIGNIFICANT and VERY REAL lesson of "slavery is okay" that DOES exist in the bible.
Output: Invalid
If there's no gay marriage, me and my brood wouldn't have reason to instill any hate in your son's school, if he wouldn't get in anyone's face about his sexual beliefs.
Output: Valid
Hetero and homosexual couples should have equal protection under the law.
Output: Valid
I'm a Christian and I try not to get bent out of shape when non-Christian little children are not forced to say prayers in public schools.
Output: Invalid
Some changes allowed different people to marry (blacks and whites, for example), while others expanded the rights of married people (like Federal tax breaks).
Output: Valid
I still think government can just but out of marriage all together.
Output: Valid
And we do not have police looking into people's bedrooms to make sure they are having what you consider "natural sex" with each other in order to be considered really married.
Output: Valid
I am for gay marriage, but can't see a way for it to happen until safeguards are put in place protecting traditional families and any religions that feel that gender is an eternal and spiritual thing.
Output: Valid
It's not like gay marriage is a standard across all states either, so obviously gay marriage has no more of a tendency toward 'standards' than civil unions.
Output: Valid
I mean i'm not saying that homosexuals compare to that in any way, what i'm saying is that yes the natural thing to do is to have sex between a man and a woman.
Output: Valid
If the ony argument against it is a diversion fallacy, a false analogy, a strawman, or a false dilemma, we don't have an argument, and straight and Christian marriages should be allowed.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
The difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage(besides the fact that animals were meant to be paired heterosexually) is that GAY COUPLES CANNOT PROCREATE" at one point.
Output: Valid
That's because justices and scholars of good will, people who honestly seek to interpret the constitution as they understand it, can and do use approaches different from yours to interpret the constitution.
Output: Invalid
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Output: Valid
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Output: Valid
Here's an interesting piece that gives numerous reasons why same sex marriage is bad for America.
Output: Valid
Yet I do not understand why you believe it is okay to **** people off and attack their emotions, perhaps even bringing them to tears for your own experiment on the reactions of others.
Output: Invalid
BUT keep in mind I'm not saying that gays should be allowed to get married in every church - No church should have to do anything they don't believe in (thats why we are allowed to have different faiths) .
Output: Valid
and i think i can safely say that most same sex couples looking to be married just want to be seen equal in the eyes of the law, and not so much in the eyes of your god.
Output: Valid
I have said before on other forums that gay marriage is not a threat to Christianity before but that really isnt the reason they dont want gay marriage to be legal.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
You post biased links, to people who have a deep prejudice and ignorance of gay people, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, nor the damage these types of lies you imply have on people.
Output: Invalid
Legalized marriage for homosexuals would increase acceptance, thus decreasing denial and lower divorce rates.
Output: Valid
If a marriage is performed in a "gay marriage" state, that marriage needs to be recognized in other states.
Output: Valid
Since it has been framed as an issue of prejudice, and since progressive ideals against prejudice are among the most universally appealing, people are more likely to accept the position for gay marriage without questioning it as much.
Output: Valid
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Output: Valid
Although I'm glad to hear that you actually have researched my points, I wish you would do so before you post things which are not true.
Output: Invalid
You're creating a new "legal entity" who will have new legal status, leading to increased court costs.
Output: Valid
Well guess what, if you FORCE Gays to ONLY marry those of the opposite gender it is the equivelence to an arranged marriage!
Output: Valid
I am not married and if I were I would make no promises nor demands of you except to respect your rights and respect my rights.
Output: Valid
The Oxford English Dictionary is descriptive; it does not tell us what words should mean; it tells us how people actually use words in real life and have used them in the past.
Output: Invalid
Are you implying that heterosexuals are entitled to whatever "it" is, but homosexual individuals are not?
Output: Valid
The idea that we should disallow same-sex marriage simply because it is a norm in society implies that we do not have a reason to deny same-sex marriage except for the norms of the society.
Output: Valid
Allowing mostly any two consenting adults to marry would take moral proscriptions regarding marriage partners out of the hands of the state and put those moral questions entirely within the private domain of individuals and private institutions, notably religious institutions.
