Ruling against legislating morality

[Infanteer]

I personally support this decision - watch that movie Kinsey; normal people can be freaky in the sack and I believe a democratic society should allow them to be.   There is no reason to punish a business which caters to conscenting adults.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/21/SCOC-swingers-051221.html

Swingers clubs don't harm society, top court rules
Last Updated Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:55:08 EST
CBC News

Clubs that allow group sex and partner swapping do not harm Canadian society and should not be considered criminal, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday.

The high court, which was ruling on two Quebec cases, said Canadian standards can tolerate the activities, even when they are done amid spectators.

The judges, in a 7-2 ruling, said the test for indecency is the harm it causes, and not simply community standards.

The cases involve two swingers clubs in Montreal that allowed sex acts, including swapping.

One case involved James Kouri, owner of a club called Coeur a Corps.

He was convicted by a lower court on two counts of keeping a common bawdy house and fined $7,500.

The other case involved Jean-Paul Labaye who ran a members-only club called L'Orage.

He was convicted of keeping a bawdy house and fined $2,500.

At the Court of Appeal, however, the cases took different turns. Labaye's conviction was upheld while Kouri's conviction was overturned. Now the Supreme Court has given a favourable ruling in both cases.

 

[Dog]

Personally, I see the ruling as a non-issue.

As soon as people begin engaging in public acts of group sex, and partner-swapping (I know that it's not 'technically' public, but lets face it, anyone can go to those 'private' clubs) then the moral fibre had already decayed to the levels of the Roman empire at it's height of excess and debauchery.

The fact that it's now "Allowed" never stopped large groups of people from doing it before it was allowed.

 

[a_majoor]

The judges, in a 7-2 ruling, said the test for indecency is the harm it causes, and not simply community standards.

How long for the first lawsuits based on preventing the spread of STD's is launched?

 

[a_himself]

Who cares what other people want to do.  I agree this really is a non-issue.

I'm going tonight.

 

[Gunner]

I agree with the ruling and that the state should not be trying to legislate what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors away from the public eye.  The Supreme Court did leave open the option for municipalities tol use by-laws to restrict swinging clubs within their jurisdictions.  For instance, a city may not want a swinging club next to a church or next to a school.  The ruling does open up the possibility of legalized prostitution as what occurs between consenting adults should not be regulated by the state....

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Paying for sex has never been against the law, so for the most part you are all right, it is a non-issue.  One thing that usually comes up when dealing with hookers is the diseases that they carry.  Since many are crack addicts, they need to do a "volume" business to support the habit.  Thats when things like condoms and washing go by the way side. 
What will start out as a swingers club ie)couples of consenting adults swapping partners, will likely degenerate into a modern version of a whore house.  Clubs will charge the hookers a surcharge to linger and do their thing, and guys will start coming in without partners to see "whats up". 
I also dont care, as long as there are some reasonable efforts to regulate it.  The municipalities are going to have to get past public opinion at what appears to be endorsing prostitution, and require tighter licencing.  We do have licences for our strippers and "escorts" but there is very little in the way of enforcement due to the relitively low number of by law inspectors. 
There will always be the street girls, and they will always be filthy.  If someone really needs to pay for sex, they should save up until they can afford a proper escort (around $200 for a beejer) and pass on the $20/guzzle crack heads. 

As for a lawsuit, we have a criminal case her in Windor involving Carl Leone:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/07/Leone-sexassault-1207.html

There are many women that are affected by this tool, and stand by for huge lawsuits after the trial.

 

[beach_bum]

I agree with the ruling and that the state should not be trying to legislate what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors away from the public eye. 

That's exactly it.  These are consenting adults who are not hurting anyone.  What they choose to do behind closed doors is no one elses business. 

 

[Dare]

That's exactly it.  These are consenting adults who are not hurting anyone.  What they choose to do behind closed doors is no one elses business. 

Just keep in mind what other things consenting adults may do behind closed doors when you make sweeping statements like that.

Another thing to keep in mind would be the concept of law as an offspring of morality. Making the topic subject somewhat of an oxymoron.

 

[Gunner]

Just keep in mind what other things consenting adults may do behind closed doors when you make sweeping statements like that.

And those would be?

Another thing to keep in mind would be the concept of law as an offspring of morality. Making the topic subject somewhat of an oxymoron.

