The Supreme Court's decision to uphold gay marriage was correct

Correctness is a property of something applied to certain rules. An equation may or may not be correct according to the predefined rules of the set of numbers used. 2 + 2 = 4 is correct because in the set of natural numbers, 2 units added to another 2 units will render 4 as a result. When it comes to a subject related to morality, correctness is nothing but subjective. Morality, nonetheless, changes according to the generation we live in. These issues were once thought of as morally and spiritually correct, but now we see it as abominable practices: enslaving black people, killing handicapped babies, burning infidels and so on ad so forth. Because of slavery, capitalists were able to collect great fortunes that eventually led to the industrial revolution. The Spartans, for example, killed their handicapped babies and so were able to build a solid and strong civilization that eventually destroyed the persians and kept their families alive and safe. Because of the killing of infidels, several nations grew stronger and united, because most of its citizens believed in the samething. All of these comparisons are somewhat maquiavelic and I don't hold them as my personal opinions. What I want my reader to understand is that all those assumptions about those morally wrong practices were once believed to be true and, indeed, have some truth to it. The only difference we have today is the priority we give to certain variables. Today, it is better for us to live and cooperate with black people in the same society than to enslave them. Today it is better to keep and take care of handicapped babies than to kill them for the sake of better genetic lineage. Today it is better to cooperate with other religions than to kill one another for the sake of homogeneity of belief. Try to realize that if we want a better and handicap free genome, we have to kill our handicap, and for that purpose, the killing is correct. However, if we want a society where parents don't feel afraid of having to give their sons and daugther away to be slaughtered, if we want to be free to love and care for whomever we desire, then it is correct not to kill the handicap. And the same applies to every other moral subject. Now whether we should have a perfect genome or be free to love is a matter of opinion and no one has the authority to decide which is right. When it comes to gay marriage, the same rule applies: if we want to be allowed to love whomever we may, then gay marriage should be allowed. However, if we want a society where most of the people are heterosexual for the sake of reproduction, homogeneity of opinion, we should decrease exposure to homossexual behavior and forbid them to marry and have children or to spread there genes. Both means are correct to achieve their respective objectives. Which objective is correct? That's subjective and no one has the authority to say one or the other. Now my fellow reader, when you think you have the right to decide if a moral subject is correct, you incur in the same problem our ancestors throughout our history did. When you think your moral views are the correct ones, you may kill infidels for the sake of morality. When you think your moral views are correct, you may enslave the black people because they are nasty and filthy sinners. Our morality changes and will keep changing according to what our generation values more. I disagree that the decision to uphold gay marriage is correct. It may be a decision that will decrease the feeling of isolation that the gay people feel, it may open way to religious people to be more empathetic, but it is only correct for those purposes. Again: when you think your moral views are correct, you could be just as wrong. Allowing gay marriage will serve its purpose and only that. Whether this purpose is right, no one can say. And because of this, I hold your claim as wrong and misleading. If someday gay marriage becomes banned again, that decision would be just as correct as this one.