Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudey
My point was that moral compasses are different from person to person. Some folks may be pro gay marriage but against incest and beastiality and polygamy. So who's right? These aren't universal rights like "life". At the end of the day you can't just say "morals don't matter" and "some morals do, but not the ones from the bible".
|
But I'm not saying any of those things - I'm saying that, when a law is purely based on a moral expectation, you can't use a narrow moral authority (such as a subset of certain religions), particularly an excluded subsection of moral authorities (such as religion in general), as dictum.
Incest and bestiality laws do not have root in a narrow moral authority - they are instead rooted in protection against predators for those without means to protect themselves (animals, children). Adult incest creates genetic problems that have no way to be monitored, and as such preventative measures are likely appropriate. First cousins are allowed to be married in many states, because that's (apparently) the scientific cut-off for safety. Some people can do heroin without harming others or themselves, but we don't take them into consideration for legislative purposes.
Polygamy laws originally had a similar intent, if I'm not mistaken - to prevent children from being leveraged into a polygamist situation. Whether that applies today, I'm not sure, but I'm willing to cede that point completely (it really is somewhat odd that polygamy is specifically outlawed).
This isn't about "selective" morality, it's about
avoiding selective morality (using Christian morality) by staying away from stupid laws regarding wholly irrelevant issues like marriage.
Threaded Mode
