Swinger Clubs ruled legal by Supreme Court of Canada.

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
One must keep in mind that the Justices of the Supreme Court are not ruling on the basis of their personal experience, or on their own opinions or feelings. They are making rulings on the basis of Canadian law;

Boulder dash.. They have in everyway brought their own value system, and degenerative as it has become, into the FORMULATION of laws from the bench. I will reiterate that until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is properly adjudicated as SUBJECT to the WILL of Parliament we will get the these absurd and disassembling rulings that we've seen. I won't respond to all of your points, since they simply represent an diametrically opposite opinion from what I have already stated, and I see little use in arguing when there is no hope of gaining common ground.

<SNIP ... personal attack. Smarten up. You won't get a second warning on this. Cosmo>
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
coldstream said:
One must keep in mind that the Justices of the Supreme Court are not ruling on the basis of their personal experience, or on their own opinions or feelings. They are making rulings on the basis of Canadian law;

Boulder dash.. They have in everyway brought their own value system, and degenerative as it has become, into the FORMULATION of laws from the bench. I will reiterate that until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is properly adjudicated as SUBJECT to the WILL of Parliament we will get the these absurd and disassembling rulings that we've seen. I won't respond to all of your points, since they simply represent an diametrically opposite opinion from what I have already stated, and I see little use in arguing when there is no hope of gaining common ground.

<SNIP ... personal attack. Smarten up. You won't get a second warning on this. Cosmo>

Anyone who thinks people choose homosexuality is a little.... well odd to me. I'm glad the SCoC isn't dominated by that kind of people.
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
22
38
Victoria, BC
I'm surprised this topic has generated the kind of debate it has. 8O People really have a strong opinion on what consenting adults (in whatever combination) choose to do in privacy??? Sheesh. Throw us back into the dark ages where the law legislated which sex acts in which married couples could indulge! Check the books on that one ... some of you might be repeat offenders! ;)

Swing clubs have been around forever. They ARE part of our societal norm. Just because the government didn't get their legal hands on the issue till now doesn't make it non-existant. People are just admitting what they're doing ... they're not doing more of it. All the hoo-haw about being a health hazard reminds me of the argument against teaching sex ed in schools. It's not some kind of tacit endorsement of the act, it's just recognizing what's already going on.

It's much like us terrible homosexuals ... as long as we were quiet little closeted non-entities, we were ignored pretty much. Now that we no longer bother to hide ourselves from sight, the government has to leap on the bandwagon.

All these issues are, imho, nothing more than a red herring to misdirect people from the real issues facing our government. I figure the homeless people I see in droves here in Victoria deserve more attention than the swingers who are hurting no one. Let's put the money toward something that matters and quit fighting about bullshit issues. If you don't like swinging, don't do it. Pretty simple.
 

HTO

New Member
Sep 9, 2004
49
0
6
Ottawa
www.iglootalk.com
Cosmo said:
I'm surprised this topic has generated the kind of debate it has.
Indeed- and kudos to Canadian Content moderators for not going to either extreme of the debate.

I've been to other forums that will either delete posts that the forum leaders don't agree with or the moderators and regulars froth at the mouth when members post something that they disagree with. So anyway, nice to see a forum where moderators express their opinion but don't personally attack members they disagree with and don't tolerate personal attacks among members.

Okay, back to the subject matter. Four things of concern among posters:

Societal Norms
Human consiousness is evolving. There are many things we know now that we didn't know a hundred years ago and even twenty years ago. Take child labour and smoking for example. They were once "normal" and even accepted in society. We are constantly striving to improve our community standards.

State Responsibility vs Individual Responsibilty
We expect our governments and officials to have accountability and responsibility in their functionings. We curse them when they spend unnecessarily or cause harm to groups.

Are we not being hypocrites if we don't expect to carry the same kind of standards for ourselves? Such as knowing risks and being responsible for the actions that we take? i.e. the risk of recurring infections and sucking up on the resources knowing that we could have prevented it?

Spread of Disease
You don't have to go very far to learn that HIV/AIDS is on the rise in North America. In fact, all you have to do is tune into Oprah if the research is not worth your while:

AIDS is on the rise in the United States and around the world. More women, more college students and more people over the age of 50 are at greater risk than ever before. It's really something you need to know about.
Click

A huge contributor to the spread of HIV/AIDS? Sexual Promescuity which began with the Stone Wall Riots:

Sex clubs, bathhouses, and meat racks were all open and thriving. A typical visit to such establishments resulted in an average of 2.7 sexual encounters. Many, if not most, were anonymous. Sex with multiple partners (as in many hundreds and even thousands) was the norm; abstinence was unheard of. Oral-genital, oral-anal, genital-anal, etc., nothing was barred. Fisting, rimming, water sports, you name it. What had been closed groups of sexual partners broke down, as they shared experiences with partners from beyond the small circles of their friends. Anonymous sex was everywhere. Sado-masochism and leathers were all the rage.