And the concept of morality changes over time, hence, the concept of law must change with it.  Wasn't so long ago that gay sex and various forms of sex were criminalized by our "concept of law".  The key to this whole discussion is "consenting adults".  If it floats their boat, I'm not going to tell them they can't do it.

 

[kcdist]

Sick.

Here's a thought.....Who gets to pay for the medical consequences of such clubs? Although STD's, AIDS, Herpes and the like can be passed on without them, I think the instances of such diseases will be much greater for those that frequent these establishments.....The answer, of course, is you and I do.

It is one thing for consenting adults to get together and 'swap' on their own, however, the underlying point at issue here is that this is a commercial enterprise. Now society and government is sanctioning these activities. When all morals in a society have been wiped out, I suggest it is only a matter of time before the society itself crumbles.

A few examples:

Divorce was made much easier under the Trudeau regime, to the point that many couples with kids think little of separating for nothing more than 'we have grown apart'. Look at the resulting explosion of single parent families.
I can speak from experience when I state that the great majority of youth crime is committed by kids from broken homes.

Abortion. We are one of the few countries to have absolutely no rules whatsoever on abortion. On demand, no questions asked, and paid for fully by tax dollars. Result? Instances of abortion have skyrocketed and as a society, we are now desperate for immigrants.

I am not opposed to either, but only with a very good reason, and after all other options have been considered.

Now that this door is open, what's next? With the age of sexual consent at 14, is pedophilia going to be given a green light in a generation. How about bestiality?

The line must be drawn, and this would have been a good place to do it.

Finally.....did you see all the women involved on the news clips? Fat and ugly without exception. Bridget the Midget could have given them a run for their money.....ewwwwwwww

 

[Infanteer]

Here's a thought.....Who gets to pay for the medical consequences of such clubs? Although STD's, AIDS, Herpes and the like can be passed on without them, I think the instances of such diseases will be much greater for those that frequent these establishments

Any proof to back that up?  If this is a business that provides for customers, then I can only assume that there is a standard of service.  Case in point; with prostitution, who are the ones passing on the communicable diseases - the girls in the legal brothel that has check-ups, free condoms, no drugs and a interac machine or the dirty crackwhore trolling the street to pay for her habit?

STDs tend to flourish in ignorance.

It is one thing for consenting adults to get together and 'swap' on their own, however, the underlying point at issue here is that this is a commercial enterprise. Now society and government is sanctioning these activities.

No, they are not "sanctioning these activities", they are being consistent.  Government and society shouldn't "sanction" anything between an adult's sheets - that's not what we send people to Ottawa for.

When all morals in a society have been wiped out, I suggest it is only a matter of time before the society itself crumbles.

How come "tolerance" and "minding your own fucking business" are never considered morals?  I'm serious about the Kinsey reference I made earlier; people are more kinky and explorative in their private lives than most people believe.  Human sexuality has been pretty vibrant for most of recorded history; the cry to Rome's fall is just an absurd yarn.  Do a little research and try to figure out why the sex industry is a multi-billion dollar one.

Divorce was made much easier under the Trudeau regime, to the point that many couples with kids think little of separating for nothing more than 'we have grown apart'. Look at the resulting explosion of single parent families.
I can speak from experience when I state that the great majority of youth crime is committed by kids from broken homes.

Well that's pretty dumb - you say crime comes from broken homes but yet you talk about single-parent families.  Are you implying that "single-parent families" and "broken homes" are synonymous?

Result? Instances of abortion have skyrocketed and as a society, we are now desperate for immigrants.

And the alternative would be hundreds of thousands of children who are in homes with (a) parent(s) that is not ready or responsible enough to have a kid?  So now you have a pile of "single-parent families" which you just railed against above - talk about not having any consistency in thought.

Now that this door is open, what's next? With the age of sexual consent at 14, is pedophilia going to be given a green light in a generation. How about bestiality?

The line must be drawn, and this would have been a good place to do it.

Again, your Malthusian ranting makes no sense.  How does this involve children or animals?  Talk about throwing the red herring out.  It involves an outlet to let adults explore sexually - something that is probably healthier for many in general.  Puritanism only drives it underground and leads to ignorance, making it unhealthy and far riskier.

 

[Gunner]

Here's a thought.....Who gets to pay for the medical consequences of such clubs? Although STD's, AIDS, Herpes and the like can be passed on without them, I think the instances of such diseases will be much greater for those that frequent these establishments.....The answer, of course, is you and I do.

