Good News for "Swing" voters

[PocketRocket]

SLAVIK44: Your last post was hilarious , your last post was hilarious , your last post was hilarious .

[PocketRocket]

You're still here trying to save us all from ourselves???

Oh goody (rubs hands together gleefully), more fun......

pharmer

You wrote- " Why is it some feel the need to invoke judgement on individuals because of their habits and social and social practices."

I think it's because it deviates from what society considers the 'norm'.

Just a few hundred years ago believing the Earth was round was deviating from the norm.

In fact, to dispute the "well known fact" that the Earth was not only flat, but it was also the center of the universe, was a heretical crime punishable by, well, VERY punishable.

Let's just go back to those days.

Repeat after me; Religion stands in the way of progress, religion stands in the way of.....oh, sorry, that's been done

Currently we have the federal government trying hard to implement discriminatory official bilingualism outside of their jurisdiction in provinces and cities and have met with success in cities like Ottawa. And even within federal jurisdiction it is outright discrimination as government is not in the positon to impose linguistic values period without the consent of Canadians.

So does that mean you need to be bi-lingual to go to these orgies???

Does this mean someone would be obliged to perforn cunni-bi-lingus???

The same goes with SSM and now swingers clubs as the feds or the Supreme Court cannot impose items concerning morals which of course they view as a right thus overiding what in fact the majority of Canadians feel comfortable with in a moral sense concerning basic values.

Actually, they are not imposing ANYTHING on you or me.

They are simply NOT imposing YOUR viewpoint on these consenting adults who are all grown up now, and don't need your help to make their own decisions.

This badly confuses the concept of what is right and what is wrong and what is normal or commonly accepted by most Canadians.

What's with this "normal" fetish anyway???

Orgies have existed since time immemorial. As have all sorts of different marriages, beliefs, etc.

Your "normal" is the next guy's "perverted".

I would like to know how any government can implement morals and values under the guise of rights.

That's just it, they ain't imposing ANYTHING. They are, in fact REFUSING to impose anything, unlike yourself.

This is absolute proof that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is badly flawed in favour of a totalitarian style government and ignores the democratic right of Canadians to decide themselves what is right for Canada on important issues.

This is so skewed it's laughable.

On the one hand, you say the government should be passing laws against orgies.

Yet, in the same breath, you say the government should not be imposing "morality" on the people.

???????!!!!!!!!?????!?!!!!?!????!

Do you have any idea what the phrase "self contradictory" means???

I honestly believe the Liberal Party of Canada can no longer be trusted and is not competent to run this country and if Canadians cannot see the Liberals hidden agenda of transforming Canada into a cheap republic that greatly benefits certain minorities consisting of a transfer of powers to the politcal interest of a certain province then the country will not exist as we know it with English Canadians assuming the role of possibly second, third or fourth class citizens at the mercy of basically all current minorities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Take this statement, and where it says "Liberal Party", you can cut and paste the name of ANY party, and you have the basic premise of every other party.

[Leafless]

PocketRocket

You wrote- " Take this statement, and where it says "Liberal Party", you can cut and paste the name of ANY party, and you would have the basic premise of every other party."

This has become very self evident PR and cleary shows the RIGHT has lost control over the countries political ideological movement in favour of big buisness calling the shots in order to preserve the country and avoid social uprising at ANY COST.

How much longer do they think you will continue to rile the RIGHT and obliterate their ideologies without inducing what buisness is trying to avoid?

This country has been SOLD down the drain into the sewer by buisness.

It's no wonder Martin is preaching everyone by a new home and a new car in order to keep Canadians trapped in their little holes , financially obligated to buisness while the Liberals especially go about their own buisness, transforming Canada into a valueless, unmoralistic, corrupt republic where everything goes.

[PocketRocket]

Back for more??? Oh good.

PocketRocket

You wrote- " Take this statement, and where it says "Liberal Party", you can cut and paste the name of ANY party, and you would have the basic premise of every other party."

I did indeed!!!

You are to be commended on having a good eye.

This has become very self evident PR and cleary shows the RIGHT has lost control over the countries political  ideological movement in favour of big buisness calling the shots in order to preserve the country and avoid social uprising at ANY COST.

Avoiding social uprising and preserving the country is part of any government's business.

However, what makes you think the ideologies of the RIGHT are any more valid than those of the LEFT, or the CENTER???

Just because you personally don't agree with something does not make it right or wrong.

How much longer do they think you will continue to rile the RIGHT and obliterate their ideologies without inducing what buisness is trying to avoid?

Oh, I'd say for a really long time.

The RIGHT gets riled at the drop of a hat. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

Maybe you'd prefer if our schools still taught kids that the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

This country has been SOLD down the drain into the sewer by buisness.

*YAWN* Wake me when this rerun is over.

It's no wonder Martin is preaching everyone by a new home and a new car in order to keep Canadians trapped in their little holes , financially obligated to buisness

Simple solution; buy an OLD car and an OLD home.

......while the Liberals especially go about their own buisness,  transforming Canada into a valueless, unmoralistic, corrupt republic where everything goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Valueless, unmoralistic, corrupt". Those words fall easily from your lips.

You would rather, I assume, have a government that outlines in strict detail what is moral in the bedroom of its citizenss???

Further, it seems you would have the government pass laws about what a couple is allowed to do in that same bedroom.

Thank God that we keep Church and State separate, otherwise people like you would be telling people like me that I'm not allowed to perform oral sex, even on my own wife, in my own house.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable living among the Amish, then you wouldn't have to worry about hearing all these disturbing "immoral" trends, because you wouldn't have a radio or TV.

[Leafless]

PocketRocket

You can trivilize my posts all you want on this board since for the time being we still have the right to free speech.

The only government that works in this world is one based on majority democratic political ideologies.

Enjoy your country while you can has it is destined to the garbage bin and only has a limited life span remaining.

And I couldn't care less what you do in your bedroom PR just keep it the hell out of public buildings as a buisness in my neighbourhood.

[Clopin]

Enjoy your country while you can has it is destined to the garbage bin and only has a limited life span remaining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those kinds of comments are completely unwarranted.

You put the effort into presenting your views then decimate it by insulting the nation.

[SamStranger]

Swingers... Hitler was a swinger, and im sure he's burning in hell.

Makes you think...

[Argus]

Swingers...  Hitler was a swinger, and im sure he's burning in hell.

Makes you think...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

About?

Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS? Anyone ever see that movie? They wouldn't let me in and I doubt it ever made it to video.

[justcrowing]

gang bang, swing all ya want and when you get a good dose of STD's please go to the end of the line [hip replacements come first] and not whine about going to the head of the line because you are in pain or whatever.

Engjoy your gang banging.

[Leafless]

Clopin

Do you not agree the current leadership in this country and past leadership from the Trudeau era onwards is lacking the leadership necessary to properly steer the country out of it's perpetual constitutional problems that continue to worsen with our federal government in effect continually giving in to constitutional blackmail while creating a constitutional democratic deficit concerning national interest for the rest of Canada?

Argus-

Try www.rottentomatoes.com and type in the search title, ilsa she wolf of the ss

It appears to be avialable on DVD for $18.99 U.S.

[Clopin]

I'll stand by your right to express your opinion Leafless, that's why we're here after all. But I'm tired of derogatory remarks that trash the country and add nothing to the discussion. A little respect for the land is not much to ask.

I've lived in half a dozen countries, including the U.S. in which I have more family than I do here, and I've visited dozens more.

This is a great nation we live in by any standard and with all its faults, of which no country in the world is exempt.

Can we do better? Always. Are we heading to the dogs? Not in your life.

[BubberMiley]

Oh, leafless, you do care what he does in his bedroom. You care very much.

[Leafless]

Clopin

I had the greatest respect for Canada before the Liberals removed the criteria necessary to be dedicated or loyal to this country for Canadians like myself whose family has resided in Canada since 1875.

I am no way trashing this country, I am trashing Liberal mangement that has destroyed this country.

Sorry you disagree.

You sound like a person who has never resied for long in any country very long and concerning this country you simply don't know Canada's true history.

Many immigrants also agree with your line of thought.