Output: Valid
Yet marriage is not that commitment, according to you; if it were about commitment, the government would be allowing same-sex marriage.
Output: Valid
I completely accept that people have the right to just about any relationship they want (some of those are even justifiably legislated),... "The government's recognition of those relationships is a completely different matter."
Output: Valid
theres a difference to people who arent used to vast differences, especially in something like marriage, but its equal and the same to people who have been exposed to diversity within society.
Output: Valid
Just as there is no such thing as a "married bachelor," there is no such thing as "gay marriage."
Output: Valid
By denying homosexuals the right to marry you are creating a second class of people; you are discriminating against them by saying that they are not worthy of long-term, legally recognised relationships, yet heterosexuals are.
Output: Valid
The bible can be interpreted as telling CHRISTIANS to not engage in sodomy, but nowhere does it say that they should prevent others from engaging in sodomy.
Output: Valid
Supporters of same-sex marriage see the problem and want to directly fix that problem, they don't want to change all of marriage, only the one thing that is wrong with it.
Output: Valid
Foster cares lengthy record on being just a step above being on the streets is far superior to the research showing gay couples for the most part make at least mediocre if not good parents.
Output: Valid
Nor does this exclusion rationally further the State's legitimate interest in encouraging heterosexual married couples to procreate.
Output: Valid
While on an evolutionary level homosexuality makes little sense, it really does not make sense that a government should have the right to make gay people subcitizens.
Output: Valid
Gays are 5%-10% of the population and simply want to pair off (which seems to be the 'excepted' way to do it) like 'normal' people and live in peace.
Output: Valid
Our choices are not limited to either not allow gay marriage, or else allow any type of "arrangement".
Output: Valid
Finally, there is no legal basis for your religious views to be given legal preference over those of others.
Output: Valid
Your example is compeletly different as the criminals would have done something to harm others and their crime would have a reason to be against the law.
Output: Invalid
But gay people can do that too; if people are going to marry not for love but for benefits, gays can do that by marrying someone of the opposite sex just for the benefits.
Output: Valid
This is very much the same reason that people who speak out against gay sexual behavior do so even in the face of accusations that it may contribute to a culture of violence.
Output: Valid
Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts' same-sex marriage law be cause it clearly conflicts with Florida's legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage."
Output: Valid
It is a violation of my civil rights in that I am being deined something that others have because of who I am and who I love.
Output: Valid
I have no objection to anyone believing that homossexuality and / or same-sex marriage is immoral.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Actually, I believe the tenth amendment states that we have rights not listed in the Constitution (I think it is the tenth, I may be wrong).
Output: Valid
The first link, if you even bothered to try and think about it, shows that 72% (a VAST MAJORITY) have less than 50 sexual partners.
Output: Invalid
The majority of arguments against same sex marriage are religious in nature, and no government has the right to favor one religion over another.
Output: Valid
Or disagreeing that gays should be able to redefine marriage (while still being for them getting couples' benefits).
Output: Valid
Let us not also forget that although we classify these parents as "gay parents", they are people too, and homosexuality is only one aspect of their life and personality.
Output: Valid
I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage should be between a man and woman.
Output: Valid
It would imply that there is a person of opposite gender attached to the applicant, when in fact, it is not so.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Those who feel that same sex marriage should not be allowed are free to get married and divorced as many times as they like.
Output: Valid
The people of several states determined that gay marriage is not a right in their constitution.
Output: Valid
Else you too would be demanding the rights for pligamists, bigamists and incestors to marry as well.
Output: Valid
There are situations where we should change how we do things, because sometimes how we do things is contrary to our own constitution, our own set of fundamental principles on which have agreed and have included in the constitution.
Output: Valid
Their opinion said, in essence, that because in the Judeo-Christian tradition, homosexuality has been regarded as sinful, there is no right to privacy for same-sex relations as there is for opposite-sex relations.
Output: Valid
Needless to say, marriage should be backed by the Government, and the cohabitation of gays should remain legal.