As the rate of casual sex skyrocketed, so too did the rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Click

Sexual Orientation
Although there is a lot of information available now on sexual orientation, there is still a fear of homosexuals being stigmatized if they "come out" which has caused unhealthy behaviour in thousands of men:

Many chat rooms of married men exist who neither want a divorce nor want their wives to find out but want to engage in a gay relationship: My husband is gay. Needless to say, this has destroyed the heterosexual wife's life and hurt the children to learn this secret.

One has to wonder how many of these people in the sex clubs are actually gay but are afraid of carrying that stigmatization that is often tagged with homosexuality. A legal ruling allows them to explore their true sexuality without having to worry about being called gay.

This needs to change and I believe we can do it through education and for many parents to lift up their fears of homosexuality and teach their children about SEX.

First and formost, we should let our children know that having homosexual thoughts is NORMAL. Everybody has homosexual thoughts- that does not make them gay.

Second, educate them of the risks of certain types of sexual behaviour that can cause certain types of diseases: some incurable.

Thirdly, educate them on the precautions.

I'm a mother of a pre-teen. I would much rather my child was honest now and live a happy, healthy, and unsecrative life than have to hurt a future spouse and children. My grandchildren.

Of course I want to see my blood line continue (that's how I've evolved) and wow, what a wonderful thing to see my grandchildren. But if my child were to be ashamed of something that he or she may not be responsible for- such as sexual orientation, and have to live a painful secret life, then I have failed as a parent.
 

Semperfi_dani

Electoral Member
Nov 1, 2005
482
0
16
Edmonton
RE: Swinger Clubs ruled l

I could care less if these people got an STD. They know the risks. Let it be there problem.

My concern is that in theory, if this is about the fact that adults having consentual sex is legal...than does that not make prostitution legal?? After all, its consentual sex between to people based on a monetary agreement.

Perhaps maybe its time to legalize prostitution. Hell..maybe if they can open up some "warehouse" and relabel it from "Happy Hookers Brothel" to "Happy Hookers Swingers Club", than that would be the legal loophole pimps everywhere can dive through.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Cosmo.. do you mean to tell me that telling someone that choosing homosexuality as a lifestyle will create a lifetime of unhappiness is against the rules of this board. That is absurd.. Have we fallen that far in the last 5 year. Do you mean to tell me only POLITICALLY CORRECT views that deny 6000 years of historical articulation on natural law and human sexuality are valid. If this forum has fallen into nothing but a front for the homosexual lobby, I'll abandon it.. as a waste of time and effort. Because quite frankly it is too confused and prejudiced in its own take on Truth. I really resent that what I wrote is characterised as a personal slur. If you have it in your records, please email me as to how this in any way was personal or a slur!!!
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Re: RE: Swinger Clubs ruled l

Semperfi_dani said:
I could care less if these people got an STD. They know the risks. Let it be there problem.

My concern is that in theory, if this is about the fact that adults having consentual sex is legal...than does that not make prostitution legal?? After all, its consentual sex between to people based on a monetary agreement.

Perhaps maybe its time to legalize prostitution. Hell..maybe if they can open up some "warehouse" and relabel it from "Happy Hookers Brothel" to "Happy Hookers Swingers Club", than that would be the legal loophole pimps everywhere can dive through.

I thought that there really wasn't anything illegal about prostitution, but soliciting for the purposes, and living off the avails of, were specifically illegal.

I'll have to dig into that one, though. Because if having sex for money is illegal, at what point is having sex in return for a place to live, food to eat, and material goods (ie, being a stay at home spouse) illegal?
 

Cosmo

House Member
Jul 10, 2004
3,725
22
38
Victoria, BC
Re: RE: Swinger Clubs ruled legal by Supreme Court of Canada

coldstream said:
Cosmo.. do you mean to tell me that telling someone that choosing homosexuality as a lifestyle will create a lifetime of unhappiness is against the rules of this board.
Yes ... when you make it personal. It's bullshit and it's critical. You may not agree with being homosexual, but you are not free to disrespect a basic personality trait of more than one of us here. I don't go around calling you "breeders" and saying you're ruining the planet ... even if I actually thought that way (which I do not), it's just mean for no reason.

If you have bothered to read any of my stuff, you'd know that I am probably the least politically correct person you will meet. I don't believe in the PC crap. Spade is a shovel, in my books. What won't be tolerated is lecturing people on morality. You have a right to your opinion, but you did not state it as opinion. You directed at one member and made some kind of nasty, incorrect moral judgement about it. If you don't like gays, fine. You're entitled. But limit your rhetoric to opinion and don't aim your moral laser at any one of us in particular.

This board is for everyone and you flinging guilt around does not make it a better place. You are entitled to an opinion, wrong minded or not, but preface it with "In my opinion, homosexuals ... yada yada yada" instead of saying claiming it as fact.

Topic closed. That's how it is. If you don't like it, Coldstream, tough noogies. Any more arguments in open forum and you'll be banned for 24 hours.