[Argus]

Argus-

Try www.rottentomatoes.com and type in the search title, ilsa she wolf of the ss

It appears to be avialable on DVD for $18.99 U.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about that. You learn something new every day. I remember the stories of riots but didn't know the thing was shot on the old Hogans Heroes set. Funny stuff. I'm afraid Ilsa wouldn't be nearly as shocking in today's world as it was when it was released. It would still be pretty funny, though, in a tacky, schlocky sort of way. But I'm not about to shell out twenty bucks for it.

[Renegade]

Supreme Court swings in favour of group-sex clubs

Swingers clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are legal because they cause society no harm, the Supreme Court of Canada said Wednesday in a ruling that rewrote the definition of indecency.

Swingers clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are legal because they cause society no harm, the Supreme Court of Canada said Wednesday in a ruling that rewrote the definition of indecency.

They rewrote the definition of indecency to it doesn't cause society no harm.

Gee,what else doesn't cause society no harm that we can legalize?

How about walking to work nude? Might be indecent,but causes society no harm.

How about sex in public? Indecent again,but doesn't cause society any harm.

Did they open up a can of worms?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This decision by the SC is long overdue. Why should morality standards of even the majority impose on the behaviours of individuals if that behaviour causes no harm to anyone else?

Why not extend this ruling to other areas where by convention or by "morality" judgements we have imposed laws.

How about incest between consenting adults? Should we allow that?

How about bigamy between consenting adults? Should we allow that?

[mcqueen625]

I will expect a "shocked" response from Protestant Canada to this decision.  In addition, there will be the "shocked" Catholic Irish Canada response.

We will not hear from the "shocked" Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim Canada coimmunities because, well, they are small and clueless - except in political photos.

----

This decision concerns Quebec.  That's all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This does not apply just to Quebec because the Supreme Court ruling will apply right across Canada. The Gay bath houses in BC were applauding this decision. To me this shows just how out of touch with reality our Supreme Court really is. I would be willing to bet that if you asked pewople on the street where this ruling represents the vast majority of Canadians, regardless of religious beliefs they will tell you that they do not agree with this asinine ruling. I say that since Martin seems quite contgent to leave the age of sexual consent at 14 years of age. If they can consent at that age, how then can you stop some pervert from bringing someone 14 or 15 years of age into such a facility. If they can consent at that age they have every right to partake, and that is one sick society! This another case of where a minority issue trumps the acceptable norms for the majority of Canadian's, and I think it is high time that the Supreme Court justices has their chain's yanked, and yanked hard!

[BubberMiley]

Yah, but just because it's something you wouldn't want to do, doesn't mean you should be allowed to tell other people they can't do it. If it's legal, you're better able to regulate such clubs to make sure that minors don't get in (while it's illegal, you have no such control because criminalization forces it underground where god knows what happens). If you're really concerned about kids, you would want to have the most power over the situation to ensure no kids are involved and no one gets hurt (including making sure condoms are used--the spread of HIV hurts everyone).

And as for slippery-slope arguments like "Is incest next?" No. The supreme court ruled on harm, and there is a lot of harm caused by incest. Not only does no one ever get out of that psychologically unscathed, you've seen Deliverance.

[Renegade]

And as for slippery-slope arguments like "Is incest next?" No. The supreme court ruled on harm, and there is a lot of harm caused by incest. Not only does no one ever get out of that psychologically unscathed, you've seen Deliverance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How exactly does incest harm society? What exactly do you mean by "you've seen Diliverance"?

Even assuming incest causes harm to onselves, but not to society, why should it be prohibited between consenting adults? There is no shortage of behaviours which we permit individuals to partake in which may (or may not) cause harm to themselves. Where we (and the court) has drawn the line is where it harms society.

[BubberMiley]

one word: inbreeding. It's bad for society because, if you haven't seen Deliverance, it can lead to some pretty nasty genetic results.

[BubberMiley]

But bigamy, that's a different story. There's the old joke that the reason it's illegal is to save people from themselves. I had an uncle who had two "wives" concurrently for over 30 years, and had children with both. Of course, legally only one was his wife, but they all lived together quite happily (he's a rich conservative cattle rancher, so he could afford it). I often wondered what would have happened to his non-official wife if he died before her after the kids were all grown up. I think under the present law she would be at his legal wife's mercy. She's dead now so I may never know.