Output: Valid
Furthermore, in a land where we mix business with pleasure, family with business, love with death, pride with acceptance, why can't we mix religion and democracy?
Output: Invalid
There are also religious people who are not conservatives and many of these individuals believe in reform.
Output: Invalid
Gay marriage or not, the hospital could have and should have allowed visitation.
Output: Valid
The movement for equal marriage rights is NOT a movement to try to force churches to marry same-sex couples.
Output: Valid
If your religion or culture disallows gay marriage, that's fine.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
People will not suddenly interpret their commitment to their loved ones differently if same-sex marriage is legalized, nor even if self-marriage is legalized.
Output: Valid
If two people love each other, it should be more than enough for them to dedicate their lives to one another, regardless of whether they're white, black, gay, bi, retarded, disabled, or geniuses.
Output: Valid
You can do anything you want..........When straight people have sex unless protection is used there is a chance for conception and populating the race.
Output: Valid
And some people, who happen to dislike gay people, should not be allowed to use the state to aim discriminatory laws against gay people.
Output: Valid
One point of defining marriage as a heterosexual union is that it allows statistical inferences about procreation without inquiring about fertility.
Output: Valid
And on another level, I can't help but wonder if you can appreciate how when the anti-gay crowd illogically complains about gays "damaging" marriage, what you are suggesting is ACTUALLY DAMAGING marriage.
Output: Valid
Sure the 'traditional' marriage you're talking about has only been between a man and a woman.
Output: Valid
No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex just because same-sex couples have the right to marry legally.
Output: Valid
It is a personal choice that is made from personal beliefs so who are we to say that gay couples do not have the right to enjoy all of the benefits that straight couples do?
Output: Valid
It has its own, purely secular standards for legal civil marriage which have nothing to do with anyone's religion.
Output: Valid
And no one harms people quite so enthusiastically and unthinkingly as people who are certain of their moral beliefs.
Output: Invalid
A gay person could hit his spouse, a straight person could also do so, or a sibling marriage could have a baby with birth defects.
Output: Valid
In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe becomes a person who has no faith at all.
Output: Invalid
Either way, the will of the people ultimately prevailed in undoing what people had set in motion as a bad precedent to begin with.
Output: Invalid
Society rewards heterosexual marriage as a means of perpetuating society.
Output: Valid
If gay couples can't receive these rights, then no one else should.
Output: Valid
So since I have never heard any one but anti gay people want a vote on marriage in the legislature or any where else I can ony assume that phyllis is anti gay therefore supports oppression and discrimination.
Output: Valid
I went with the antique bronze because my cabinets are a darker cherry and I thought it would look better...lights should be here soon and we will see if I was right or not.
Output: Invalid
Treating people identically is not the same as treating them equally, because not all people are the same.
Output: Valid
Societies define marriage, because they find it a valuable institution for many reasons, such as raising children, providing financial and legal protection for families, and other such good things.
Output: Valid
Niether the government nor you have shown any pressing reason to discriminate against gays in this instance; until a pressing reason is presented gays should, must, be given the same rights and privledges as anyone else.
Output: Valid
in order for gay marriage to be permissible, the laws will have to be changed.
Output: Valid
And don't let anyone tell you that because you oppose same sex marriage because your beliefs are derived from the bible that you are practicing religiously based discrimination.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Or based on your post, maybe you do not understand that gay people are just as committed as straight people.
Output: Valid
Not to mention that on the previous forum I have linked, VOR has repetively stated that polls do not matter.
Output: Invalid
I should make my case using same-sex marriage, for preventing the government from using sex or sexual orientation as a means for denying marriage will not violate anyone else's rights.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
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).
Output: Valid
That could be extended even to say that I don't think promoting specifically male/female monogamy is a good thing because it implies that same-sex monogamy is not a good thing.
Output: Valid
My analogies always compare denying same-sex marriage to something bad, because I think denying same-sex marriage is very bad.
Output: Valid
Saying the federal government has rights over the state government on most matters is not something that should happen.
Output: Invalid
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.
