Finally, some good news for Canadians
 

Canada defeats Luxembourg in soccer friendly
WebPosted Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:26:16 EST
CBC Sports

Iain Hume scored in the 69th minute to lift Canada to a 1-0 road win over Luxembourg on Wednesday in an exhibition soccer match.

Hume, a native of Brampton, Ont., who plays in England with Leicester City, took a brilliant pass from teammate Dwayne DeRosario and broke down the left side before chipping the ball over the onrushing Luxembourg goalkeeper.

The goal was the first for the 22-year-old in 14 appearances for the national team.

The Right to Swing
Speaking of Canada, that country is blazing new trails in jurisprudence, Reuters reports from Ottawa:

Group sex between consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday, dismissing arguments that the sometimes raucous activities of so-called "swingers" clubs were dangerous.

Could it happen here? Who knows? In an observation widely attributed to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court has said, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Somehow the court has taken this to mean abortion and sodomy, so why not group sex? And they do say Kennedy is a "swing" justice.

- OJ

Gawd.....I am embarassed to be Canadian now......we have no morals....looks like SOMEBODY needs to go to finishing school!

Meh...

While it's not my "thing", I really don't see the problem if they are all consenting adults and no money is changing hands... basically keeping in line with Trudeu's statement about the government having no business in the bedrooms of citizens.

See what I mean? I take back the finishing school comment....it should be more along the lines of psychiatric help. In any case, don't people worry about disease?

See what you mean what?!?

Right, so a swingers club is now not clasiffied as a brothel and this to you marks the beginning of the end or something?

I don't see the big deal really - they are consenting adults, they aren't exchanging cash (well aside from club dues), and they are assuming the risk themselves when they participate in these clubs.

I'm sorry Cynthia but you are beginning to sound more and more like a prude...

Anyone who has sex with more than one person in one day really has issues, Rob. I don't care what people think of me, I just think Canadians are just becoming too "open..." Like I said, people seriously need help and we should be spending money on helping these people, not allowing them to do what they want.

So you'd rather that there are "morality laws" and that violators of these laws be sent away for "re-education"? Once you start legislating morality you will find yourself on a dangerous slope - who's moral code becomes the benchmark? If not an individual then perhaps a church's? Which church or religion then dictates their moral code on others?

Again I don't get the point of your objection, other than a personal moral objection to the practice... no one is hurt, and no one is exploited - so why should you or I care if these folks get their freak-on in a different way? To me it's not that much different from the fetish parties at Velvet Underground, Diablo's, The Vatikan, Bovine Sex Club, or the Funhaus...

Common sense, Rob.

Quote:

Again I don't get the point of your objection, other than a personal moral objection to the practice... no one is hurt, and no one is exploited - so why should you or I care if these folks get their freak-on in a different way? To me it's not that much different from the fetish parties at Velvet Underground, Diablo's, The Vatikan, Bovine Sex Club, or the Funhaus...

What do you mean no one is hurt? While these clubs are heavily regulated, you never know about infections. The porn industry is heavily regulated, yet there was an HIV outbreak last year.

For you, maybe. But just because it's good for you, it doesn't give you the right to legislate morality for everyone else. They're consenting adults. What they do in the privacy of their own clubs is none of your business. You don't frequent them. Now that they'll be out in the open, you won't even have to live near them if you don't want to. I'll hazard a guess that as privately-owned clubs, none of your taxpayer dollars are going to support them.

I'm beginning to understand the conservative mindset: a slut/person with loose morals is anyone who has sex (1) more often than I do and/or (2) with a gender I don't approve of.

Personally, I would think that conservatives would have bigger fish to fry, what with people in the Teedot suddenly shooting each other left and right.

Where are these clubs you speak of? For research purposes of course.

-Rudey

Mostly in Toronto or Montreal... actually mostly Montreal - you know those French and their love for hedonism ;) Of course you'd need a partner/wife to particpate...


Like Sistermadly said though - I don't see the pressing need to legislate morality or go after "soft" crime, when more effort and resources could be spent on combating drugs, gangs, and guns...

However in this case only the Conservatives (okay political party, my priest was up in arms too) have come against the decriminalization of swingers clubs - personally I'd wish they'd get of their pulpit and talk about how they'd combat the gangs and guns instead of critizing others efforts without putting forth their own plan. As it stands I'm more and more for the Liberals proposed all out handgun ban, mandatory sentancing for illegal possession, and the increased minimum sentances for those convicted of crimes involving firearms.