niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Many rights in our society DID have to go through a people-deciding process, so you are wrong that on no other issue do we see that sort of thing happening.
Output: Valid
All opponents of same-sex marriage care about is getting their own religious beliefs put into law, no matter the cost.
Output: Valid
For many who are debating the desirability of gay marriage, these results may be more important because of what they suggest about the likely effects of gay marriage on the degree of personal commitment in same-sex relationships.
Output: Valid
As the passage of these bans show, society does not appear ready to accept gay marriage.
Output: Valid
How do you know that he isn't correct and all are saved, Jew, Muslim, hindu, buhddist, athiest, gay, and striaght that all humans going to be with God in the end though Jesus?
Output: Invalid
The question is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
Gay marriage should be legal, because by now we should have equal rights, and that's what this is about.
Output: Valid
And the rulings shouldn't be considered "conservative" or "liberal".
Output: Invalid
So, as a nation, we determine if something is right or wrong based on your 'personal belief'?
Output: Invalid
But expanding the eligibility of marriage, or a parallel institution, to same-sex couples who want to take on the civil obligations as well as the benefits of marriage does not logically undermine the institution of marriage.
Output: Valid
I respect your right to believe that "gay sex is a sin," Easyrider.
Output: Valid
Everyone else, on the other hand loses, because one authoritative morality is futher discredited (it has been gutted for the last 40 years) and the gulf of nihilism we find ourselves in widens and deepens.
Output: Invalid
Gay people and those who support equal rights are trying to ensure that people will not use the laws to squash the personal liberties and equal rights of gay people.
Output: Valid
I'm pretty sure that the states would take issue with having federal agents installed directly into their government structure, which would most likely be necessary in at least some portions of the states resisting this proposed legislation.
Output: Invalid
My civil rights, freedom, and religious liberty should never be curtailed because it is an affront to you and your religion.
Output: Valid
My point is that using this stupid "I don't wanna, but I want the benefits anyways" argument to try and ignore the unjustified discrimination against gay marriage is stupid.
Output: Valid
The government has absolutely no right to tell people who they can and cannot get married to.
Output: Valid
Just because an argument in favor of gay marriage can also justify polygamy doesn't make it less valid and shouldn't prevent it from being used.
Output: Valid
If the legal definition of "family" has broadened over the years and it has, there's no reason to think that the definition of "marriage" might not also broaden.
Output: Valid
I feel that if someone has a service record that gives no indication he or she would discriminate, there is no reason they should be asked questions about their ideological views.
Output: Invalid
However it should be recognised that gay marriage is not the same as opposite sex marriage.
Output: Valid
If gay marriage is just called marriage, how do we express that a couple is straight married?
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
You throw out this absurd claim that allowing gay marriage will allow other changes, but people reply back and show that there ARE LEGITIMATE STATE INTERESTS for preventing the other desired forms.
Output: Valid
They're forces us all to believe and honor only one way of marriage by law and if we all MUST BELIEVE ONLY ONE WAY OF MARRIAGE IS ACCEPTABLE (religious or not) how is that religious freedom?
Output: Valid
If you seek to deny anyone their civil rights based upon your religious views then you are the enemy of freedom.
Output: Valid
If 1 white person is discriminated against in a racist manner and 50 black people are discriminated against in a racist manner I feel that 51 people have been wronged and that you should concentrate on ending racism for all.
Output: Valid
But let us not forget the more fundamental point that same-sex marriage does not encourage promiscuity; it does just the opposite.
Output: Valid
Secondly marriage is so much more than just a union, it is pretty much the centre of our society and the height of commitment and finally homosexuals can be religious too, so why shouldn't they want a religious ceremony?
Output: Valid
It seems that the only real argument against gay marriage is because the bible says it is wrong.
Output: Valid
If I have a serious road traffic accident, the one that loves and cares for me is not necessarily going to be the person that gets the telephone call to be by my bed if I die.
Output: Valid
Legalizing same-sex marriage will enhance family stability and provide greater protections for more children, specificaly the children of gay parents.
Output: Valid
Stopping gay people from getting married is not accepting our right to live as we please.
Output: Valid
If you are saying that Massachusetts and California decided correctly because marriage is a common law institution, I would have to disagree.
Output: Valid
There have also been no scientifically documeted cases of gays changing their sexual orientation anymore than straights becoming gay.
Output: Valid
The first-cousin marriage movement folks argue that there is no rational basis for denying first cousins the right to marry.
Output: Valid
Because the Wiccan God and Goddess have no problem with same sex marriage.
Output: Valid
Only in this generation of militant homosexual aggression is the traditional definition of marriage under attack as a tactic in order to normalize the homosexual lifestyle from a public policy perspective.
Output: Valid
God says a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Output: Valid
These findings exist even though black females are generally less likely than white females to report risk behaviors such as smoking cigarettes, consuming alcohol, or using other substances (79,83,84,85).
Output: Invalid
If mental illness is a myth, the critics argue, so is physical illness[citation needed], because both categories have fuzzy boundaries and are to a large extent culturally determined.
Output: Invalid
Various state constitutions forbid gay marriage, and the people of California and other states have voted no on it several times also.
Output: Valid
Psychology doesn't tell people nothing can be their fault, that they shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions.
Output: Invalid
The RCC does not officially recognize divorce but a lot of the young people that get married the marriage is annulled.........
Output: Invalid
Sperm and eggs both have the same amount of nuclear DNA, except of course for the fact that Y chromosomes are smaller than X chromosomes, and only sperm can have Y chromosomes.
Output: Invalid
There are gay people who live lies by pretending to be heterosexual or have a hard time coming out because they are terrified of their family's or society's disapproval, prejudice, or worse.
Output: Valid
If we look at the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment, we see that they intended the amendment to protect rights broadly and to apply to all persons.
Output: Valid
The government is not in the business of telling us why we marry someone, whether it is out of love or for some other reason.
Output: Valid
A Thurston County judge ruled Tuesday that the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act violates the civil liberties of gays and lesbians under the Washington constitution.
Output: Valid
If gay marriage were made legal, the amendment would have to prohibit incestuous marriage and polygamy at the same time.
Output: Valid
Straight people have marriages gay people have domestic partnerships they are practically the same thing why change it there's really no need to.
Output: Valid
All too often parents what their child's school to only teach stupid "feel good" classes that don't actually TEACH our children anything.
Output: Invalid
Marriage has been a business transaction for YEARS before the thought of "holy matrimony".
Output: Valid
What if we gave men "freedom of speech" and women "civil words"?
Output: Valid
The fact is; Neither voting nor the Government recognition of a marriage is a non conditional right.
Output: Valid
More people would be allowed to get married, and they would thus have more benefits to disperse, but certainly no business policy is changed in any way.
Output: Valid
And as I have been saying over and over again, THIS DOES REQUIRE a show of a claimed "legitimate state interest".
Output: Invalid
When religious people take a stand you don't like on homosexuality, they almost always don't hate you (although the gay pride movement talking points will tell you they do).
Output: Valid
What amazes me is someone could actually believe a constitutional ban on gay marriage is in anyway a contributing factor to divorce rates.
Output: Valid
Also there are laws that pertain to marriage made to protect and promote the interest of children and spouses.
Output: Valid
The concept of marriage benefits or legal marriage is fraught with problems because any group can come along and cry foul that their particular way of doing things doesn't qualify.
Output: Valid
You could argue that allowing blacks to go to the same bathrooms and schools as whites was forcing racists to do something they didn't want.
Output: Valid
The fact is that homosexuals have the same right to marry that straights have.
Output: Valid
it is written in the christian rule set (of any form or branch of the following of Jehovah (Yes, that is His name), including Catholics, Jews, Mormans, ect.)
Output: Invalid
CLEAR applications of the 14th amendment regarding an issue involving discrimination against gays.
Output: Valid
They don't do it with shopping malls and basketball courts, or flashy presentations and pop music, they do it with ordinary, everyday witness to the values of Jesus Christ.
Output: Invalid
Marriage is really a non-issue since it offers no economic advantages and it doesn`t carry any significant cultural or social benefits either.
Output: Valid
I believe that gay people have just as much of a right to be married as straight people.
Output: Valid
You can't alter gut or religious feelings with logic, only refute arguments presented with a rational basis, and you so rarely provide any of that, I've given up expecting it of you.
Output: Invalid
Religious institutions are not bound by federal law to alter their practices as private places/property, so churches/synagogues/whomever could still deny marriages as many do today based on secular affiliation.
Output: Valid
I think we have no choice but to challenge people's myths and stereotypes and assumptions about us gay people.
Output: Valid
So if I belong to a faith that allows for same sex marriage, should the constitution have the right to ban it even if the constitution protects my faith in the freedom to practice it?