Output: Valid
But there have been other cases in which conservatives have sought to expand the powers of the President and Congress while liberals have urged the Supreme Court to limit those powers as unconstitutional.
Output: Invalid
I wonder if they've also given up wearing their seatbelt since some people don't wear them and therefore "divorce" themselves from the wearing of their seatbelt . . . . :p
Output: Invalid
This does NOT mean that I think they have it easy (in this country).
Output: Invalid
I believe our country should prioritize liberty over family, and that is the crux of gay marriage support.
Output: Valid
Do you think that there is a Creator (whether the Christian God or not) who believes that lying is wrong?
Output: Invalid
I would be happy for my daughter to learn about transgender people, and indeed she does, at our church and in our lives, as we have transgender friends.
Output: Invalid
Campaign for California Families said while the licenses would continue to be issued, the judge recognized state law on marriage is being violated, which was the basis for his order to show cause.
Output: Valid
This is an example of how the Court has tried to balance the interests of the government or the states in protecting the people and the individual rights of the people.
Output: Invalid
Thus, even if same-sex marriage brought no benefits, there would be no reason to keep it illegal; a free and equal society does not deny rights or benefits to anyone, unless it has a very good reason to.
Output: Valid
(and again.... Government recognition of your marriage is not a right)
Output: Valid
Each person should have an equal right to promote and teach his or her own belief, and so long as heterosexuals have extra rights under the law, that equality will never exist.
Output: Valid
To not blur the lines of what IS recognized as A right, and what the law states that people are "entitled to".
Output: Invalid
discrimination against gay marriage is based solely on religious beliefs and amounts to establishment of religion
Output: Valid
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."
Output: Valid
Those rights and protections are indeed laws but are directed towards individuals within a legal marriage.
Output: Valid
a brother-sister marriage is not an extreme argument as the reasons you use should apply to those kind of marriages too if you wish to talk about it in terms of "equal protection".
Output: Valid
Gay couples are being treated differently than married straight couples in the efforts of relief from the hurricane....you can paint any picture like, but that is the fact!
Output: Valid
That statistic could mean that marriage lowers promiscuity, but it could also very well mean that it is only the non-promiscuous people who get married.
Output: Valid
That is saying the minority status of gays ourselves, is a problem that should prevent us from entering marriage.
Output: Valid
concerning homosexual marriage, allowing this type of legal union also raises the question of multiple partner marriages, or marriage of siblings/close family.
Output: Valid
Despite twisting statistics by opponents of same-sex marriage, Scandavia retains an extremely high standard of living and its marriages remain unscathed by the presence of same-sex marriage.
Output: Valid
It is one of the few metro areas I love (along with Chicago and Toronto) - Chinatown, the pier, the Bay, the views along the one.
Output: Invalid
How does a child, infant, assert his right to be not placed with fundie christianist hetero parents that will teach him to hate, brainwash him by secluding him in private christianist terrorist training camps.
Output: Valid
There are relatively few gay people in the world, and the number of families headed by same-sex couples is tiny compared with the number of divorced parents and remarried parents and single parents.
Output: Valid
It is my sincere feeling that short of redifineing marriage that all gays should have the same benefits afforded married straight couples........
Output: Valid
Laws against gay marriage are more harmful than beneficial as gay marriage will not harm straight people at all, but denying it will harm gay people.
Output: Valid
Of course, if we ended government involvement in marriage, gays would have their rights without having a "stamp of approval."
Output: Valid
That means people have the time to think about what they're doing; slick media campaigns aren't enough to guarantee victory.
Output: Invalid
if homosexual couples pass the existing legal definition of marriage, why not ?
Output: Valid
No more tax credit for married couples- the law would not need to recognize wither one is married or not.
Output: Valid
But the outcomes are totally different, because on one hand we are expanding the definition of what is generally a positive (marriage) thing, and on the other hand we are expanding the definition of what is a negative (terrorism) thing.
Output: Valid
The only rampant discrimination against homosexuals is not recognizing their union as marriage by the government.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
They feel they are backed by millenia of social and society norms whereby marriage is between two people of opposite gender.
