California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[Rudey]

So we protect animals by slaughtering them?

And incest is banned because the government doesn't want to pay the costs to monitor for freak children?

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[JonoBN41]

To take this discussion to its logical conclusion*, if an undershirt married a pair of long johns, would it result in a union suit (ie US vs Hanes)? Would it matter if the garments were male or female; gay or straight? Could either side win or would it be a wash, or would one side fold? Would there be legal briefs?

Discuss amongst yourselves. Personally, I think it's morally wrong for undergarments to marry.

*absurdity

[DeltAlum]

"union suit?"

Help us.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

So we protect animals by slaughtering them?

No - we protect animals by passing laws against unethical treatment. This is why it's legal to slaughter animals in the most humane way possible, and not legal to just up and kill an animal for no reason or with undue cruelty.

Animals are property, but still subject to cruelty laws. You know all of this, and that animal husbandry is not an analog in the slightest - c'mon.

Originally Posted by Rudey

And incest is banned because the government doesn't want to pay the costs to monitor for freak children?

... along with the corresponding protection of children from parents/other family members. Yes.