The result of socialized medicine is society picks up the tab for those who smoke all their lives and get lung cancer, drink, drive and get in an accident, or simply falling down the steps of their house because it is icy.  Why would this be any different?  Moreover, there isn't any evidence that those who engage in a "swinging lifestyle" are any more or any less likely to be inflicted with STD or HIV (not AIDS).  

It is one thing for consenting adults to get together and 'swap' on their own, however, the underlying point at issue here is that this is a commercial enterprise. Now society and government is sanctioning these activities. When all morals in a society have been wiped out, I suggest it is only a matter of time before the society itself crumbles.

The underlying point is someone is trying to run a business that caters to people that are interested in the "lifestyle".  He/She provides a venue for people to meet people and if they so chose they can further their relationships in rooms that can be rented by the proprieter.  If you don't like it, don't go.  Whose morals are you protecting?  Consenting adults?  I think the fact that a 14 year old girl can legally have sex with a 60 year old is sick.  That is more of a moral issue to me.

Divorce was made much easier under the Trudeau regime, to the point that many couples with kids think little of separating for nothing more than 'we have grown apart'. Look at the resulting explosion of single parent families. I can speak from experience when I state that the great majority of youth crime is committed by kids from broken homes.

So the government should force unhappy adults to continue living together? Recent studies (they were in most national newspapers last week) indicate that kids are far worse of if the parents stay togther for the sake of the kids.  I think you will also find that youth crime is a result of more than just coming from broken homes.  

Abortion. We are one of the few countries to have absolutely no rules whatsoever on abortion. On demand, no questions asked, and paid for fully by tax dollars. Result? Instances of abortion have skyrocketed and as a society, we are now desperate for immigrants.

Go back to my 1st comment on socialized medicine.  I'm not that happy about abortion on demand either and I don't like it being used as a form of birth control.   Having said that, you are damned if you do allow it (current situation) and damned if you don't (unwanted children and trips down to Mexico...).  Canada's requirement for immigrants has less to do with abortion and more to do with a trend towards later marriages and smaller families that has been going on for decades.

Now that this door is open, what's next? With the age of sexual consent at 14, is pedophilia going to be given a green light in a generation. How about bestiality?

Consenting adults...children and animals can't give it.

The line must be drawn, and this would have been a good place to do it.

Do you feel the same way about gays and lesbians?  Who are you to tell someone else what is "moral" and what is not?

Finally.....did you see all the women involved on the news clips? Fat and ugly without exception. Bridget the Midget could have given them a run for their money.....ewwwwwwww

:

 

[kcdist]

Societal rules are what differentiate us from mere savages. The rule we have against indiscriminately killing people for example. Many animals, such as dogs, engage in sexual activity at any time, anywhere, and with any other dog, or human leg. What makes us different, as civilized homo-sapiens, is that we, largely, abide by a set of rules and norms that allow enjoy a relatively peaceful, and harmonious existence.

Essentially, our morality separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Do I have scientific studies on the swinging lifestyle to back up my comment on STD's ect. *sigh* No....just common sense. I know that I, living a monogamous lifestyle with my spouse, have a 0% chance of burdening the tax-funded medical system with a STD. Common sense dictates that if I engaged in sex with 50 equally promiscuous women in a 30 day period, I am at a far higher risk for STD's than my current lifestyle. If you don't follow my theory, ask a medical doctor.

When I joined the army in the 80's, I received a lecture in BOTC about the importance of reporting suspected homosexual behaviour. A generation later, we celebrate the homosexual lifestyle.

With the slippery slope we are now on with this ruling, don't be telling me that in another generation, we won't be tackling issues that are today unconscionable. THAT is why we must draw the line now.

Whose morals are you protecting?  Consenting adults?  I think the fact that a 14 year old girl can legally have sex with a 60 year old is sick.  That is more of a moral issue to me.

How about society's morals? As far kids legally having sex with seniors, that also was one brick removed from our morality wall. This ruling is another

So the government should force unhappy adults to continue living together?

No, I didn't say that. Divorce is a necessary evil in any society. My point is that Divorce, should not be taken lightly. Prior to the act (and especially with children involved), the affected parties should be required to take all reasonable steps to develop alternatives, with the act being the last possible step. Essentially, instead of celebrating divorce, the stigma should be partially returned.

 I think you will also find that youth crime is a result of more than just coming from broken homes.  

 

Perhaps my experience as a patrol officer was unique in Canada, however, I found that 80% of the kids I arrested for various offences came from a single parent home. Call me a radical for developing that viewpoint if you wish.

