Skip to comments.
Canadian Court Lifts Ban on ‘Swingers’ clubs (Group sex not a threat to society, it says - Right!)
Reuters/MSNBC ^
| 12/21/2005
| Reuters
Posted on 12/21/2005 11:49:30 AM PST by TCats
Group sex among consenting adults not a threat to society, it says. Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called swingers clubs.
In a ruling that radically changes the way courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the top court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; groupsex; herpes; hiv; retardedcousin; stds; swingers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
The Libs are most certainly excited about this ratification of 'Free Speech' I'm sure.
1
posted on
12/21/2005 11:49:32 AM PST
by
TCats
To: TCats
2
posted on
12/21/2005 11:51:52 AM PST
by
Old Sarge
(In a Hole in the Ground, there Lived a Fobbit...)
To: TCats
I'm surprised that Canada had that kind of restriction personal private behavior to start with.
3
posted on
12/21/2005 11:52:08 AM PST
by
gondramB
(Rightful liberty is unobstructed action within limits of the equal rights of others.)
To: TCats
To: TCats
"No threat to society."
5
posted on
12/21/2005 11:53:49 AM PST
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: TCats
If by 'Libs' you mean Libertarians, then yes. This is in Canada anyway.
6
posted on
12/21/2005 11:55:08 AM PST
by
conserv13
To: TCats
7
posted on
12/21/2005 11:55:47 AM PST
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: Hemingway's Ghost
I personnaly don't agree with it but, if individuals want it, I guess it's OK. What I do object to is licensing it as a business and the transmission of ST's that is likely. BTW, I do not approve of gay bathhouses as well and for the same reasons.
8
posted on
12/21/2005 11:56:06 AM PST
by
TCats
To: BenLurkin
I would say let them have at it and eventually they will die out from disease, however, there are some innocent spouses that will suffer and children will suffer eventually, too.
9
posted on
12/21/2005 11:56:13 AM PST
by
brwnsuga
(Proud, Black, Conservative!)
To: TCats
Well, as long as they do not spread disease or frighten the horses in the street [they were behind closed doors, right?], then one could let them be, as there's no threat to the society.
10
posted on
12/21/2005 11:56:28 AM PST
by
GSlob
To: TCats
Next stop along the road to judicially mandated recognition of polygamy.
11
posted on
12/21/2005 12:00:52 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: conserv13
Libertarianism is a political philosophy.
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually do it. Lack of legal restriction implies self-restraint among the general public. The opposite is true as well.
To: TCats
Heck, why not? It's their morality and health. And their 'other' sex partners', of course... who may catch something unwittingly, but then it's their job not to be unwitting.
13
posted on
12/21/2005 12:07:45 PM PST
by
Grut
To: TCats
I personnaly don't agree with it but, if individuals want it, I guess it's OK. What I do object to is licensing it as a business and the transmission of ST's that is likely. BTW, I do not approve of gay bathhouses as well and for the same reasons. I'm sure such businesses would be subject to Canada's undoubtedly strict health regulations/requirements, no? In any case, you puts in your quarter, you takes your chances . . .
To: TCats
I find it most interesting that I read the entire artickle and did not see the term
even once mentioned. The fact and very real mathematical reality that if you get one person with a sexually transmitted disease in a free or group sex environment that person will wreak exponentially devastating havoc.
The liberal/libertarian view is conceived in irresponsibility by definition. Is it not ironic that those followeing that lifestyle, legal or not, will be the ones to scream the loudest for the "g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t" to take care of them when AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea or some other sexually transmitted disease pays them a visit.
"Oh Canada....,Glorious and Free...."
15
posted on
12/21/2005 12:13:55 PM PST
by
doctorhugo
(Concerned Citizen and Proud Navy Vet...Damn the torpedoes, ALL AHEAD FLANK)
To: TCats
Group sex not a threat Probably depends on which group we're talking about.
To: TCats
After somebody else suggested it (sorry that I can't give credit where credit is due), Canada will always be "our retarded cousin from the North".
I can't add to that assessment.
17
posted on
12/21/2005 12:33:25 PM PST
by
American in Singapore
(The only good Democratic ex-President is a dead one (I will change my tagline when they STFU))
To: TCats
This is something that should be decided by the community, not some judge forcing his standard, or lack thereof, on everyone else.
To: lady lawyer
This is something that should be decided by the community, not some judge forcing his standard, or lack thereof, on everyone else.I see. So it's okay with you if people band together and criminalize behaviors that don't violate others rights, but does violate their sensibilities. Got it. Are you familiar with the term "tyranny of the majority"? Just asking.
To: doctorhugo
Public health can't be defended once one commits to abandoning any conception of public morality. The former's dependent upon the latter.
20
posted on
12/21/2005 3:24:59 PM PST
by
Dumb_Ox
(Hoc ad delectationem stultorum scriptus est)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson