U.S. Supreme Court upholds right to Marry in all 50 States

[Danmark]

The United States Supreme Court today held: same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all 50 States.
".... No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizations
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 80 by DanieltheDragon]
True, but I don't see any repentance from you for your Post #75 that even looked like it was personally aimed at me. I did not think it was, I thought instead it was...
no, better not say even anything about you even aimed at exculpating you, making an excuse for you even though I believe what I would have said. I guess I can at least say that I do not regard you as a bad guy. So far so good.

Where are the mods? Why is this outlandish discussion taking place?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 59 by bluethread]

I guess so. If two or more people are consesualy agreeing to a sort of "marriage" social contract, I'm fine. It's no business of mine. People having children and affecting the population and health care provision is a concern of mine. I'm much more concerned about the plight of messed up kids due to irresponsible reproduction choices than I am about a few people (relatives or not) getting each other off.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 81 by Korah]

I don't think you are attracted to your siblings which was the point. It wasn't to target you in a offensive way but to highlight how most people don't think to have sex with their siblings. There are really only rare examples like brothers and sisters separated at birth and unknowingly meet later in life and have relations or in cases of extreme isolation that incest is consensual and un coerced.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 59 by bluethread]

I guess so. If two or more people are consesualy agreeing to a sort of "marriage" social contract, I'm fine. It's no business of mine. People having children and affecting the population and health care provision is a concern of mine. I'm much more concerned about the plight of messed up kids due to irresponsible reproduction choices than I am about a few people (relatives or not) getting each other off.

How do you propose we institute this procreation license then? Do we permit all homosexual activity, because it can not result in pregnancy and require anyone who takes part in heterosexual activity to have either an state approved procreation certification or an impotence certificate?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 84 by bluethread]

That's a question for better minds than mine. I guess maybe only allow pregnancies and births to those who have applied and received a license. (Yes, fertile individuals engaging in sex would need to exercise more caution than couples or groups without fertile members)