Are you implying that "single-parent families" and "broken homes" are synonymous?

With the many obvious exceptions.....yes

And the alternative would be hundreds of thousands of children who are in homes with (a) parent(s) that is not ready or responsible enough to have a kid? 

No....the alternative in many more cases would be adoption. I am not absolutely opposed to the idea of abortion, however, Canadian society provides the procedure far too easily with far too few questions asked. I know of more than one women who is suffering guilt years later because of her decision to abort. Our society let them down by not providing better counselling and options.....but I digress.

It involves an outlet to let adults explore sexually - something that is probably healthier for many in general. 

If your idea of healthy sexual exploration is to engage in wife swapping....well, I just don't have an answer for that, other than....sick

 

[Gunner]

Societal rules are what differentiate us from mere savages. The rule we have against indiscriminately killing people for example. Many animals, such as dogs, engage in sexual activity at any time, anywhere, and with any other dog, or human leg. What makes us different, as civilized homo-sapiens, is that we, largely, abide by a set of rules and norms that allow enjoy a relatively peaceful, and harmonious existence.

Societal rules change with time and human sexuality can not be compared with animals.  What two consenting adults chose to do or not do should be left at their discretion if it does not impact on others (or greater society).  You have not convinced me that by allowing a very small minority of our population to engage in a "swinging lifestyle" will lead to the moral decay of society. 

Essentially, our morality separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Really?  I thought it was our ability to reason out our actions.

Do I have scientific studies on the swinging lifestyle to back up my comment on STD's ect. *sigh* No....just common sense. I know that I, living a monogamous lifestyle with my spouse, have a 0% chance of burdening the tax-funded medical system with a STD. Common sense dictates that if I engaged in sex with 50 equally promiscuous women in a 30 day period, I am at a far higher risk for STD's than my current lifestyle. If you don't follow my theory, ask a medical doctor.

Your common sense is based on misconceptions and reading penthouse magazines.  People who subscribe to a swinging lifestyle does not equate to a large number of sex partners. During the media spotlight on this issue, there haven't been any indications that the "swinging" community have a higher incidence of STDs or HIV.  Once again, 2 or more consenting adults can decide what behaviour they are comfortable with.

When I joined the army in the 80's, I received a lecture in BOTC about the importance of reporting suspected homosexual behaviour. A generation later, we celebrate the homosexual lifestyle.

Repression of lesbians and homosexuals was wrong and based on false preconceived notions (good "fruit machine, rcmp") and you will see how misguided we were based on being a "moral society".

With the slippery slope we are now on with this ruling, don't be telling me that in another generation, we won't be tackling issues that are today unconscionable. THAT is why we must draw the line now.

Again, you have failed to convince me how allowing a very small minority of our population to engage in a "swinging lifestyle" will lead to the moral decay of society. 

How about society's morals? As far kids legally having sex with seniors, that also was one brick removed from our morality wall. This ruling is another

I disagree.  The key issue is two consenting adults.  A 14 is not an adult.

No, I didn't say that. Divorce is a necessary evil in any society. My point is that Divorce, should not be taken lightly. Prior to the act (and especially with children involved), the affected parties should be required to take all reasonable steps to develop alternatives, with the act being the last possible step. Essentially, instead of celebrating divorce, the stigma should be partially returned.

Describing divorce as a necessary "evil" is a very narrow view on a complex issue.  I agree with you that divorce should not be taken lightly but society cannot force a couple together.  You add a stigma to divorce, you great disfunctional families and children of divorce get to wear the stigma to school.  Great situation.

Perhaps my experience as a patrol officer was unique in Canada, however, I found that 80% of the kids I arrested for various offences came from a single parent home. Call me a radical for developing that viewpoint if you wish.

Not sure where you are patrolling...  Poverty has a greater impact on youth crime than single parent families.  Statistically, a single parent family will have a lower income than a two parent family.

 

[Gunnerlove]

SO, if you think single parent families are a bad thing and lead to an increased crime rate you should logically support access to abortion as it reduces the creation of single parent families and thus prevents crime. Or do you support increased crime?

pick one

Welcome to catch 22, its coming back around again.

