It's tyranny of the moniority....

MINORITY... fucking spell lame

Exactly how is it tyrannical to allow adults to get together behind closed and locked doors to have group sex, Madfish? Would you find it equally tyrannical for them to have group sex at one of their homes?

What-ever, Ace, are you coming to see BBM with me+Allah today, or not? Your readers demand a review!

I don't know, Karol... I answered you email, you know.

Can I just mention here that the Parti Quebecois just chose as their leader an openly promiscuous gay coke-head, Andre Boisclair?

So when they say "community standards" this is what they're talking about...

One on hand, the majority has a right to promulgate laws designed to craft what it believes to be the Good Society.

Absolutely the big question right now. It came to a head in the U.S. in that Lawrence v. Texas decision with O'Connor's concurrance set against Scalia's dissent, basically examining whether a law founded on nothing more than a majority's moral disapproval can stand.

O'Connor seems to say no. That seems the way things are headed generally too, that laws must be "rational" - appeal to some sense of "good" that isn't based on morals (i.e. reduce violence or people acting on others nonconsentingly).

I haven't read the Canadian decision, but my guess is that it is grounded on a similar sense - that laws forbidding sex clubs interfered with people's liberty for no other reason than moral disapproval, and are therefore improper.

This is a dangerous road for any society to keep traveling down.

Wow!. I can't believe Allah himself is going to go watch some gay sheepherders get grooved, er I mean, get their groove on. Karol, just be sure to sit between 'em so when the good parts come on the screen, you can hold 'em back from one another.

I don't know, Karol... I answered you email, you know.

I know, but it's funnier to engage you about it here. :-)

On the one hand, we have the opinions of experts,

on the other hand, they sound like idiots.

It would be nice to have reviews from three people we know. And again, if you are going to post about the movie, ad nauseum, you shd see it.

I still think you three will start giggling too much and get threatened by metrosexuals.

Feisty posted on this the other day. Personally, I'm okay with adults getting together for purposes of sleazoid group sex. The problematic aspect of this decision is the fact that the age of consent in Canada is fourteen. Does this mean that adult Canadians now have the constitutionally protected right to engage in sleazoid group sex with middle-school students?

Wanton promiscuity is not good for society, any way you slice it. What is this, war on marriage, now?

I

Group sex and partner-swapping are legal because they cause society no harm

And a destabilized family environment is no problem since no-one has ever suffered any problems from having their parents divorce. And I'm sure the support and custody for a child of questionable paternaty would never be an issue.

And, of course, no one would ever coerce a reluctant partner to join them in swinging group sex. Right?

'Cause it's all just One Big Happy up in the Great White North.

Register_allocation points out what I think is missing from the discussion so far. I think the state has an interest in its culture insofar as the culture is able to maintain a population that can sustain the state. The problem as I see it is there's no definitive understanding of what's required for that maintenance, and any such requirements necessarily abridge the freedoms of the citizens involved. It really boils down to two questions: does a citizen have a responsibility to cede a portion of his freedom to the state in exchange for the existence of that state, and what should that portion of freedom be. I don't think there's an answer to the last question that will satisfy everyone. That's why the government gets guns, I guess. ;)

Ace wrote ...the libertarian creed, I believe first announced on the Prince album 1999, "If it feels all right, then do it all night?"

No, Ace, that's the Libertiine creed. The libertarian creed is Bessie Smith's 1923 "Ain't Nobody's Bizness if I do".

Songs embodying other common philosophical positions available on request.

You can find my considerably less serious take on this story here.

Please also see this.

If something like this came before the SCOTUS, one could see that besides using Kennedy's "mystery of life" passage from Lawrence v. Texas, a basic 1st amendment freedom of assembly argument could also be used. I think it's ridiculous to say that the government can't regulate behavior between consenting adults, but that is indeed where things are going, despite the fact that these J. S. Mill principals don't exist in the U. S. Constitution.

The tyrany of the minorities. I guess the ACLU must be is canada as well

This is not a Great Question. This question was answered over 200 years ago. The answer is to give communities of people (call 'em states) the ability to pass whatever laws they want, while having all communities subjected to a higher power (or Constitution) to ensure no civil rights are violated. The problem comes when the ones who govern all want to start exercising authority not given to them. Such as when the state representatives (or Congress) try to pass laws interfering with a state's right to govern itself. As long as no civil rights are violated without due process (due process can be any number of things, so it'd be a good idea to have some kind of super court with nine justices that oversee the laws to make sure everything is in accordance with the Constitiion. Call it a Supreme Court). This way anyone who does not like the laws where they live are free to move wherever they want. Another problem is when courts start finding loopholes to expand federal authority and take away a state's right of self-determination.

that laws must be "rational" - appeal to some sense of "good" that isn't based on morals

Just out of curiosity, Reo, upon what else does one ulitimately base a sense of "good"?

What register_allocation says is correct, but at the risk of repeating Bill Bennett, utilitarian type appeals miss the main point and tend to weaken it.

Just out of curiosity, Reo, upon what else does one ulitimately base a sense of "good"?

If your point is that it is ultimately confused to think utilitarian "goods" are, at base, founded on rational deduction from universal, non arbitrary truths, or something other than what is, broadly, moral intuition, I agree.

I was phrasing the debate using their language and could have probably used scare quotes around the word morals, but might have ended up looking like I question the existence of morality.

Who is hurt if Phil the geeky night morgue attendant gets a little cold Ethyl from one his refrigerated charges? That becomes a slippery slope (in more ways than one).