If you and everyone around you knows your child has sever mental issues and poses a threat, then maybe.....

Yeah this would be what I cared about if I was on a jury. Was there reason to suspect the kid was a danger?

I will never understand why these parents with kids with apparent mental health issues think getting them a gun or even getting them into shooting is anything but a bad idea.

I would offer the less obvious the case, then the less slippery the slope. Reasoned prosecutions and reasonableness factor in.

Slippery slopes are fairly rare in the law. A case that breaks new ground may open peoples’ eyes to some possible claim. But, there are many people and steps along the way that serve as a control.

Based on the slippery slope doomsayers when we legalized gay marriage, I should be able to marry my cat or dog by now.

Scalia was probably right that recognizing a right to same sex sex was a slippery slope to recognizing a right to same sex marriage. But, that’s as far as it goes.

For now.... what was the time spread between the adoption of XIV and the Voting Rights/ Civil Rights Act

If we ever recognize a right to marry an animal — with whatever that entails — it won’t be because of some inescapably slippery slope. It will be because some future society, by its values and processes, makes that judgment. It does not seem at all inevitable that one leads to the other.

What does that even mean?

I hate that government is so now intertwined with religion, and a lot over this stupid word.

Marriage, should be a Religious event governed and controlled by the religious institution that is recognizing the marriage, in the eyes of their god.

We should then have a legal document for merging two peoples assets, and the legal view that these 2 are now an incorporated entity. Which should by default cause on ones death the assets of the other to stay with the other half, allow insurance policies from an employer to cover all those in the incorporated entity, (which would include kids as you had them).

If we did this, no one would give a shit about marriage anymore. I highly doubt that much fuss would be made about who someone chose to go into this legal agreement with.

If I had one shot at one thing, blink my eyes it happens, This would be high on my list of items, marriage is instantly removed from all government documents, replaced with (I need a catchy name) incorporated entities.

and on the stupid animal discussion, no its not a slippery slope that leads to that, until someone develops a way for an animal to give consent.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Wtf are you people talking about? I click this thread to check updates on the school shooting that led to the parents going to jail and you all are discussing not just fucking animals but marrying them?

mattbk wrote:

and you all are discussing not just fucking animals but marrying them?

I will not tolerate zoophilia shaming. I will report you to the moderators. And if it's tender and consensual, it's not "fucking," but sweet, sweet, love.

Chill, bruh, it's just a philosophical discussion of the limitations of the slippery slope argument.

I'm more offended by your "font Arial size 1" in the last sentence. I'm still young enough to read it without glasses but you definitely made many pop them on.

Good luck on that, maybe Ryan will add that grievance as 1c, just behind harassment of moderators and being a general asshole to all lol... ;)

We were having a discussion about slippery slopes in a variety of contexts. You then want to discuss whether the legal concept of marriage should be changed. It’s a perfectly good topic, but this thread has already drifted out to sea. Happy to discuss the legal significance of marriage, but maybe leave it for another thread.

Yes, I know all that, this thread is a mess, who cares. Not even sure why it was brought back, the sentencing should have gone on the trial thread if we want to get picky. I tried to bring that one back, but it was ignored, so this train wreck keeps going.

Now back to marring a farm animal. You hear this as the end of or part of a slipery slope arguement, and its just stupid, as you can't marry something (what every version of the word marry you want) without both parties agreeing, well or their parents in some forms, but either way, an animal would not be able to give consent so its just dumb. Which brings me to any discussion of laws/ govt and marriage is just stupid as marry really has 2 different meanings a religous one and a legal one, and they are completly different and not related, but the Christian faction wants to make them seem to be the same word or meaning.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

It’s also dumb because there are enormous financial consequences to marriage. If you marry your dog and then you die, does your dog get all the spousal Social Security benefits — potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if your dog lives a long time? Can a millionaire massively reduce their income taxes by marrying a pet and claiming the much lower tax rate for a married couple? Yes, it’s dumb and a bad-faith slippery slope argument.

To your point, yes, the legal definition of a two-person couple should not be linked to religious notions of marriage. Though, I am not sure they are still very strongly linked. In Colorado, to get married you just sign a piece of paper. No witnesses, ceremony, blood tests, etc., required.

Perhaps a change in terminology would reduce the tension on the issue . I think much of the tension is going away anyhow. Another decade or so with same sex marriage, and much of the controversy will go away. The next generation(s) will view the earlier fights as some weird anachronism. Or, that is my hope. If SCOTUS overturns Obergfell in the very near future, then maybe things get ugly again.