Wait, you go to the public restroom with an 8 year old neice?! My kid is 2, so I may just be ill informed but that seems way too old for that?
This is Greenman we’re talking about. Never seen anybody as proud of being ignorant as this guy.
Why are there seperate restrooms? I thought I knew. You know, xx, xy. Guess not. Help me out. So I can use either one now? I just saw a guy thrown out of a bar for going into the ladies room multiple times. Was the bar in the wrong?
Depends on the situation – my point is that if you have any reservations about letting a youngster into a public bathroom by themselves I would either go in with them or take them into the men’s room. This is actually a real problem for men who are either watching young children or an elderly individual who needs constant supervision. Of course this law doesn’t deal with any of those real issues.
Please refer to my earlier comment:
http://www.analystforum.com/comment/91676175#comment-91676175
This makes the most sense, and I’ve seen several newer places do this. Harder to accomplish at Arrowhead, for example.
Go Chiefs.
STL agreed, a lot of Europe does the single stall & unisex approach and it seems to work. Super high volume places like a stadium it obviously isnt a huge deal, but I also see girls not wanting to wait in the girls line go in the mens room stalls and people dont seem to care. I think in an environment like a stadium there are so many people around the risk of creepers is a bit less because people would intervene if something bad seemed to be going on
can we all agree that this isn’t a national policy issue? i don’t disagree that washrooms in high volume areas can probably be unisex without any higher risk of bodily harm or perversion. that said, if you make it national policy issue, and mandate that penises are allowed in girls bathrooms, this would automatically apply to change rooms at many public facilities (e.g. athletic complexes, public pools, camps, etc) which creates a major problem.
I agree. I like David Harsanyi’s view of marriage, which is that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, and that it should be more of a contract that both parties can agree to. EG - open marriages, marriages with an expiration date, etc.
I didn’t bring that up because I thought it was bad, but more like it was a stepping stone to something ridiculous, like “why can’t I marry my lawnmower?”. After all, if we can pick whether we’re male or female, shouldn’t we pick whether we’re human or an intantimate object?
“Goverment should get out of the marriage business” is just a passive-aggressive way of opposing gay marriage. Just like how “leave it up to the states” is another passive aggressive way of saying you oppose something. For some reason state govt. hegemony is OK, but federal govt. hegemony is evil.
^Indeed
I’m pretty sure that lawnmowers and horses are unable to consent to contracts, so I don’t think it’s a slippery slope to that kind of stuff.
i like the idea of optionality on a marriage. both parties should have a put option.
And if you don’t understand those reasons, I can’t imagine you having the foggiest understanding of the origins or culture of this country.
If you believe that state hegemony is somehow superior to federal hegemony you’re out of touch with the country and where it is going. That is when you’ve taken a break from lecturing random passerby on the virtues of CO2.
I LOLed at “Hodor Hodor Hodor…”
Can we expect the constitution to be changed soon? Is Global hegemony the next step? Good luck with that. Not going to end well. How many people have this elitist gene? Seems to be as debilitating as an extra chromosome.
Currently, we separate locker rooms into two groups: (1) men and (2) women. Why can’t we separate them into two different groups: (1) people who don’t want to see naked (old) people stand around for extended periods of time and (2) people who don’t mind holding conversations with naked grandparents?