[0:00]there's a group of people that feel their fundamental rights are being denied. Why is there even a resistance to expanding the rights of others when it's not taking away any from us?
[0:08]Assuming that there are two couples, and they're interested in having a polyamorous relationship, they are all adults, and hopefully not brothers and sisters.
[0:15]Assume for a moment that this particular practice acquires a certain critical mass. What is your position going to be then?
[0:19]You can see the inherent contradiction in what you're saying, if the will of society is to have a polyamorous relationships.
[0:25]How do you become the custodian to stop that? If the will of the society is also going to be to change the nature of the constitution, hit reset on the constitution, give it a different rashtra altogether. Will you give effect to that identity as well?
[0:37]You know you've, I was asking the logic is the same. The logic is the same. No, logic is not the same, but you If the society accepts something you're saying it must be acceptable to the judiciary.
[0:44]If I were to end up convincing 90% of this community or let's say of this country to my position, will you then accept it? Then I then say, I don't need to go to court.
[0:50]I'll hit reset. I'll use Article 368 and come out of the different constitution altogether, Republic 2.0. Are you okay with it?
[0:55]Okay, you know, I'm going to get drawn into I'm going to play referee.
[0:59]I got my answer.