I don't think they did society any harm by living as they did (and I don't think they worried too much about getting arrested), but I think changing the law could do society harm because it could potentially destroy the current system, which works well for a lot of people, where employers agree to pay insurance benefits to the spouse. Obviously the economics of that system couldn't work if people were allowed to indiscriminately add names to their list of spouses.

So perhaps the law could be changed so that if a person has lived in what is essentially a common-law arrangement with a person in addition to his or her spouse, the estate is divided among the two remaining spouses. But making the second (or third or fourth) marriage equal to first would have to remain outside the law.

So that slippery slope doesn't really slide either.

[Renegade]

one word: inbreeding. It's bad for society because, if you haven't seen Deliverance, it can lead to some pretty nasty genetic results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So its ok if they use contraception?

If your argument is that the harm caused is because of the propensity to cause genetic abnormalities by procreation, then would you also say that people who are carriers for genetic diseases should also be banned from mating?

[Renegade]

So perhaps the law could be changed so that if a person has lived in what is essentially a common-law arrangement with a person in addition to his or her spouse, the estate is divided among the two remaining spouses. But making the second (or third or fourth) marriage equal to first would have to remain outside the law.

So that slippery slope doesn't really slide either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are in agreement that one additional wife is permissable, what is your justification at stopping at one? Why aren't two or more additional wives permissable?

[Argus]

one word: inbreeding. It's bad for society because, if you haven't seen Deliverance, it can lead to some pretty nasty genetic results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, that is exaggerated. It's true that too much inbreeding leads to problems, and that the child of, say, a brother and sister or father and daughter has a higher propensity for genetic abnormalities and defects. But the risk is not substantially higher, and probably no higher than the risk for older couples having kids. The risks to a 39 year old woman, for example, are much higher than for a 29 year old woman. So do we make it illegal for older couples to have kids because of the higher risk of birth defects? And if not how do we justify outlawing it for siblings?

[August1991]

Strange thread. Might as well carry on into the Twilight Zone.

But bigamy, that's a different story.

The effect of permitting a man to have several wives is to raise the "value" of a woman. To understand this, consider the effect on the value of used cars if it were illegal to own more than one car.

Actually, that is exaggerated. It's true that too much inbreeding leads to problems, and that the child of, say, a brother and sister or father and daughter has a higher propensity for genetic abnormalities and defects.  But the risk is not substantially higher, and probably no higher than the risk for older couples having kids.

I don't know on what you base that comparison.

Marriage of first cousins represents about 1 marriage in 1000 in the US, and about 4 marriages in a thousand in Japan. That is not the case in Saudi Arabia:

Intermarriage is common throughout Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, although the rate of marriages between first cousins, second cousins and other relatives in the Persian Gulf region, estimated at more than 55 percent in Saudi Arabia, is considered high by world standards.

Washington Post

Polygamy has much less to do with having several wives and much more to do with outdated traditions. Marriages of first cousins are really just a way for parents to impose tradition on their children.

In this sense, comparisons of religious fundamentalists in the US and religious fundamentalists in the Misddle East are fundamentally misleading.

[BubberMiley]

So its ok if they use contraception?

If your argument is that the harm caused is because of the propensity to cause genetic abnormalities by procreation, then would you also say that people who are carriers for genetic diseases should also be banned from mating?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are in agreement that one additional wife is permissable, what is your justification at stopping at one? Why aren't two or more additional wives permissable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually most stuff is ok by me. I'm not the one all upset about what people do if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I'm also not big on slippery-slope arguments because I find them intellectually lazy (i.e., we made a rational decision now so we will never be able to make a rational decision again).

But, for your first question, you're forgetting my point that few people survive incest without being somehow psychologically damaged. Having a bunch of psychologically messed-up people is bad for society, and when you're throwing in the increased likelihood of Deliverance babies, well, that makes it a different story than people swapping partners (remember? that's where we started).

As for your second question, my point was if my uncle wanted to have a bloody harem, it's no business of yours, so long as he isn't demanding his employer to cover them all for Blue Cross. In fact, as it stands now, he could have that harem. I don't think it's the law that's preventing that from becoming commonplace; I think it's tradition and pure reason.