California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[shinerbock]

I don't see what the controversy is. Many people believe that God creates people and they choose to act, either according to their urges or in spite of them. I actually think this argument is pretty legitimate.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Many people believe...

Sorry for the double post.

Shiner, believe me I understand what you're saying, but the fact that it's people who believe that gives me a problem.

People are not perfect.

What a person believes does not make it so.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Sorry for the double post.

Shiner, believe me I understand what you're saying, but the fact that it's people who believe that gives me a problem.

People are not perfect.

What a person believes does not make it so.

Of course it doesn't, so what?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Of course it doesn't, so what?

Read your quote from 7:11 PM today. Your comment is that "people believe."

My contention is that what "people" believe isn't valid proof.

But I think you already agreed to that, didn't you?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

My contention is that what "people" believe isn't valid proof.

But what you believe is? How do you base your beliefs? What proof do you have to believe what you believe?

I ask in a philosophical context, not as a personal attack on you.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't see what the controversy is. Many people believe that God creates people and they choose to act, either according to their urges or in spite of them. I actually think this argument is pretty legitimate.

For me, this is exactly what this "argument" breaks down to - I have no problem for you to feel or believe this way, just like I'm sure you don't particularly care that I think the overwhelming majority of people never have an opportunity, not to mention desire, to play an active role in their sexual orientation.

I also don't particularly care whether you feel gay marriage violates the sanctity of the institution - in fact, if you define marriage that way, then you're totally correct in feeling that way.

The only issue I have is with explicit legislation based on these feelings or beliefs, rather than a rationalization of why gay marriage is actually a net negative for society as a whole.

That might be too literalist for the thread, but we're improperly conflating "beliefs" with the actual point, in my mind.