Output: Valid
Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
Output: Invalid
We should all be able to get along, and we should be able to get along because no one is denied the same rights that another person has without a really good reason for it.
Output: Valid
employee go against their beliefs, what about cases where a person might feel that SIGNING a marriage license between gays is the moral thing to do and does so even when that goes against what the govt.
Output: Valid
The issue you responded to was about the obvious link early on between gay rights (at the time) and pederasty.
Output: Valid
So how can allowing gays to marry discredit this so called "traditional marriage" any worse than what hetero's already have?
Output: Valid
I think that Supreme Court rulings must focus on interpreting the meaning of the constitution, and not simply be political opinions issued on the basis of nothing.
Output: Invalid
That's a major reason a whole lot of people aren't ok with gay marriage, because gay sex is a perversion and an abomination in the eyes of God.
Output: Valid
Is it "theft" to force companies to offer insurance benefits to gay couples if they offer the same thing to straight couples if the majority would support such legislation?
Output: Valid
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: Valid
So, if having children isn't a requirement fro marriage, then gays should be OK, right?
Output: Valid
I know the historical meaning attached to the Constitution did not establish gay marriage as a constitutional right.
Output: Valid
But the question of whether inter-racial marriages must be recognized by law and whether same-sex marriages must be recognized by law are still different questions, and each must be evaluated on its own merits.
Output: Valid
He obviously has respect for those in one, even if he says it's not the position of Obama or himself to support that officially, or to have it officially recognized.
Output: Invalid
Of course, the good news about marriage rates is bad news for Kurtz's sky-is-falling argument.
Output: Valid
WMS: Thank you, yes, of course, all adult citizens should be afforded complete access to all rights, protections and benefits allowed and afforded by law, to which is attached to legally recognized marriage.
Output: Valid
If my marriage, changes the perception of what their marriage is, it must be a pretty weak marriage to start with, dont ya think?
Output: Valid
Banning gay marriage is not against the constitution and how is banning it "enforcing religion" besides your a Christian aren't you?
Output: Valid
When their religion dictates they can't use electricty or automobiles, they ARE setting people aside to disscriminate against them.
Output: Invalid
Why shouldn't they be given the right to marry, people with disorders that will prevent them having children can marry, people with disorders that would seriously harm any child they have can marry.
Output: Valid
I've studied the issue a lot and I think our government should have the final word on it.
Output: Invalid
Well, fortunately for us all, the people elevated to the federal and state supreme courts aren't quite as myopic as you are.
Output: Invalid
If you are of the opinion that something only violates the constitutions 14th amendment if it can't be justified to you than this is inherently selfish.
Output: Valid
It's funny, I haven't seen any studies showing how Jewish people are killing themselves because they can't eat pork, or the Amish because they can't drive a motorcar!
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.
Output: Invalid
But concerning marriage per se it has always been a matter for society as a whole with it always being held as between people of the opposite sex.
Output: Valid
So if you're going to take the stance that gays are being imposed on, then to be consistent you need to fight for ANYONE being imposed on by not getting marriage benefits.
Output: Valid
For those who want to go back to the original "traditional" definition of marriage you're also going to have to take all of the rights away from women as well (Though, they are working on that already).
Output: Valid
Looking at it this way, I hope it becomes more apparent that same-sex marriage brings no new rights and no new benefits to someone for being a pedophile.
Output: Valid
After all, if gays aren't spreading HIV, then we sould be concentrating on MSMs and not worrying about gay marriage, right?
Output: Valid
What gay people have learned in their journey through life is how to find truth in a world of lies.
Output: Invalid
gays will have or not have gay marriage based on the law.
Output: Valid
If you say that the Supreme Court should not apply the 14th amendment to marriage discrimination, then how is that different from saying the Supreme Court should not apply the amendment to discrimination in education?
Output: Valid
As far as I know, homosexual people are not barred from marriage.
Output: Valid
No, you shouldn't be hurt, but marriage shouldn't be redefined by a few either.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
If as the court ruled marriage is about children then none of these groups should not be allowed to get married.
Output: Valid
We first had a strict test then we added a rational basis test and now we have an "intermediate" test that came out of left field.
Output: Invalid
I also don't think that in whatever case that comes before it, the Supreme Court is going to refer to gay couples being treated with "indifference."
Output: Valid
B. Myriad cultures around the world do have various homosexual marriage varients, and they all get the same treatment as heterosexual marriages, and neither of these treatments have adversly effected the population or destroyed society.
