Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually we do not know what the unintended consequences may be.  We may speculate on what may arise and how we may respond to those problems legally.  That is why the justices asked the petitioner and respondent about the impacts of their arguments.

One of the primary aspects of our judicial system is that upon making a change to one law we cannot just go and change all the others effected by it at the same time.  Instead we wait until someone files suit and makes argument to it and then deal with it as best we can.  Sometimes we have to let shit get through that we would not want.

If there is one thing I learned in my legal studies is that people will argue some of the most unbelievable shit (I did not rape her she was dead, or I only went down on her I did not have sex with her, etcetera) what is even more amazing is they win on that shit (the court ruled rape is unconsentual sex with a person and a dead body is not a person, court ruled that rape is penile penetration and cunnilingus does not constitute penile penetration).

"Whats next, cats marrying dogs?!?" 

A wonderful thing about the america, is that we're hilariously litigious.  You -can try- to argue whatever you like in court.  That's not actually a reason to discriminate against anyone, of course.  You miss that in your "legal studies"? Homosexuality is not rape any more than it is pedophilia.

-"Rhythm you're a dick..I never said that it was!"

Of course not cupcake..but you haven't mentioned homosexuality as it applies to kittens and lollipops even once in this thread..now have you? We have a fairly clear idea of the things you'd like to make comparisons with at this point. Slippery slope, rapists getting off, people fucking their children. Roger, got it.