Sort of. The technical issue here that Anima is getting at is "a ruling that marriage is a fundamental right would make it much harder to place restrictions on marriage." The suggestion is that any "expansion" of a right to marriage that is sufficiently large to necessitate the removal of a same-sex restriction would be too blunt to avoid also taking out age restrictions.
Even if the animus is "slippery slope scaremongering" - I'm not saying it is in Anima's case, but you do see it a lot on, say, the news or comments sections of websites and such - it's not a ridiculous sort of question to ask. In this case, however, I think it's extremely obvious that you can expand marriage to be between two men and not have to expand it to be between a 40-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl. This is partly for reasons I've mentioned above; again, I stress that if you expand what marriage is, you're not expanding the capacity to consent to things such as marriage.
Even if the animus is "slippery slope scaremongering" - I'm not saying it is in Anima's case, but you do see it a lot on, say, the news or comments sections of websites and such - it's not a ridiculous sort of question to ask. In this case, however, I think it's extremely obvious that you can expand marriage to be between two men and not have to expand it to be between a 40-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl. This is partly for reasons I've mentioned above; again, I stress that if you expand what marriage is, you're not expanding the capacity to consent to things such as marriage.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.