Output: Valid
And I never said someone should not be allowed to Mary do to their gender both men and women should be allowed to marry (each other) so it's not sexism at all really.
Output: Valid
Marriage will be a special form of civil union that only opposite-sex couples are allowed to engage in.
Output: Valid
People with good hearts, that are great role models, and can contribute more than someone who sprnds their entire being trying to discriminate against them.
Output: Invalid
Because people don't follow the archaic "morality" of the bible (which used to include slavery, genocide, and misogyny), even more violations of biblical morality will occur.
Output: Invalid
School for some children is just passing notes in class and making fun of the kid with the glasses who sits up front taking notes.
Output: Invalid
POTS and kettles dude since this is my thread and the topic of aids has nothing to do with why people think that they have the right to vote on my marriage.
Output: Valid
for example in girls man gyns and in boys girl gyns if you do not believe give another evidence.
Output: Invalid
If it's going to pass, it has to pass in two consecutive years, so simply taking it up in year three and saying, "Didn't pass in two consecutive years, failed" may be legit.
Output: Invalid
Whether a same-sex marriage validly contracted in another state is valid in South Dakota is undetermined."
Output: Valid
I never said they weren't discriminated against in history, that is certain and the way gays have been treated is sick.
Output: Valid
And speaking of your beloved bible, although you may not be Catholic, the pope's recent statement that condoms do not work and make the aids epidemic worse is going to directly cause the deaths of thousands of people.
Output: Invalid
It is but there are those christians out there that actually believe in justice and equality and that love is love no matter whom it is with.
Output: Valid
I have never argued that marriage rights should only be extended to include same-sex couples and no other kinds of couples.
Output: Valid
In fact, those that I know that are actually afraid of punishment in the afterlife will have nothing to do with christianity.
Output: Invalid
Same-sex couples should have the equal right to marry legally because it benefits society to support stable families, and it especially benefits children to live in stable families with two married parents.
Output: Valid
And since I don't have any experience with or particular knowledge of the California constitution, I honestly do not know.
Output: Invalid
Big question but an important one, because this is where I think alot of people are kidding themselves in this whole "gene vs. enviroment" debate.
Output: Invalid
Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.
Output: Valid
That right there proves I'm right about my assertion that bodily fluids are the carriers of the virus and the vehicles by which it is passed from one person to another.
Output: Invalid
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".
Output: Valid
But this is not the same reason why some people have argued against legalizing same-sex marriage, where biological effects on the offspring of the couple are not an issue.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
But redefining marriage is not about equal rights but about adding special rights to our laws and Constitution.
Output: Valid
Unless me and that 75% can demonstrate how wearing pink shoes is going to be harmful or infringe upon rights it has no business being on the agenda of our legislators.
Output: Invalid
I personally think the gov't should get out of the business of marriage and institute civil unions defining and protecting rights for all parties involved provided they are able to give legal consent to enter the union.
Output: Valid
But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the right to marry is a constitutional right.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
You want to be treated as a normal,respect the fundamental people and fundamental laws of this land.Support ban on homo marriages.
Output: Valid
If gays had just asked for benefits, they would have had an easier time.
Output: Valid
With sodomy laws in place, the legal response to a constitutional challenge of gay marriage would be to point out that the state is "sanctioning" a union which would require an illegal act to consummate.
Output: Valid
Not only that, but even in the cases where marriage is financially unfavorable; it offers many benefits, which are listed in the document I linked you, that do not apply to finances.
Output: Valid
Just because things get reported on now does not mean that morals have declined it just means that people have bright lights now and the fish bowl water is clean.
Output: Valid
I realize this doesn't make it okay to act without civility, and I realize that it probably isn't convincing anyone, but I think it is something that most people would do, if put in the same situation.
Output: Invalid
If you are going to argue that the government is being fundamentally unfair in terms of marriage, then it needs to reform marriage, not just gay marriage.
Output: Valid
The fact is that people are not prohibited from being married because of their sexual orientation.
Output: Valid
YOU call it "opposing the immoral influence", but the ACTIONS they take are to support the discrimination against gays.
Output: Valid
If two people of the same sex wish to cohabit and live together, then I have no problem with them creating a civil contract which sorts out their rights vis-a-vis themselves.
Output: Valid
Let the government decide this on a purely constitutional or legal basis (because that 's its function).
Output: Valid
Some of the social changes we have experienced over the last century have made biology less important and people's social roles in creating families more important.
Output: Valid
Gay activists argue that government needs to grant same-sex marriage rights to homosexuals so they will have visitation rights.