Output: Valid
Marriage is about the people getting married, strangers not approving in a marriage should not even be a factor to be considered.
Output: Valid
Furthermore, we will be removing one of the justifications for the denial of civil rights to individuals whoseonly crime is that their sexual orientation is to members of the same sex.
Output: Valid
Simply because someone can change, doesn't mean that person should change.
Output: Invalid
As for hate laws, well that is not a matter of treating people differently under the law, it is a matter of punishing different motives for crimes differently.
Output: Invalid
But I ANSWERED your little "2-year old marriage" problem by saying I would STICK TO THE CONSTITUTION and I said that I would want the other 49 states (which had marriage) to stick to the FF&C clause.
Output: Valid
And you are right - in general nobody is committing acts of hate violence against blondes.
Output: Invalid
I think most gay people would never want to get married in a church, we want a civil marriage.
Output: Valid
But not by recognizing gay unions as marriage, any more than recognizing a 25 year old as criteria to receive social security, or a healthy non-disabled person criteria for disability.
Output: Valid
After all, the International Society of the Red Cross, The YMCA, and the American socialist movement were orrigionally chistian organisations.
Output: Invalid
By your argument we should not allow heterosexuals to marry, as in this instance they may have the greatest negative effect on general welfare, due to their greater numbers.
Output: Valid
Allowing gay marriage without also rewriting common law statutes discriminates against unmarried heteros living together.
Output: Valid
Therefore, masturbation involving sexual fantasies (at least not of one's spouse) is undoubtedly sinful."
Output: Invalid
The signatures, while "a great many", do nothing to establish a super-majority mentality for constitutional amendments.
Output: Invalid
Now a gay man may not wish to marry a gay woman (or vice versa) but the government does not inherently prohibit marriage between gay persons.
Output: Valid
I do support the agenda of full equality under the law for gay people, and for everyone else.
Output: Valid
This is an a priori voter, if legitimate governments can't morally put restrictions on marriage, it becomes irrelevant if those restrictions would be socially beneficial or not.
Output: Valid
And you say marriages don't have meaning suddenly if the government recognizes them, that they can and do go on anyway, with or without government validation.
Output: Valid
There are MULTIPLE examples of Christian groups utilizing fraud in their "petition" attempts.
Output: Valid
The issues of being black are not merely related to the single physical attribute of skin color.
Output: Invalid
Even the New Testament teaches that people must live a certain way in a certain fashion, and although we disapprove of certain acts, we should love others.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
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."
Output: Valid
The government has no say in who marries, but marriage should be used to raise a family, and children, and keep the family going.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
It should, however, be mentioned that there is one aspect of legal rights which is to be found amongst the European Continental writers, but of which there is no trace in the Anglo-American tradition.
Output: Invalid
Anything granted is not a right, things that are granted are priviledges.
Output: Valid
And, going back to the general topic of this thread; even if homosexuality is completely genetic and unchangable it doesn't follow that we should recognize a homosexual marriage as deserving of equal priviledge as a heterosexual one.
Output: Valid
And people who oppose gay marriage, what's the difference between giving equal rights through a civil union and marriage?
Output: Valid
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: Valid
The fact that you completely disregard the fact that I have concieved and parent my own biological child is such a grevious error on your part.
Output: Valid
While Schwarzenegger has said, through his press secretary, that he will veto the bill (story) the legislature has still has several options to keep it alive.
Output: Invalid
The fact ex-gays may be just suppressing their desires, never changing to "heterosexual" at all is UNRELATED to genetics.
Output: Valid
Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms.
Output: Invalid
I am definitely not "open" to have my opinion changed by somebody who insists on only talking about one reason.
Output: Invalid
Marriage in fact may be a right,... But as Foundit reluctantly acknowledged earlier,... the government has the right to draw the line 'somewhere' between what it will and what it will not recognize.
Output: Valid
The exact same argument could be used to support traditional marriage.
Output: Valid
No, I said, clearly as day, that your view of removal of rights is the reason (your substitution for fraud as a reason) is a case of begging the question.
