Posted on 12/21/2005 7:53:05 AM PST by bulldozer
However, since we are responsible for our individual moral behavior, and should also be subject to its consequences - this includes job termination, being kicked out of place of worship, and so on, at the behest of private individuals. Not the damn government.
later pingout.
I live in a fairly conservative state, but I know for a fact that we have swingers clubs here... (Florida)
And muslims hate Americans - forward all this to the middle east and let them know who the really dedicant people are.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"This is the country that believes two men and two women have the "right" to marry."
But not all at once (not yet anyhow).
"Sounds like the correct decision to me. Consenting adults and all, government has no business in the bedroom."
Hold on there. We're not talking about the bedroom. We are talking about a place of business. I love the theory behind this. You can't smoke within a half mile of a place of business because somebody MIGHT smell second hand smoke and die from it. BUT - you can throw 10-20 gay, straight, etc. together in a room and play spin the STD. Yeah - we think we have an aids problem now.
This is a societal and safety issue. There have to be some limits. In order for society to survive and thrive, there have to be limits on behavior. Or we all get the thrill of paying for the effects of the immoral behaviors on society's health and welfare. And I believe the price (even just the hit on the old coin purse) to be very high.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
This is bad. Not good. Libertarians posit the argument that the goverment has no business regulating sexual behavior as long as it is between adults and not forced. It reminds of the Texas/Lawrence sodomy decision. If perverted and/or immoral sexual behavior is legitimized by government decision, then the next step is that we all must "tolerate" it, then "celebrate" it, and then any words or actions expressing our "intolerance" will be forbidden. The government stays out of the sex lives of people by NOT passing laws or decisions promoting immorality.
This decision PROMOTES perverted and immoral sexual behavior. That is not neutrality. It is promotion. Sexual immorality is not benign, it is extremely destructive, both to individuals, and when enough individuals are messed up, society as a whole. Here's a relevant quote from George Washington which I got today via the Federalist (called the Patriot Post now, I think):
"[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and
that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible,
and your conduct here may stamp your character through life.
It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not
only to be learned but virtuous."
-- George Washington (letter to Steptoe Washington, 5 December
1790)
Virtuous character is more important than higher education, money, nice cars and shoes and teeth, high position in society. Moral absolutes matter, and when egregious immorality is sanctioned and promoted by government decisions, we know that our society is on its way into the oblivion of time.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: We need to remember that God has given rules about sexual behavior and they are remarkably consistent throughout the world's religions. Fire isn't bad - it can cook food, heat our homes, fire up industry - or it can burn up houses, forests, and kill people. Sex is very similar.
Here's another article about this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1544776/posts?page=7
Swingers clubs don't harm society, top court rules (Canada)
It's ultimately a self-correcting problem, just like riding motorcycles really fast without a helmet.
If you really hate immoral people, go ahead and let these clubs open, expand and prosper.
Then set up a building selling them cemetery plots.
Ugly and sad, but true.
There is a self-enforcing aspect of sexual morality.
The case law has generally defined an indecent act as something that is beyond standards of community tolerance, or is capable of causing harm by encouraging people to engage in anti-social conduct. ...
The only real danger to participants was that they might catch a sexually-transmitted disease, the decision said, but this wasn't a factor in their decision because it is "conceptually and causally unrelated to indecency."
So, "indecent" means, in part, "... causing harm by encouraging people to engage in anti-social conduct".
And, group sex clubs are "... causally unrelated to indecency". Nothing that happens at a group sex club causes indecency. Therefore, the spread of disease is not anti-social conduct according to the Canadian Supreme Court. Brilliant!
Considering how their socialist health-care system has tanked, who pays for the health-related consequences of their immoral behaviors? Or maybe giving them full sexual license is population control and eugenics in disguise.
I think a lot of these kinds of decisions/actions are unconsciously suicidal. Both individually, and who knows - cultural. But "culture" means a bunch of individuals.
Self destructing before our eyes.
2nd bump for last paragraph.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.