Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Child marriage is an essentially different conversation.  It has this thing called consent attached to it, a word tied to maturity which allows different people to reasonably consent to different thing at different stages of their life.

I made that point right near the start of this thread but even now it's not been acknowledged. The slippery slope is the only thing they've got, so they must continue to pretend they are somehow the same thing. Even after the legal decision they said was impossible has been made.

Even a monkey in a suit like me can suss this out.

I do so get a kick out of a group that does not believe in freewill arguing consent. As stated in the law:

"A person consents to the act if they desire the act, permit the act, or stay/remain knowing the likely outcome of the act."

Furthermore, as stated in the very beginning when consent was brought up. A child may consent to a contract (you know what marriage is) especially if the contract is to protect the dignity or security (sound familiar) of the child without parental consent over the age of 5. The age ban on marriage was under the procreative definition and was only a rational basis age discrimination.

I notice you guys keep going to the age of sexual consent. Again as I have already stated. The state argued marriage is procreation centric and thus it had a compelling and legitimate interest allowing it to discriminate who could enter into the marriage contract. The petitioner (same sex couples) argued marriage is not procreation centric and is instead dignity and security centric; thus the State does not have compelling or legitimate interest in discriminating who may enter into the marriage contract. The petitioners won (as you have all celebrated) and the court ruled the Constitution protects a person right to dignity and security, therefore the State discriminations denying such dignity and security are unconstitutional (and must meet strict scrutiny from here on).

I keep telling you guys the law is integrated. Changes in one thing causes changes in many other places. Now if you guys want to argue the age of sexual consent than you would be saying marriage is procreation based (the old definition) and the States have a compelling and legitimate interest in discriminating which parties may enter into the marriage contract. If so the State may once again enact the same sex marriage bans along with age restrictions. So I have to assume you do not want to argue that (though you each keep running to it).

If you are trying to argue there are laws in place than it is to be pointed out there were democratically approved bans in place against same sex marriage. So arguing consent is already recognized at age X avails you not since marriage was already recognized as consisting of parties X and Y.

Entire thread has, from beginning to end, been variations of-

"Next thing you know, blacks will be marrying whites and civilization will crumble."

It was transparent from the word go.  Need to stop hatin on gays, period.  

Actually what you guys refer to as the slippery slope was discussed at most in regard to the law (since that is how precedential jurisprudence works). I find it interesting how people are still trying to argue this is not the case when you can see it readily from Lawrence V. Texas to US V. Windsor to Obergefell V. Hodges to Brown V. Buhman. Now in my understanding three points are sufficient to define a trending function for predicting a trend.

But I would like to ask something. When is something not a slippery slope to you? The definition of a slippery slope is when one states a subsequent resultant shall follow for no other reason than the first has occurred. I have not done that. I have explained how the first leads to logical and legal permission of the second and have even given examples. The way you guys seem to use slippery slope is to state any reference to a potential outcome is a slippery slope. If I said a guy stabbed in the heart will die you will argue it is a slippery slope? He might die; he is likely to die; he may even be dying as we speak; but it is a slippery slope fallacy to say he will die. He might live! We have to wait and see.