|
UberJew posted:Perry v. Brown was a Ninth Circuit decision, while Iowa is Eighth Circuit, so Perry v. Brown is not legal precedent (though could very well be taken into account when drafting their decision at the discretion of the court). If they disregarded it and came to a contrary ruling then the Supreme Court really couldn't dodge the issue any longer. I figured that SCOTUS (hypothetically) denying cert in September meant the case became de facto precedent for the other 10 circuits.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Oh ok. That's a common misconception, but denial of certiorari says absolutely nothing about the merits of the case and does not establish any precedent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Not only that, but SCOTUS can interpret and rule on the 9th Circuit decision in such a way that it only applies to California and doesn't become a blanket, universally binding legalization of gay marriage. (They're pretty likely to rule this way, actually.) That's not to say that future challenges to DOMA/same-sex marriage bans won't cite to such a SCOTUS opinion, but it would non-binding precedent. (As in, "This indicates that national and legal perception of the issue is shifting, but we can't completely shut down the opposition just by saying 'SCOTUS said so.'")
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
So I have talking with this guy who is using a slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to "people pushing for marrying animals, mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, adults marrying minors? It may seem outlandish to think that this could happen... but at one point, so did gay marriage." I mentioned that these same arguments were used to oppose interracial marriage and managed to talk him down from that to him just focusing on incest. He is convinced that "If the basis behind marriage is two consenting adults that love each other, that can include more than just gays and straights, including some of my previous examples." And then this morning he followed up with "i think the interracial issue was different... Marriage, for the most part, was instituted to produce children and create stable environments for them. Interracial couples can produce children... gays cannot. Yes Gays can adopt or do a surrogate and create families and stable environments, but they cannot produce children together. My beliefs and ideals have just as much backing and flaws as yours. I will not make fun of your beliefs because you have the right to have them and I respect that." Now I know I should just let it go but he was SOOO close to actually considering that his opinion could use some more thought. And then I guess he woke up and took his moron pills or something. I plan to mention that under his definition that people who are incapable of having children have lesser marriages, but he is really pissing me off hiding behind his "INCEST IS THE SAME THING!" shield. I've already mentioned that you can't compare a genetic orientation with the conscious choice to bang a relative. But he didn't acknowledge that. Any suggestions/ ideas for an  ? If this isn't the thread for this post I'll delete it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
NinjaPete posted:So I have talking with this guy who is using a slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to "people pushing for marrying animals, mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, adults marrying minors? It may seem outlandish to think that this could happen... but at one point, so did gay marriage." Wisconsin's marriage license permits marriage between first cousins if they provide evidence of infertility. That takes away both their suggestion of incest as a "slippery slope" (since it is already acceptable in many states), and disproves that marriage is "just for procreation" since we let cousins marry if they can prove that they can't procreate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
Also if marriage is for family making only ask him if he feels infertile couples shouldn't be married either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
NinjaPete posted:So I have talking with this guy who is using a slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to "people pushing for marrying animals, mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, adults marrying minors? It may seem outlandish to think that this could happen... but at one point, so did gay marriage." My (straight) parents were infertile - should they not have been allowed to marry? They had to adopt me; what a terrible thing that was! The procreation argument is such clear BS when you give it even a tiny bit of thought - we allow infertile and elderly couples to marry all the time (or should we stop letting women marry after menopause?). A huge number of the legal and social benefits of marriage have nothing to do with procreation/children. Plus as noted above, adoption or surrogacy is a perfectly valid way to build a family (gently caress you otherwise) and on top of that, plenty of gay (or bisexual) people do have their own children from previous marriages/relationships. As to marrying minors, point out that a contract between two consenting adults is categorically different from one where one party cannot consent (children, goats, or toasters). However that said, marrying minors (with parental consent) is already legal in many states, and has been for centuries. If he has an issue with that, he really might want to focus on getting that changed rather than wasting his time preventing consenting adults from marrying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Additionally, why is what marriage was "for" even relevant? I mean sure, marriage was at one point seen as a contractual obligation to streamline the passing of wealth etc. to children, but we don't generally see it that way today. It can still help to serve that purpose but it's no longer viewed as the primary reason to get married. Institutions can evolve over time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