Output: Invalid
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: Valid
The government does not specifically prohibit the legal marriage of gay people.
Output: Valid
However, many teenagers who get pregnant didn't truly love their partners, just as many couples who truly love each other can not reproduce children due to infertility problems.
Output: Invalid
The distinction is that one side wishes to change the law to give themselves the same rights that others have.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
If you can show that it is not and that you can show a change should be made then please go ahead.
Output: Invalid
2) Regarding NON-marriage issues, where people want to discriminate against gays, do you see any situations where it's NOT a case of bigotry and just a case of "see the situation differently than you".
Output: Invalid
Is that an "ideal" marriage (since they're so insistent on "ideal situations" being used as criteria for things like adopting children) -- one in which the potential for procreation (remember?
Output: Valid
You ignore the issue of the 14th amendment and "legitimate state interests" with the pretense that if we recognize these things as rights, then it means unbridled access with no exceptions.
Output: Valid
However, I'll argue that religion can make a bad situation worse, by sanctioning evil acts because the believer's god approves of them.
Output: Invalid
Marriage is one of those things that falls into the category of social mores.
Output: Valid
I also think moving from state to state for gays would become more of an economical issue than because of other reasons (i.e. like what that state has to offer it's residents).
Output: Valid
What I commented upon previously in a prior post was your reliance upon the threat of Hell as a reason why you are right or at least why others should abandon their positions you disagree with.
Output: Invalid
If the legislature or the courts or the Tooth Fairy decide that gays don't make good parents and so deny them the right to marry, it won't stop gays from being parents.
Output: Valid
We as a nation have many times perceived that it did some bad things, or simply needed a bit of tweaking here and there, and hence we changed the Constitution to accomplish those mostly worthy ends.
Output: Valid
If it's "reserved for those with valid marriage licenses", does that basically mean that only gays from Massachusetts can do this, since that's the only place that give valid gay marriage licenses?
Output: Valid
It IS valid to challenge the constitutionality (with Constitution A) of an anti-gay marriage LAW by arguing gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
Output: Valid
The usual reason given for banning first-cousin marriage is because there is a risk of offspring of first cousins having biological problems.
Output: Valid
I am personally opposed to same sex marriage for religious reasons, but I support freedom of religion so I will vote to make it legal because people have the right to choose.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
If gays marry no one gets hurt and gay families win.
Output: Valid
I think they are now advocating everyone to be allowed to get all marriage benefits even if they have no desire to be married because they are concerned about being inclusive to all.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Instead, you are claiming that gays are trying to be able to marry people of the opposite sex, and claiming that the gay marriage movement is trying to argue that.
Output: Valid
He may have answered the question, and Gallagher may have decided that his answering the question was irrelevant.
Output: Invalid
You're being a bit silly here--STDs are a direct result of unprotected (and sometimes protected) sex.
Output: Invalid
I don't care if one's religion says that marriage is a special institution for straight people, for white people, for blondes, or for anyone else, but the law cannot do that.
Output: Valid
And you can`t change the fact that you as a man is in love with a man (as little as you can change the fact that you as a black is in love with a white)
Output: Valid
On a personal level I don't care if homosexuals get married or not but I disagree with the idea that the state and federal government don't have a right to define marriage terms.
Output: Valid
I thought marriage was a secular event, and only a religious event should a couple want to make it one.
Output: Valid
You get enough of those smaller groups like gays voting, and they start to make a big difference in terms of who gets elected if they're all voting the way you want them too.
Output: Invalid
We are not limited to either a certain set number of groups, no groups, or every single group or individual to have equality within a society.
Output: Invalid
And unlike discouraging smoking, if we discourage same-sex marriage, we are only encouraging promiscuity and irresponsible sex.
Output: Valid
Only by long tradition has marriage been between two people who love one another but, then, marriage is a lot of things by tradition.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
I am not a biggot but you have to realize that unless you are super rich being the child of a gay couple can have severe consequences.
Output: Valid
I'm not saying that companies should add gay partners to their insurance benefits, but I am saying that people have every right to get upset about it, since the companies survive on their money.
Output: Valid