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 civilization’s
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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 48 by bluethread]

I am not so sure slippery slope is always uncivil, but it can be. Like homosexuality leads to pedophilia and bestiality. This is basically saying that gays will start raping kids and having sex with animals. It is kind of a mean thing to say and also untrue. Gay marriage and polygamy are also two different issues. The only thing slippery about the slope is we are going from less equality to more equality.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to sf]

This is an issue why? The only legal reason against polygamy is that it dramatically increases the complexity of things like child custody social security benefits tax dependence etc. morally there is no reason.

That's the question. It is outlawed in all 50 states currently. Should it not be anymore? What else should be allowed? Is there anything morally wrong with marrying close relatives?

I have always stood firm that polygamists should be allowed to marry especially for some since it can be a religious issue. As far as incest goes again this is a different issue because it strongly centers around pregnancy. Children of incest have nearly a 50/50 likelihood of developing severe birth defects. When first degree relatives have sex they are condemning any child conceived to severe disabilities and or death due t defects. This is seemingly a cruel thing to do.

Do you know of a morally wrong issue with polygamy?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 52 by DanieltheDragon]

An argument leading from same-sex to close relative marriage, completely unabated by birth defects:

What about the marriage of same-sex relatives?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 52 by DanieltheDragon]

An argument leading from same-sex to close relative marriage, completely unabated by birth defects:

What about the marriage of same-sex relatives?

Sure why not I guess. Sure seems icky but if there is no coercion or force and no possibility for kids I see no reason to prohibit. I am open to arguments against.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]

My stance is that any two or more people above the age of adulthood within thirty IQ points of each other should be allowed to join together in a civil union (marriage if that's what the civil union is) but should be required to get a license to procreate as anyon should be required to.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]

My stance is that any two or more people above the age of adulthood within thirty IQ points of each other should be allowed to join together in a civil union (marriage if that's what the civil union is) but should be required to get a license to procreate as anyon should be required to.

So, are you now arguing for mandated abortions for women who get pregnant without a license? If that logical effect is a bit hyperbolic, then can you tell me where marriage is an inherent state issue in the first place?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 51 by DanieltheDragon]

My stance is that any two or more people above the age of adulthood within thirty IQ points of each other should be allowed to join together in a civil union (marriage if that's what the civil union is) but should be required to get a license to procreate as anyon should be required to.

So, are you now arguing for mandated abortions for women who get pregnant without a license? If that logical effect is a bit hyperbolic, then can you tell me where marriage is an inherent state issue in the first place?

No. Lol!!! I never mentioned abortions. I didn't know that a "Jump to Comclusions" mat was already on the market. Do you get them at Walmart or Target?

My opinion is that any two or more adults ought to be able to write and sign their own agreement on a union that includes assets and sexual license--up to, including, and surpassing the contract implied by marriage.

As to being allowed to procreate, no, that should be a privilege only accorded by strict rules and enforced by the state. Children birthed without a license should be cared for and raised by the state for its own purposes.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 57 by Hatuey]
Who would have thought "Hatuey" was a Chinese name?

[bluethread]

As to being allowed to procreate, no, that should be a privilege only accorded by strict rules and enforced by the state. Children birthed without a license should be cared for and raised by the state for its own purposes.

Well, we clearly disagree on the powers the state should have. I am a localist and believe that the purpose of the federal and state governments is merely to secure the borders and arbitrate disputes between the subsidiary government entities. Therefore, children are the responsibility of the parents and the government should only intervene when there is a conflict between families.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 54 by DanieltheDragon]

I just found it interesting that there is actually an argument from same sex marriage to marriage of relatives, albeit in disuse.

What about permanently infertile opposite sex relatives?
Relatives who're temporarily infertile? (e.g. some forms of surgical contraception)
What about relatives who'd abort? (and relatives who'd forgo sex)

Conversely, what about people with genetic diseases having any potentially fertile sex at all? (And the inbred/those born from incest)