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: 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: 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 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson