(June 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: They are all separate issues. If the law doesn't treat them as separate issues, then it should.
If the law does treat them as separate issues, then accepting this in no way means they must or will accept any of the others. That is simply slippery sloping it up.
They allowed mixed race marriage without all this bullshit, although I would guess the same objections were thrown up then by those opposed.
This is my thick headed layman's perspective.
Ace is correct. Remember that laws are intertwined with one another and that legal decisions serve as precedences for other decisions. I never believed the slippery slope argument until I went to law school. But it makes sense if you stop and think about it. Are you willing to accept an arbitrary restriction which could get you out of prison simply because the logic of that argument, while applicable to your situation, is not specifically about your situation?
I said this earlier, but let us say you went to prison for 30 years for doing X and some one else did X-1 and got off scott-free. Are you going to spend the next 30 years in prison thinking to your self, "Well they did X-1 and that is totally different than X." Or are you going to wail to anyone who will listen that "X-1 is approximately X, so you should get off too"? I am willing to bet it will be the latter and not the former.
I have read tons of cases that are simply slippery slope cases. The court said yes or no to X and someone came in and said what about X+1 or X-1. This gets even more complicated when you start to introduce juries in the mix as you can get conflicting results on the same facts because of the difference in jury makeup.