Output: Valid
Americans 100 years ago commonly argued that immigrants should not receive equal treatment under the law because they were allegedly morally inferior to native-born white Americans.
Output: Valid
Most individuals with psychiatric symptoms experience a subjective sense of distress that may include feelings such as pain, anguish, dysphoria (unpleasant mood), shame, embarrassment or guilt.
Output: Invalid
The Judicial Branch should be in control of this, for it is an interpretation of the definition of marriage.
Output: Valid
How people feel about polygamy has no relevance on same sex couples.
Output: Valid
I don't know if you live in California or not, but I do, so I know that a homosexual couple who have a civil union would have the same rights as a traditional heterosexual married couple.
Output: Valid
Gay people sometimes do get married to opposite-sex spouses, often because they are struggling with their sexual orientation and are trying, through marriage, to make themselves heterosexual.
Output: Valid
There original inclusion of it within mental disorders would have been a religious one (or at least a religious opinion back up with your 'not normal' defintion).
Output: Valid
It is chilling to know that 15 states still criminalized interracial marriage as recently as 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned those laws in Loving v. Virginia.
Output: Invalid
Environment plays a role to, some people just were not raised or experienced things that led them to developing anything beyond "normal" empathy.
Output: Invalid
Many Christians believe that supporting equality is not moral depravity; it is the right and Christian thing to do.
Output: Valid
Thank you...............Well we are getting off the subject but there has been thousand of documented cases of gays converted to the straight life, but this is a whole other thread.........
Output: Valid
Christians need to actually read the bible before trying to use it against people.
Output: Invalid
Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
Output: Invalid
Our rights have to balance against each, in this case one person's religious freedom versus another person's right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex and obtain a legal service.
Output: Valid
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Output: Invalid
Before you state that same-sex couples cannot have children, understand that such a claim is a myth propogated by people whose religious values do not permit having sex outside a marriage or using a surrogate parent.
Output: Valid
Your thought process does not show the intelligence to realize that wishing something to be true does not make it so.
Output: Invalid
For starters, prove to me that gay sex is natural with something more substantial than "it exists in nature", and explain in detail that if in fact it is natural, why is it natural.
Output: Valid
To legalize same-sex marriage is a move to strengthen families, not to weaken them.
Output: Valid
How can you attack NY for restricting freedoms while attacking them at the same time for expanding freedoms?
Output: Invalid
The U.S., as here in Canada, usues the common-law definition of marriage, which was created by courts.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple?
Output: Valid
And as much as you may not like it, you having a lot of people agree with you is not necessarily a good reason for denying rights.
Output: Valid
In the case of same-sex marriage, I can state that it is harmless and it helps many people.
Output: Valid
We should not mess with nature and their natural cycle and so we should not let same sex marriage be allowed
Output: Valid
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: Valid
Like I said before, it doesn't matter if the law explicitly states either "homosexuals cannot marry" or "homosexual marriages are not permitted", the end result is the same: discrimination.
Output: Valid
I care about legitimacy, so even though I might agree that a law is bad, or even that it is severely unjust, I would not advocate or support judges overturning those laws without an appropriate legal basis.
Output: Valid
Using the same logic, doesn't giving couples benefits, without marriage, to gay and straight couples, probably hurt polygamists too, and hurt single people who just want to co-habitate, but don't want to register for as a couple?
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
And if people have a "religious belief" whereby they don't think blacks should vote, or that interracial marriage should occur, should governmental officials who have those "religious beliefs" just be allowed to ignore their duty?
Output: Valid
They grow up thinking that the government is on their side and all policemen are nice and then they get jobs and taxes are cut from their check and they go "what?"
Output: Invalid
The problem with saying that a right exists only if it is codified specifically in law is that the Supreme Court has on numerous occasions struck down laws that the Court says violate people's rights.
Output: Valid
If god has a problem with it then that's God's personal problem That doesn't mean his followers have a right to tell other people that their love is wrong, or that they're going to hell.
Output: Valid
Just cause gay marriage is legal doesn't mean anybody "accepts" us.
Output: Valid
Churches do, however, have a right to encourage voting on moral issues (it's actually in the law, believe it or not), and both of these churches are silent on political issues outside of this.
Output: Valid
Homosexuals are people, too, who take out their garbage, pay their taxes, go to work, take care of their dogs, and what they do in their bedroom is none of your business.
Output: Valid
THe fact that the institution will be changed (becaue it will no longer be the same heterosexual institution)proves that it's integrity will be compromised.
