Why are you politicizing sex. It is a matter of getting laid with permission. Not complicated. As a very famous comedian once quipped---"Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place". Keep it simple.
If there's a right then it's limited. All parties have to consent, for example. Children can't consent. People in a position of power can't force sex on other people. Apart from that, people are free to do what they want, I suppose. Calling it a 'right' is a bit strange. Do you have a right to eat, sleep or crap? It's a bodily function after all. You feel better afterwards, provided it's not bad sex.
Incorrect. If rights meant that it was obligated to provide citizens with that which they had a right to, then from the beginning we would have had guns provided to us. But the founding father never did so. A right is merely that which the government cannot take away without due process (it must be shown in court and on a case by case basis. No law or rule can be made to prevent it), and that a third party cannot deny you access to. No one is obligated to provide you with anything you have a right to. You have a right to a gun, but you still have to purchase it from someone willing to sell it. You have the right to free speech, but no one is required to listen to you. You have a right to choose a religion, but no one has to develop one that you like. Your argument is what is wrong with the idea of a right to health care. Here is a thought, if no one decided to become a doctor, and the rest retire, have you lost your right to health care?
Since the definition of sex incorporates male and female, it takes 'two to tango.' No one has the right to force another to provide sexual satisfaction. Given that both parties are in agreement to a sexual tryst, their right to have sex should be inalienable because we are guaranteed the right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wait...There is an elephant in the room.
If the two people involved (or whatever - lol) want to, then I guess so. The pursuit of happiness and all of that.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you referring to sex, as in the physical attributes of the genitials, or sex the action?
I guess it depends on what the OP considers what the "right to sex" means. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it was more akin to the health care example than the firearm example. There is a bit of consternation in the LGBTQIA "community" that normal people are not attracted to trans-sexuals or non-binary individuals. So they are attempting to shame these normal people into having sex with them. I thought the declaration of a "right to sex" was an escalation of this attempt.
The word has many meanings: It has also been used as a slang or euphemism for the physical genitals themselves. "A strange but wonderful sensation rippled across her sex as she viewed his naked body." When a word is use daily as such often enough and long enough it becomes part of the language. Not sure, if this last example is there yet or not. I didn't bother to look through all the dictionaries.
I think the OP is referring to consensual sex, not rape. This probably has something to do with gay sex.
Lol! I just realized that this thread was started back in 2015. Okay, who is the one guilty of reviving this old thread?
Rather than a right to sex, I ask, what right does anyone have to tell me my rights. I don't give anyone that right. So the question is moot. Government serves the people, not the other way around.
I've seen her crap before. Even trans have genital preferences, unless they're bisexual, so I guess even the trans are transphobic.
Um...I think that was me, but to be fair the thread came up on the first page of the sub forum. I didn't realize there was that little activity.
The right to have sex... Sure. but people also have the right to keep good reputations... Which would be more of a 'hell'? Reputable persons living among corrupt persons or Corrupt persons living among reputable persons? Because I know corrupt persons HATE reputable persons..
Gallup Special Report: The U.S. Adult LGBT Population - Non-white Americans more likely to identify as LGBT - Younger Americans three times more likely than seniors to identify as LGBT - A larger portion of lower educated Americans identify as LGBT compared to college graduates - LGBT Women as Likely as Non-LGBT Women to Be Raising Children https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla....ics-studies/gallup-special-report-18oct-2012/
Right now, lacking any form of context from you, this seems rather non-sequiter from my post that you responded to.
Of course it is unalienable and afforded us by God. However, with all of our unalienable rights comes responsibilities. The left does not like that side of the equation.
Don't forget the "Q". You are discriminating against a segment of population by doing so. That is politically incorrect. It is LBGTQ!
