Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.

Carrying on a conversation with yourself now?

Indeed it is a wonderful thing about Europe and America is its litigiousness. As stipulated by Aristotle, "The law is reason free from passion." So when you go to court you must argue in accordance with the law and reason and cannot simply say well I feel it is stupid and discriminatory so it is.

I was not equating homosexuality with rape or anything else for that matter. What I was pointing out is that rulings in the law serve as precedence for other ruling and that the laws are integrated. So if the petitioners win their claim the logic used to support that claim will be used by others . Each case is not tried in a vacuum, if that were so than no general determination would be made from any specific case.

I detest the slippery slope argument as much as anyone else. But if you were in jail and another person got off for a crime that is nearly identical, would you simply spend your time in prison telling yourself, "well nearly identical is not identical". Or would you be complaining to anyone and everyone how you are being unjustly punished since you and the freebird committed an identical crime. My guess would be the latter and not the former.

---

Anima: You're asking me why it's a bad idea to let children marry?

Nope. I am asking you:

WHAT IS THE STATES COMPELLING INTEREST IN DENYING A CHILD RECOGNITION OF AN ADULT/CHILD RELATIONSHIP THAT CONVEYS ADDED DIGNITY AND SECURITY TO THE CHILD?