No divorced couples I know got divorced on a whim, children or not. It is a very time consuming and expensive process.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Another catch 22 is that if a woman has a child out of wedlock, she gets a free apartment and some other benefits.  If she cranks out another kid, she gets a free house, lots more benefits and a ticket to ride on her ass for the next 18 years or so.  There are actually women who have the second kid solely for the reason of the increased mothers allowance and welfare. 
These free houses and apartments tend to be clumped together in areas ranging in names from ghetto's to projects to "geared to income housing".  In my experience, there are two types of people in them:  immigrants who live about 7 to 10 people per two bedroom unit who bust their tails to better themselves and get out, and then there's second and third generation welfare moms with their kids with random last names who have no intention of going anywhere.  Welfare mom shacks up with factory worker, and doesn't report his income and they try to make some cash. Worker is a bit of a tool but has a steady income, so welfare mom puts up with his crap, because that's how she grew up.  She can live with getting a little slapped around in front of the kids, and doesn't mind getting into profanity laced screaming matches with Factory guy. Welfare mom's kids run around and play in the common areas, and grow up in an environment that generally sucks.  Through seeing the crap around them, and the other kids with crappy Factory worker dads that scream and throw things, they start to think that "this is how things are supposed to be" and adjust their expectation of happiness accordingly.  Then they begin to try out crime (vandalism, theft) but because welfare mom grew up the same way, she doesn't give them crap when they get caught and blows it off as "just being kids".  Kids continue to do more unlawful things and get away with it.  Older welfare kids tell them how useless the legal system is, and they start to realize it as well.  Next thing you know, you have an indication that poor people commit more crime.  Well, they do. 
So what is my point?  If we are going to get worried about deciding what is moralistic in society or not, shouldn't we concern ourselves more with breaking out of the endless cycles of poverty and criminality than worry about what some bored middle aged swingers are doing?

 

[Infanteer]

Societal rules are what differentiate us from mere savages. The rule we have against indiscriminately killing people for example. Many animals, such as dogs, engage in sexual activity at any time, anywhere, and with any other dog, or human leg. What makes us different, as civilized homo-sapiens, is that we, largely, abide by a set of rules and norms that allow enjoy a relatively peaceful, and harmonious existence.

Essentially, our morality separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Well, I don't know where you got that from, but if you like to write your own definitions, then fly at 'er.  The general use of the term civilization and what separates us from other animals is our ability to rationalize thoughts, synthesize symbolic language and form culture through our links to other humans.  Nowhere in this definition is prescriptions on the "proper" way to define sexual intercourse.  Infact, you'll find that in the history of most societies, mores concerning sexual intercourse have been far looser than a particularly coy North American society - "wife swapping" for some societies had religious meaning.

As for the rule against indiscriminately killing people, I'm still trying to figure out how you managed to fathom that.  52 Coalition soldiers and countless Iraqis have died this month in Iraq.  Merry Christmas.

Do I have scientific studies on the swinging lifestyle to back up my comment on STD's ect. *sigh* No....just common sense. I know that I, living a monogamous lifestyle with my spouse, have a 0% chance of burdening the tax-funded medical system with a STD. Common sense dictates that if I engaged in sex with 50 equally promiscuous women in a 30 day period, I am at a far higher risk for STD's than my current lifestyle. If you don't follow my theory, ask a medical doctor.

Baloney.  If a person is educated on sexual intercourse and preventative behaviour, they can have plenty of healthy relationships with very minimal risk.  These folks have a better chance of getting nailed by a drunk driver and being put in the hospital, so drop your lame theory of societal costs.

When I joined the army in the 80's, I received a lecture in BOTC about the importance of reporting suspected homosexual behaviour. A generation later, we celebrate the homosexual lifestyle.

Well, now you see how society and culture evolve; in this case for the better.  Much of the scare of homosexuality that you were taught about was based on nothing but bad science, so don't be too concerned if we discard that.  I don't think homosexual lifestyle is celebrated - I certainly don't celebrate it.  What I do feel happy about is the fact that these folks have the same opportunity to live a good life in Canada without fear for their well-being; it is an opportunity I'd be thankful for if a friend, family member or child happened to be gay.

With the slippery slope we are now on with this ruling, don't be telling me that in another generation, we won't be tackling issues that are today unconscionable. THAT is why we must draw the line now.

Slippery slope?  When has group sex ever been illegal?  You have a very narrow understanding of the history of aspects of human behaviour.

How about society's morals? As far kids legally having sex with seniors, that also was one brick removed from our morality wall. This ruling is another

Brick removed from our morality wall?  WTF?  Young people (most often ladies) have been married off to older men since marriage came into being.  Hell, my Grandmother got married at 16 to my Grandfather (who was far older than her).