Cosmo/Mod/Admin
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Now Missile.. that's an opinion,.. clearly one that's held by the moderators of this board. My only objection is it is the ONLY one that is going to be allowed.. everything else being 'personal'. Such has the realm of APPROVED 'Truth' been limited.
 

bhoour

Electoral Member
May 10, 2005
608
0
16
earth
coldstream said:
<snip ... Cosmo>

It's not a choice. People are bi/homosexual or not. It doesn't vary from day to day. There are no "former" homosexuals they are either in denial, or back in the closet.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
In my heart,I truly believe one's sexual nature is hardwired into your brain at birth,and strangely enough,I am somewhat religious,too. But,that is just my honest opinion..you have your own.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
coldstream, the right to free speech (in Canada at least) is not "free speech," per se, but a right to responsible free speech. As an example, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with the entire concept of homosexuality, or with the assertion that it is a "hardwired" trait. However, the way in which you express yourself with sensitive topics such as these is extremely important, and can make or break people's perception of the argument as either a responsible assertion in debate, or as radical propaganda.

Example of a Responsible Argument

In my opinion, homosexuality is not a hardwired trait, but rather a choice, or "decision," if you will, made at some point in one's life. [And if you wanted to go further,] À mon avis, homosexuality presents a risk to mainstream society through an increased risk or prevailance in certain STDs, such as AIDS, and through placing certain religious institutions, such as that of traditional marriage, in jeopardy, if legislative measures are not handled particularly carefully.

Please note that this argument does not reflect my views (the views of FiveParadox) but rather are meant to serve as an example of what, in my opinion, would constitute a responsibly-written argument in opposition to homosexuality on a public forum under Canadian administration.

Back to the topic at hand...

The Supreme Court cannot be deemed to have legislated anything to the effect of sex in public, since matters of legislative initiative are ultra vires the Supreme Court of Canada. If our representatives in the Thirty-ninth Parliament wish to "overrule" the Court on this matter, and assert their authority, then all that they would need to do would be to amend the Criminal Code, or legislate specifically on the matter of "swinger clubs," to render the ruling of the Courts to be no longer relevent. The Courts can only rule against legislation where such an Act is either unconstitutional, or where an Act does not refer in particular to the question at hand.

Edit Corrected typos.
 

MathewH

New Member
Jan 10, 2006
1
0
1
Toronto
Spoken like someone who's never actually seen what goes on at these 'lifestyle' clubs. I've actually been to one of them, as a guest & observer, and I can say that these people practice safe sex more rigorously than anyone I've ever known. I've seen studies on this community both in Canada and the US that show significantly lower (almost nil) rates of STD's compared to the general population. Part of the reason, according to an organizer I talked to, is that everything is out in the open. If someone isn't following the rules and playing safe, they're seen by others and dealt with. Compare that to the risk of strangers coupling up at regular night clubs, getting tanked, and then having sex.... you think they're going to be extra-careful about safety?

Our Supreme Court has gotten it right for a change. The state has no business dictating what consenting adults can do with each other behind closed doors, including Prostitution. Prostitution is actually not illegal in Canada... just the various more public aspects of the business.
 

poligeek

Electoral Member
Jan 6, 2006
102
0
16
Toronto
There's definately some very important aspects of this ruling that have largely been overlooked and allowed it to turn into a moralistic rampage on sexual orientation.

First, this is a ruling about what consenting adults are allowed to do in private. In every instance in this article swing clubs that want to allow on-premise sexual activity have seperate secure rooms that are private property only accessible by membership (usually paid membership).

Ruling that people cannot have sex with multiple partners in a private (be definition not public) environment is a hairline fracture from telling people that they cannot have sex with mutliple partners in their own homes.

This question is not about people having rampant group orgies in public it's about the government being able to dictate people behaviour in private environments.

I also have to agree with MatthewH a baisc cursory reading of any of these clubs site will show the empahsis on safety and consent.

Futhermore, while it is a popular anti-homosexual tactic to site StoneWall, it is important to emphasise that StoneWall took place before homosexuality was widely accepted, and as AIDS/HIV increased it was largely the gay community that lead the empahsis on safe-sex.

The highest rates of AIDS/HIV today do not exist in the gay community but among young adults not properly educated on safe sex.

Sex education is the best method of preventing STD's. Abstinence training is simply a myth that doesn't work.
 

Doryman

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
435
2
18
St. John's
HTO said:
The biggest concern for me is communicable diseases that can be prevented.

None of you feel that someone who has caught the cold, flu, or TB or other viruses from these clubs and brings them out into the public via work or stores is interfering with the proper functioning of society?


...


Everytime I've been to a Catholic church, the parishioners all shake each others hands once during the congregation, and often drink wine from the same cup. That's an extremely good way to get the flu, but we can't ban church. Neither can we ban kindergarten, high-school wrestling, or parties of any kind. Disease travels in large groups of people, and there are many more instances of lare groups of people than just gang-bangs.

let 'em screw.