Output: Valid
People that live in glass houses should not throw stones.........Look at some of your posts how ridiculous they are and all they do is attack me instead of addressing the issue...........
Output: Invalid
I am sorry but you allow gay marriage to happen and you open up a huge pandora box..............
Output: Valid
And as I pointed out, "most people who oppose gay marriage" are actually opposing gay marriage because they very much oppose gays in general.
Output: Valid
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.
Output: Valid
Well, if we decide to make incest not taboo, we will have a different discussion, one that doesn't have a bearing on gay marriage or inter-racial marriage.
Output: Valid
I can further explain that since you cannot prove same-sex couples are inferior, you are not justified in denying them marriage.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
It is not my fault that half the nation is blinded by religious fundamentalism to the point that it affects people's lives and who they are.
Output: Invalid
We should never make the mistake of assuming that the majority will not oppress the minority; we should never make the mistake of assuming that the majority is right.
Output: Valid
Gays should be allowed to have an official civil partnership which has the same legal status as marriage.
Output: Valid
Marriages are for the Church to decide, Congress have no power to pass a legislation forcing religious institutions about marriage.
Output: Valid
Regardless, doing the math, it appears that there are far, far more homosexuals speaking out against AIDS than there are who have AIDS.
Output: Invalid
I've watched the economic impact argument dissolve with no basis for complaint, the AIDS argument dissolve with no basis for complaint and the objection still reeks of discrimination by mythical belief system adherents.
Output: Valid
Although this isn't my primary argument, it can easily be seen that same-sex marriage provides benefits equal to that of opposite-sex marriage and far greater than that of allowing a single individual to marry.
Output: Valid
You are like someone who grumbles that the courts should get involved when a law is passed you don't like, and then grumbles that politicans should get involved when the courts enforce a law you don't like.
Output: Invalid
I realize you may not want to admit it, but society's rules on marriage HAVE CONSISTENTLY CHANGED OVER TIME.
Output: Valid
I think people should be allowed to live their lives to where they can fully enjoy it.
Output: Valid
In the case of same-sex marriage, homosexuals are completely denied equality, for they are not even allowed the same marriage benefits that others recieve without changing their sexuality.
Output: Valid
I agree that IF gay marriage is made legal it should be done through the legislature and not the courts.
Output: Valid
Gay unions are incapable of procreating, therefore supporting gay marriage simply does not make sense from the perspective of the state.
Output: Valid
What is more interesting is that as each judge finds that it is wrong to bar gays from marriage, they think the judge is wrong, never taking into account that maybe it is they who is wrong.
Output: Valid
If two people cannot do this for some legal reason, they are being denied equal rights unless marriage is completely outlawed within that nation.
Output: Valid
As with same-sex marriage, I believe that many of the arguments used to support gay rights can be used to support incestual marriage.
Output: Valid
While the former Speaker of the House of Representatives (Newt Gingrich) is allowed to dump his cancer stricken wife by handing her divorce papers in a hospital room, YOU BLAME GAYS FOR CHEAPENING MARRIAGE, AND THEN PASS THIS AMENDMENT!!
Output: Valid
There Is no justification (other than religious, which should be irrelevant to law-makers) for a taboo against gay marriage.
Output: Valid
How on earth can anyone think that the government cares who you love or want to spend your life with!?
Output: Valid
How many racist bigots actually think they are "bigots" because they think their morality is the right one and others are screwed up?
Output: Invalid
What inevitably must happen to any country or society that enshrines morally deviant behavior by undermining the biblical definition of marriage?
Output: Valid
We should allow same sex marriage because we as a country believe in equality for all people.
Output: Valid
I've latched onto the idea that you're main reason for being here is to post beligerantly about and to posters you disagree with about THEM rather than the topics at hand.
Output: Invalid
If we allow marriage to be redefined to include same-sex couples, the Twin Pilllars of Morality and Spirituality (which have served as beacons of the American culture since our beginning) will not stand.
Output: Valid
Therefore, if the bible says gays are in the wrong, allowing gay marriage is no problem.
Output: Valid
This *was* the law 50 years ago, and it was vigorously defended by religious and legal scholars, until finally that law was overturned and the civil right to marriage was extended to everyone regardless of their race.
Output: Valid
People should have the the freedom to participate in the process in a peaceful way, as these people have done by signing the petition.
Output: Invalid
But even if it weren't, that point is completely irrelevant because I have presented a perfectly plausible method of maintaining our current definition of the word "marriage" while still granting everyone equal rights.
Output: Valid
The double standard is thinking the fireman getting canned is ok but a gay person in the same situation is not.
Output: Invalid
If Action X can be proven to be absolutely and unequivocally harmless, even against public belief that it is, I could agree with you.
Output: Invalid
When people turn down government benefits because they do not meet the criteria, those people are always and every time being discriminated against, and those people are always and every time denied rights.
Output: Valid
- 'Humanitarian aid should take priority over someone who spends lots of time and money on animal rights.'
Output: Invalid
Not allowing gay marriage will not increase love, but increase hate.
Output: Valid
But, after years of close observation, I have now uncovered the true intentions of gay activists: To silence, demote or excommunicate any individual who dares to disagree with the unbridled promotion of homosexuality and gay marriage.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
And the reason I say the right is more morally corrupt is that they lie and pretend to hold to values THEY DO NOT HAVE.
Output: Invalid
So my argument is that marriage laws provide protections that used to benefit women disproportionately (and if we go way back into the 19th century, the benefits went to men disproportionately).
Output: Invalid
Lots of straight people have anal sex and lots of gay people don't, but I don't hear you calling straights "unnatural".
Output: Valid
One valid study would be a comparison of sexual fidelity between married male hetrosexuals and male homosexuals in legally recognized marriges.
Output: Valid
You can choose to rob banks but you must live with the results, you can choose to be gay, but if everyone were gay then it would spell the end of human life on this planet.
Output: Valid
But because our nation strives toward equality and religious freedom, if you do not feel that marriage is for everyone, then you need to keep it out of the laws, because putting it into law hurts people.
Output: Valid
However, some arguments in support of same-sex marriage have nothing to do with polygamous marriage.
Output: Valid
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.
Output: Valid
Practical problems are not a good justification to ban civil liberties, especially when the argument for gay marriage is not that it's "easy" but that it's "right".
Output: Valid
If you say you are going to prevent people from voting if they cannot read, and then ONLY apply that to blacks and NEVER to whites, the law is bound to fail 14th amendment testing.
Output: Invalid
Back to the issue (if you can), there are no significant differences between the arguement for gay marriage recognition, and say, co-habitation recognition, or polygamy marriage recognition.
Output: Valid
Lambda Legal brought the case under the state Constitution, saying gay New Yorkers weren��_��__��_��__t being treated equally under the law because they couldn��_��__��_��__t marry
Output: Valid
As I (and others) have attempted to point out to you, your Bible gives overwhelming evidence that it is the product of ancient man in his attempt to seek out the divine.
Output: Invalid
Because a family has additional needs, they are considered treated equally if their needs are better compensated.
Output: Valid
Marriage between whites and blacks was indeed prohibited because whites regarded blacks as inferior.
Output: Valid
You are in effect saying that no post-menopausal women like me should have the right to marry anyone.
Output: Valid
And that debate also settled on "No, BEING gay isn't wrong", thus the act of gay marriage for gay people should also be considered a net win for society, and in no occurrences a wrong thing.
Output: Valid
You know, if you aren't able to grasp the concept of the inconsistency of saying one is against gay marriage when saying they are for gay rights, I don't know what else to say.
Output: Valid
If I do something that is for the benefit of the nation as a whole,... that benefit includes everyone (including gays.)
Output: Valid
A RI couple said that there was nothing forbidding gays from getting married in RI, and the courts agreed.
Output: Valid
By allowing judges to overthrow a democratically-enacted law all you would be doing is handing ammunition to the fundies.
Output: Invalid
Yet the law will be upheld because it is a rational means of advancing the state interest in protecting persons from fraudulent or unscrupulous insurance agents.
Output: Valid
For me and many gay people same sex marriage is both moral and ethical.
Output: Valid
affording to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.��_��__��_��__
Output: Invalid
However, based on what is available: the sample sizes are very small, the terminology is vague, assessment method is unclear, and correlation has been conflated with causation.
Output: Invalid
I would invite a galley of sword waving swingers to my house than a hoard of thieves... standing on the porch demanding the kissing cousins to desist as the house is on fire is delusions of righteousness.
Output: Invalid
One would think they RUC would be supported by the Democrat gay rights lobby, but since the still don't have the (D), that's not going to happen I'm sure.
Output: Invalid
BUT I can't see where the line is drawn between the christian right wanting more couples to marry and gay couples marrying.