I would like to see this "morality wall" somehow defined - if it means young people having sex without knowing what it entails and more teenage girls using coathangers as a result, then I'm happy to see the bricks removed.  If you really dig into it, you'll find that your cherished wall never really existed at all.

No, I didn't say that. Divorce is a necessary evil in any society. My point is that Divorce, should not be taken lightly. Prior to the act (and especially with children involved), the affected parties should be required to take all reasonable steps to develop alternatives, with the act being the last possible step. Essentially, instead of celebrating divorce, the stigma should be partially returned.

I'd like to see some evidence to support your theory that most divorces today are callous and frivolous.  I think you are just making this up.
 

Perhaps my experience as a patrol officer was unique in Canada, however, I found that 80% of the kids I arrested for various offences came from a single parent home. Call me a radical for developing that viewpoint if you wish.

Well, I think it is a load of horseshit.  Factors leading to criminal activity are numerous and complex - blaming it on single-parent households is simply ridiculous.  I don't come from a nuclear-family household and I turned out fine - I know of many people with married parents who are at some some stage of the criminal justice system.

If your idea of healthy sexual exploration is to engage in wife swapping....well, I just don't have an answer for that, other than....sick

Well, my ideas on a healthy sex life aren't really any of your business, but if other folks wish to take on numerous partners, I respect that.  You have your own opinions, and that is fine, but you also seem comfortable in projecting your bias upon others; please give me the secrets to finding out The Truth.  Do you not think that society can still function in an environment of differring tastes and ideas on happiness. 

We've carried out this discussion on these forums before, but it was related to gun control - your arguments smell of the same poop that folks use to restrict property rights of Canadian citizens, and I feel Brad Sallows' comment on that issue is equally apt here.  Read it, think about it for a bit, and go rent a saucy pornographic film.

The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.  OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.

Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?  How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?  Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?

I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.

 

[COBRA-6]

What Brad Sallows said is exactly on target;

The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.

Far too many people are quick to impose their "morales" on everyone else:

"I think swinging is sick, so no one should be allowed to do it"
"I don't want a gun, so no one else should be able to own one"
"I think fur is murder, so nobody should wear it"
"I don't eat anything that casts a shadow, so everyone should be vegan like me"

See the theme here? If you are not into swinging/firearms/wearing fur/eating meat then don't do it, no one is forcing you to do so, but don't try and impose your values on me!

And unless it can be demonstrably proven that an activity is causing direct and significant harm to others, I don't want to hear about the "possible harm" that "may result" from said activity. If swinging clubs do indeed turn into the STD and prostitute haven that some believe they will, then we can simply re-visit the issue, it's not irreversible. But until this happens we should err on the side of personal freedom and leave them allone to enjoy their chosen activity.

 

[kcdist]

What Brad Sallows said is exactly on target;

Far too many people are quick to impose their "morales" on everyone else:

"I think swinging is sick, so no one should be allowed to do it"
"I don't want a gun, so no one else should be able to own one"
"I think fur is murder, so nobody should wear it"
"I don't eat anything that casts a shadow, so everyone should be vegan like me"

See the theme here? If you are not into swinging/firearms/wearing fur/eating meat then don't do it, no one is forcing you to do so, but don't try and impose your values on me!

Well great....let's not stop there with your examples though:

"My German Sheppard seems to really enjoy 'special time' with my wife, and who are you to say it's wrong"

"My 11 year old nephew is old enough to make mature decisions, and we really love each other, so whatever we do in the privacy of our bedroom is none of your business"

"I really love all of my 14 wives and my 25 children. Our relationship has the blessing of God, so go away and leave us alone as I look for my next wife"

"Sure she's my sister, but our love is like no other, so leave us be in our marriage"

"Look. This is my Crystal Meth. It's for my consumption. Sure it eats away at my functioning brain and makes me do strange things, but that's my business"

The above are all examples of activities that are going on today in Canada. Fortunately, our society still finds them unacceptable, and to varying degrees, puts a stop to them when they are found out.

What makes the swinging ruling unacceptable, is that it used to be on the above list. It was found out, and now 5 unelected judges has deemed the COMMERCIAL operation of the activity moral and acceptable.

Our list of taboos is getting shorter and shorter, to the point where we may not have any in a generation or two.