NinjaPete posted:So I have talking with this guy who is using a slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to "people pushing for marrying animals, mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, adults marrying minors? We do not allow marriage for animals and children as they cannot consent. Familial marriage is harder. If two people can consent, why not? I do not see a valid reason to exclude a mother from marrying her son or a father from marrying his daughter. The chance of damaged offspring does not prevent us from allowing others who have a high chance of having damaged children from getting married. It would also not prevent family who are infertile marrying. Ultimately, just tell him that very few people are likely to campaign to end the discrimination against familial marriages within his lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
The whole idea behind a slippery slope argument is the fallacious idea that once you nudge a policy towards a certain direction, it will unstoppably be taken to its "logical" extreme. Believe it or not, it is possible to support marriage equality and not support man on dog marriage. If someone tells you that marriage equality leads to man on dog marriage, ask them how. It will likely involve something like 1. Marriage equality passes 2. The magical property of the sanctity of marriage is destroyed 3. ? 4. MAN ON DOG MAN ON DOG
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
A substantial amount of states already allow cousins to be married, apparently the slippery slope argument should in fact be "Look, if you let cousins start getting married, next you'll have interracial couples, then after that you'll have gays getting married!" The procreation argument is just stupid as hell. Under that theory, no one should be allowed to get married until the woman is in fact pregnant, or I guess the couple is in the middle of the adoption process, otherwise you never know, they may be one of those freak couples who decide they don't want kids, and then there goes the sanctity of marriage and next thing you know people will be marrying unicorns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:The whole idea behind a slippery slope argument is the fallacious idea that once you nudge a policy towards a certain direction, it will unstoppably be taken to its "logical" extreme. Believe it or not, it is possible to support marriage equality and not support man on dog marriage. If someone tells you that marriage equality leads to man on dog marriage, ask them how. It will likely involve something like The best way to respond to the slippery slope is to reverse it. If we ban gay marriage, we will then move on to ban interracial marriage. Eventually we will ban all marriage and outlaw all human relationships!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 16:58
|
|
SmuglyDismissed posted:The best way to respond to the slippery slope is to reverse it. If we ban gay marriage, we will then move on to ban interracial marriage. Eventually we will ban all marriage and outlaw all human relationships! I love it, slippery escalation.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Raphus C posted:We do not allow marriage for animals and children as they cannot consent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
The best argument I have against the slippery slope argument is that same-sex marriage isn't about the increasing social acceptance of certain sexual behaviors, but is a result of the change in the definition of marriage. Previously, a husband was defined as a dominant male provider and a wife was a submissive female homemaker. Now, marriage is defined as a coming together of equals, so ideally husband and wife are equals who both share in the responsibilities of providing for and maintaining the household. Since the roles of husband and wife are no longer distinct, the gender of these roles is not longer important. This definition of marriage excludes marriage between adults with animals or minors because those are not marriages of equals. Marriage between adults and minors was commonplace historically, but is no longer acceptable because it violates the contemporary definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn't violate this definition and is therefore acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:This definition of marriage excludes marriage between adults with animals or minors because those are not marriages of equals. Marriage between adults and minors was commonplace historically, but is no longer acceptable because it violates the contemporary definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage doesn't violate this definition and is therefore acceptable. Marriage between minors and adults are legal in most states, with the parents' permission, and recognized in all 50 states. In some states, children as young as 13 may be married to anyone with consent of the parents or sometimes the court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:In some states, children as young as 13 may be married to anyone with consent of the parents or sometimes the court. Which states?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Marriage between minors and adults are legal in most states, with the parents' permission, and recognized in all 50 states. In some states, children as young as 13 may be married to anyone with consent of the parents or sometimes the court. This is mostly a case of laws not reflecting social norms. Just as the change in the definition of marriage didn't immediately bring about the legalization of same-sex marriage, it didn't end the legal practice of marriages between minors and adults. Just because something is legally acceptable, doesn't make it socially acceptable, and most Americans would find it socially unacceptable for an adult to marry a minor. Those Americans that find it acceptable follow an older definition of marriage that is increasingly being marginalized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Which states? For age 13, New Hampshire: Applicants who has reached the age of 18 can marry without parental consent. A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver (See Waiver). A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. There's also more states with 14: New York: If either applicant is under 14 years of age, a marriage license cannot be issued. If either applicant is 14 or 15 years of age, such applicant(s) must present the written consent of both parents and a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Family Court having jurisdiction over the town or city in which the application is made. If either applicant is 16 or 17 years of age, such applicant(s) must present the written consent of both parents. If both applicants are 18 years of age or older, no consents are required. North Carolina: Applicants 18 years of age or above may use 1 of the following I.D.'s: Driver's license (may not be expired). State-issued I.D. Card (may not be expired). Passport (may not be expired). Military I.D. (may not be expired). Applicants 16 or 17 years of age must have certified copies of their birth certificate in order to acquire a license and a written parental consent by a parent having full or joint legal custody of the underage party; or by a person, agency, or institiution having legal custody or serving as a guardian of the underage party. Parental consent form. Applicants over age 14 and under 16 must attain a Court Order by District Court Judge authorizing the marriage. Applicants under age 14 is unlawful to marry. South Carolina: If you are under 18, you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate and a notarized statement of parental consent. The minimum age for a female is 14 and it is 16 for a male. Texas: Both parties must be 18 years or older, 14-17 requires parental consent. Mu Cow posted:This is mostly a case of laws not reflecting social norms. Just as the change in the definition of marriage didn't immediately bring about the legalization of same-sex marriage, it didn't end the legal practice of marriages between minors and adults. Just because something is legally acceptable, doesn't make it socially acceptable, and most Americans would find it socially unacceptable for an adult to marry a minor. Those Americans that find it acceptable follow an older definition of marriage that is increasingly being marginalized. Most Americans would consider it socially acceptable for a 16 year old or 17 year old to marry someone who's a legal adult (especially if the older one is 20 or younger). And that's a marriage of minor and adult. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Aug 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Most Americans would consider it socially acceptable for a 16 year old or 17 year old to marry someone who's a legal adult (especially if the older one is 20 or younger). And that's a marriage of minor and adult. I don't care to split hairs over what is considered an adult or a minor and what is considered an acceptable age difference, I'm just trying to offer a reason why same-sex marriage doesn't open the door to pedophiles marrying children as the slippery slope argument would have one believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 22:04
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Most Americans would consider it socially acceptable for a 16 year old or 17 year old to marry someone who's a legal adult (especially if the older one is 20 or younger). And that's a marriage of minor and adult. This is the nutty part though, considering what marriage is supposed to be. If I had to choose a favorite loving band for life when I was 16, I'd only be listening to KoRn albums today. How god damned terrible would that be, let alone a lifetime commitment to a person who is changing as much as you are, eughck. "Shotgun" weddings between teens? A-OK. Two gay men in their early 30's with lots of life goals, plans, and a mature outlook? Boooooooooooo!!!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:I don't care to split hairs over what is considered an adult or a minor and what is considered an acceptable age difference, I'm just trying to offer a reason why same-sex marriage doesn't open the door to pedophiles marrying children as the slippery slope argument would have one believe. And what I'm saying is, pedophiles could already marry what most people would consider to be children, in the United States, right now. So the slippery slope argument is doubly disproved because we already have something that would supposedly not happen unless we allowed gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Not to discredit you but can you give a citation for "most americans" would find that acceptable? Literally everyone I know would think that's ridiculous. What the marriage laws are isn't really the end all because they've been on the books so long people just don't bother changing them. On the surface Japan has an age of consent law of 14 but every regency uses a higher age so it doesn't really apply, not to mention just plain socially that wouldn't fly. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
The slippery-slope argument is stupid, because if it made sense then straight marriage would have led to heterosexual unions between adults and children and animals and other dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Not to discredit you but can you give a citation for "most americans" would find that acceptable? Literally everyone I know would think that's ridiculous. Would you really object to a 16 year old marrying an 18 year old? Or 17 year old marrying a 19 year old? Now personally I don't think anyone who gets married that young is going to have a lasting relationship, but it's far from socially unacceptable to have relationships in those age ranges. And I was only claiming that marriages of those age ranges are socially acceptable - they're definitely of minors to legal adults, but also are not likely to really raise eyebrows. Stuff like how you can marry a 13 year old girl in New Hampshire if you get the parents to agree is a different thing altogether. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:The slippery-slope argument is stupid, because if it made sense then straight marriage would have led to heterosexual unions between adults and children and animals and other dumb poo poo. Pretty much. The gay-marriage debate is just attacking 'tradition' as a reason to deny marriages. There's something wrong with people who say, "If we can't use tradition, how will we know that pedophilia is bad?" Those of us who are sane can point to any number of rather good reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Maryland ballot words words words.quote:Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs. I like the recent move towards talking about obtaining or issuing civil marriage licenses and framing this in the same boring language as any regulation. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Would you really object to a 16 year old marrying an 18 year old? Or 17 year old marrying a 19 year old? Now personally I don't think anyone who gets married that young is going to have a lasting relationship, but it's far from socially unacceptable to have relationships in those age ranges. Sure I would. I wouldn't have any problem with people of those ages dating, but I'd object to them marrying. If we as a society don't think someone is old enough to vote, they probably aren't old enough to be making lifetime commitments, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Sefer posted:Sure I would. I wouldn't have any problem with people of those ages dating, but I'd object to them marrying. If we as a society don't think someone is old enough to vote, they probably aren't old enough to be making lifetime commitments, either. There is "well that's a dumb loving idea" object and there's "they should not be allowed to do that" object. I would think they're morons (in fact I'd still think they were morons if they were both 18) but I wouldn't think either of them were doing something wrong that was my business. If one was marrying a 12 year old though, I would.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There is "well that's a dumb loving idea" object and there's "they should not be allowed to do that" object. I would think they're morons (in fact I'd still think they were morons if they were both 18) but I wouldn't think either of them were doing something wrong that was my business. If one was marrying a 12 year old though, I would. Well, the original context was the claim that it would be "socially acceptible," not whether it's my business or whether I should be able to stop it from happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:The slippery-slope argument is stupid, because if it made sense then straight marriage would have led to heterosexual unions between adults and children and animals and other dumb poo poo. If they ban gay marriage, pretty soon they're going to ban straight marriages 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
Oh hey guys, are we still talking about Chick-Fil-A? No? Oh well, gonna leave this here anyway. Someone over in the political email thread made a thing (I forgot your name, I'm sorry! )
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:It's just a whitewashed version of separate-but-equal, honestly. I disagree with this. Some pretty credible people such as Martha Nussbaum make this argument as the ideal but also note practically this just won't happen. In that sense it's whitewashed I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/mexico-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_678016.html The Supreme Court of Mexico ruled that all states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/mexico-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_678016.html Now some states are considering laws to issue licenses which is nice if you can't easily reach Mexico City or Quintana Roo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:In 2010. Oh wow, how did I not notice that? One my friends posted this on Facebook so I figured it was recent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 09:56
|
|
|
Mark Oppenheimer has a piece online for the NYT detailing a dinner-table debate that he ended up moderating between Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage and Dan Savage. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/garden/dan-savage-and-brian-brown-debate-gay-marriage-over-the-dinner-table.html?_r=1 He links to an hour long video of the actual debate- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG804t0WG-c
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 11:41
|
|
|
Man that started with some real promise and then degraded in precisely the way I thought it would - Savage interrupting Brown and everyone getting bogged down in polygamy. Disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
After Brian Brown couldn't respond to the fact that the Bible was used by pro-slavery American entities my mind just kind of shut down. Yeah, Frederick Douglass used the Bible too, therefore it was NEVER used to justify reprehensible things we all consider to be so in the 21st century in these here United States. Infallibility. If Savage is going to descend into being himself after a somewhat great opening, I think I might shut it off while I'm ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
The thing went off the rails when the moderator tried to butt in with some facts, which (not entirely unjustifiably) made Brown feel that he was now being ganged up on, and the moderator got real lovely at, you know, moderating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 16:03
|
|