Output: Valid
You made a specific point on states interests needing to be served for any law to be passed.
Output: Invalid
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: Valid
It seems to me that gays promoting gay marriage as a means of increasing relationship stability and thereby reducing promiscuity and HIV are engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking.
Output: Valid
No one says that people have to follow those "rules".
Output: Invalid
People secure in their heterosexual identity or way of life, have nothing to concern themselves with if gays are being accepted.
Output: Valid
I find the funniest thing about such studies is that everyone has heard of them and is sure something has been shown conclusively, but no one is quite sure when or where.
Output: Invalid
i agree with gay marriage because it is not fair to them that only man and women who are in love can only get married.
Output: Valid
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: Valid
People could, no doubt, just as easily find cases to trump where proponents of gay marriage have been promiscuous, divorced, engaged in prostitution, or whatever-other vice-of-the-day is in terms of discreditation.
Output: Valid
It's a very ugly word, and I suspect that's the reason you use it (for its effect) and why you don't entertain the idea that bigotry may not always be what's behind it.
Output: Invalid
I don't care if calling it "marriage" offends people, or violates what they call the sanctity of marriage, gays should have the same RIGHTS that a married couple gets.
Output: Valid
If marriage can be redefined to include other arrangements people may want (right now, same-sex couples are trying to do this) then most certainly it can be redefined to include more people in a relationship to have it apply to.
Output: Valid
So maybe instead of being wed you can coalesce, instead of husband and wife you can be a duo or a team and you wouldn't get married you would form an association.
Output: Valid
If we allow same-sex couples to legally marry, does it in anyway water down any other marriage between opposite-sex couples?
Output: Valid
I think the real issue is not "should gays be allowed to marry."
Output: Valid
Any one who has voted yes to place these amendments into state constitutions because they have a religious belief that excludes gay people from marriage has also imposed those religious beliefs upon gay people.
Output: Valid
I have never said that the law does not or should not be changed in accordance with prevailing social views.
Output: Valid
An even thornier question is whether Bingham and his fellow Republicans aimed through the 14th amendment privileges or immunities clause to protect rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Output: Invalid
As homosexual marriage is popularized our society will see an explosion of health problems (STD's, HIV, AIDS, etc.)that go along with type of risky, irresponsible behavior.
Output: Valid
Even if the specific point of the story was concerning a sexual matter, rather than hospitality, the issue is rape not homosexuality.
Output: Invalid
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.
Output: Valid
If we want to make informed decisions about candidates we need to develop the skills to make useful judgement calls about what they're saying.
Output: Invalid
In other words, since same-sex couples do not "naturally" have children, they do not need the protections of marriage as opposed to opposite sex couples.
Output: Valid
If YOU for ONE SECOND think that "God" taking that (supposed) approach has any credibility or intelligence, then you have to question why he didn't do the same for other, MORE PRESSING issues like I described.
Output: Invalid
I think we've been down this road, just because something is "long standing" does not make it fair or equitable.
Output: Valid
Suppose somebody were to propose that people of different RELIGIONS should not marry, citing statistics on divorce.
Output: Valid
People in Massachusetts are free to believe what they want about gay marriage.
Output: Valid
I agree that people should have, and they do have, the religious liberty to believe whatever they want and to frown on same-sex marriage if they want to.
Output: Valid
The courts didn't give people a say in overturning interracial marriage.
Output: Valid
Now we never said God hates gays or fags or any others for we are all sinners and God loves his people even when condemned with sin.
Output: Valid
As in, you present your POV with supporting evidence, people counter with their POV and supporting evidence.
Output: Invalid
Our constitution protects people... not their behavior, therein it defines what behavior is acceptable and what falls short of the standard.
Output: Valid
Now, my question is if you believe that same sex marriage is wrong, then do you think pedophiles and convicted rapist should still have the right to marry?
Output: Valid
However, a man and a woman are both "persons" under the law and are not treated differently under the law.
Output: Valid
Specifically if the case can be made using the framer's actual words, and not just the scholars' presentation.
Output: Invalid
Unfortunately, many of the "Christians" who attack gays and do the blame game like I was talking about, also are the same people who oppose sex-ed to teach those very things.
Output: Valid
Candian society is very accepting of gay people and has instituted equal marriage for same-sex couples.
Output: Valid
Gay marriage being something that some people think is "not desirable" just isn't going to be sufficient enough excuse for discrimination.
Output: Valid
It is my INDIVIDUAL decision to marry someone of the same sex.
Output: Valid