Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,658
- 83,710
I can show you the USSC ruling declaring marriage is an inalienable right. Until you can show me the same regarding toilets, you're just baying at the moon.There is as much a right to claim equality in the use of toilets by eliminating sex as labels being men and women facilities as there is in re-defining a marriage contract to eliminate sex, as in the female being a wife, and the male being a husband. A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman just as toilet facilities are labeled male and female to define the difference by sex.Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?Claiming something is an alienable right doesn't make it so just because someone claims it. There is no such thing as toilets are an inalienable right. Now you're just being ridiculous.Anyone may claim that access to toilets is an inalienable right just as same sex couples claim that re-defining marriage is an inalienable right, therefore the question that you pose is the same.Really? Access to toilets are inalienable rights now? Since when?Again, we have separate toilet facilities based on sex, do you claim this is not seep rate but-equal? What of topless men in public while women cannot? I have no problem with all sharing the equal right to contract under the proper definitions of specific contracts. You are confused.I disagree. I do get it. Different is not equal. You want to limit their individual liberties while you inaccurately claim they are seeking to reduce individual liberties.
As far as polygamy and incest, are you saying you'd be ok with those as long as they were also limited to civil unions?
Marriage, on the other hand, is established as an inalienable right. You don't get to deny people their inalienable rights because it disturbs your traditions.