It is the rules we set as a society that make our society worth living in. We can debate on where the line should be drawn, but I think we all agree there should be a line.

The commercial swinging operation leads to the next obvious barrier - prostitution. We all know prostitution is legal in Canada, but laws regarding communication and living off the avails of the enterprise make it virtually illegal. Is the next step down this slope legalized, commercial prostitution. Based on the arguments on this board, it looks like that one's a slam dunk.

Again, where will it stop?

Another catch 22 is that if a woman has a child out of wedlock, she gets a free apartment and some other benefits.  If she cranks out another kid, she gets a free house, lots more benefits and a ticket to ride on her *** for the next 18 years or so.  There are actually women who have the second kid solely for the reason of the increased mothers allowance and welfare. 
These free houses and apartments tend to be clumped together in areas ranging in names from ghetto's to projects to "geared to income housing".  In my experience, there are two types of people in them:  immigrants who live about 7 to 10 people per two bedroom unit who bust their tails to better themselves and get out, and then there's second and third generation welfare moms with their kids with random last names who have no intention of going anywhere.  Welfare mom shacks up with factory worker, and doesn't report his income and they try to make some cash. Worker is a bit of a tool but has a steady income, so welfare mom puts up with his crap, because that's how she grew up.   She can live with getting a little slapped around in front of the kids, and doesn't mind getting into profanity laced screaming matches with Factory guy. Welfare mom's kids run around and play in the common areas, and grow up in an environment that generally sucks.  Through seeing the crap around them, and the other kids with crappy Factory worker dads that scream and throw things, they start to think that "this is how things are supposed to be" and adjust their expectation of happiness accordingly.  Then they begin to try out crime (vandalism, theft) but because welfare mom grew up the same way, she doesn't give them crap when they get caught and blows it off as "just being kids".  Kids continue to do more unlawful things and get away with it.  Older welfare kids tell them how useless the legal system is, and they start to realize it as well.  Next thing you know, you have an indication that poor people commit more crime.  Well, they do. 
So what is my point?  If we are going to get worried about deciding what is moralistic in society or not, shouldn't we concern ourselves more with breaking out of the endless cycles of poverty and criminality than worry about what some bored middle aged swingers are doing?

Great rant Zipperhead. Written like a true cop. Did you breath when you typed it? I don't disagree with your statement, however I don't buy your conclusion. The two are not related. One relates to the decaying morals in our society, one refers to the endless poverty cycle brought on by our welfare state. Note I didn't state that all abortion is wrong, however, those that you refer to in your example are not looking for abortion. My point on abortion is that it was once illegal and virtually impossible to procure safely, and now, a generation or two later, the pendulum has swung in completely the opposite direction, with many similarly negative consequences.

 
Well, I think it is a load of horseshit.  Factors leading to criminal activity are numerous and complex - blaming it on single-parent households is simply ridiculous.  I don't come from a nuclear-family household and I turned out fine - I know of many people with married parents who are at some some stage of the criminal justice system.

Unlike you, infanteer, I am able to engage in a healthy debate without the use of profanity or personal attacks. I wish you would learn to do the same.

The difficulties and pitfalls of raising a child in a single parent household are well documented. You may not agree with the scientific conclusions, but they do indeed exist, and, in my case, were backed up by personal experience as a police officer.

Are there exceptions to the general conclusion? Of course. Many and varied exceptions. However, the underlying fact is that kids from single parent homes are involved in the legal system proportionally much more than kids from a two parent 'nuclear' family. A variety of factors make it so, including lack of supervision, economic depression and the like. Again, I submit that if Divorce wasn't so prevalent, and there was more focus on 'doing the right thing', not as many kids would not be at risk as there are today.

Edit for spelling

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hmmmmm....doing a search online regarding swinging (I'm bored)one comes across some remarkable information. Some of what I learned includes:
1) most swingers are middle class and above and most are well educated
2) most are professionals ranging from medical to law enforcement
3) most of the couples involved have been married for 10 and up years
4) most of the couples involved feel it enhances their relationship with their spouse
5) safe sex is mandatory in the more reputable clubs at club functions and apparently STDs are extremely rare
6) most feel that they have to keep their choice a secret because of the repercussions both personal and professional if they were open about this

I personally don't think anyone has a right to comment on what couples do or don't do with other couples, to do so to me smacks of being a bigot and close minded. I say whatever floats your boat as long as no one is getting hurt or being exploited why do some people get upset. You are the ones with the problem not swingers.