Happy Christmas, Peter.

Santorum was right. Dan Quayle was right. How irksome.

Speaking of being irksome, I read somewhere that Matthews said on the air, that if Iraq turns into a moderate democracy, BushCo could say they were right about the war. If that's not irksome, then what would be?

Doesn't this guy understand that every word said on his program is saved on video tape for future generations to listen to and ponder?

As the kids say, what a maroon.

The court is right, this is none of the government's business.

And material considerations, particularly women's, will ensure the incidence never rises above apocryphal, particularly for couples with children.

Human nature isn't malleable; women's sexual conservatism isn't about to change.

Religious morality doesn't make any difference one way or another.

The horror libertarians evince is not at thwarted sexual urges, but rather government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

It is amusing how, when discussing issues like divorce and gay marriage, liberals and libertarians will evince horror at the cruelty and injustice of a thwarted sexual-urge, but then blithely assume the vast majority of people are actually quite boring and will naturally shrug off temptation and choose traditional middle-class virtue unaided.

There is no contradiction here. One of the reasons "liberals and libertarians" aren't for government regulation of peoples' private lives and bedrooms is that there isn't enough daagerous activity or bad results to warrant such an intrusion.

Funny how conservatives and fundies will tolerate government control of morals but not government control of the economy.

And Peter, I hate to break this to you, but there never was any "Leave it to Beaver"-"Father Knows Best"-"Donna Reed" golden age of sexual morality. What goes on today has always been going on somehwere.

"Human nature isn't malleable; women's sexual conservatism isn't about to change."

A sexist statement if ever I heard one. You must not have read any of the articles about the sexual aggressiveness of girls in junior high and high school these days.

With abortion readily available to take care of any oopsies, why should women be less cavalier about sex than men who have always been able to walk away?

"Funny how conservatives and fundies will tolerate government control of morals but not government control of the economy."

I always thought that was because morals were supposed to be the basis of society and they will direct everything else.

It's funny how liberals want the government to control the economy (and certain morals such as environmentalism) but not morals.

It used to be OK to just kill anyone who dissed you also. Does that mean that society should applaud it and support it without comment?

Government should not try to regulate it but also society should not applaud it.

Don't Jeff and bplus need to fight it out before we take on the winner?

"Don't Jeff and bplus need to fight it out before we take on the winner?"

Will they do it in a big vat of chocolate pudding?

"Government should not try to regulate it but also society should not applaud it. "

Isn't denying government sanctions, or gov't regulation, a way for "society [to] not applaud it"?

Precisely because the conduct sought to be regulated is somewhat private, we see here an excellent example of the utility of mythic enforcement over that of the heavy hand of the state.

Yes, a lack of state coerion will let the cynical enjoy what benefitr they think may accrue from immorality, but this issue is not making the disfavored disappeasr, merely to recuce its incidence so as the favor the education of children and disfaor the transmission of disease.

Now the problem is this: when society goes the "Rawls" route, holding that anything not proven to be immediately and directly harmful must be permitted and that the longrange, cultural harms of privagte behavior may not even be considered, then, to the unlettered, permission becomes approval.

Having lost the distinction between what is lawful and what is expedient, the harmful behavior multiplies to the extent that the harm becomes manifest, as when a loathsome and incurable disease is spread by deviant behavior.

If you marriage is not bringing happiness to both parties, try to make it happy. Forget the religious nonsense, divorce is a losing proposition, try harder to find mutual happiness in your marriage.

--, the harm is confined to those adults who freely partake in it: In the cases at issue before the Supreme Court, no one was coerced, bribed or tricked into swinging. Since there is no "victim," we find it hard to see why such activity should be outlawed.--

No harm, eh?

What about STDs that the Canadian taxpayer has to pay for?

Much harm can come to society as a result of private, consensual behavior. But man is not perfectible, and we shouldn't expect that government prohibition of harmful behavior will always do more good than harm.

I am not a libertarian in that I do believe government can and should regulate some private behavior that has an adverse impact on society. Drawing the line can't be a formulaic exercise, but must rely on that rare commodity, wisdom. A knee-jerk prohibition regime can be as harmful as a knee-jerk permissiveness regime.

If it is left to the government to support public morality, then society is lost. Mores and taboos can only be preserved by social pressures. Many of these swingers wouldn't be caught dead with a lit cigarette because their social clique, such as it is, frowns upon demon tobacco. Those who would defend the swingers clubs have no problem banning smoking from all public buildings, including privately owned restaurants and bars.

bplus:

No offence, but few things are more tiresomely predictable than sexual libertines and modern libertarians telling us there never was a golden age of the fifties. It's like those who attack Christianity with great flourish by arguing that people have always sinned. What exactly is your point?

Sharon:

Don't you just love it when men get together to debate sexual morality, conclude everybody should be allowed to rut without let of hindrance and then congratulate one another on their intellectual acuity and courageous struggle for freedom?

The horror libertarians evince is not at thwarted sexual urges, but rather government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

That's only true for some libertarians. Others -- like the Reason magazine editors who named Madonna and Dennis Rodman to their list of most-admired figures -- seem to equate libertarianism with the absence of moral restraints and are thus horrified by both factors.

. . . but it's okay for the government to ban smoking in private establishments!

Peter,

The biggest problem this sexual liberation argument has is its deception that these are merely "private behaviors," as though there are no public consequences. You don't have to be a Puritan to see how swinging will weaken marriage as a foundation for civilization. All you have to do is look at the number of divorces and its effects on children (not just the obvious). Clearly, those who believe this behavior is acceptable do not want to believe that it has any effect whatsoever on what their children grow up believing.

Sharon:

You make a good point, I wrote somewhat hastily.

But if you follow your statement very far, then human nature is indeed completely malleable, and their is no reason for you not be part of the Angry Left, which I presume you very much are not.

Nothing about "swinging" is consistent with women's material interests. Therefore, no matter how many men might think such a thing would be wonderful, I predict only a vanishingly small proportion of women will view the prospect with anything other than looks of fear and eyes of hate.

This qualifies as private conduct, as do most things people get up to. Law or not, Canada is not about to be overwhelmed by a wave of these clubs.

Robert:

Yes, both should be banned. There's no coherent reason for a decent society to stand idly by while people engage in self-destructive behavior. Laws are social pressure.

Laws are the most blunt and extreme form of social pressure. They are not well suited for every occasion. The shame factor is the most important, and most effective form for discouraging the kinds of behavior that we see these people engaging in.

Certain activities should be permitted, but highly regulated to make their practice costly and difficult. Some will argue that people will always go around the law, which is true to a certain extent. But marginal costs do have an impact. A decent society does not require the outright elimination of vice, such an elimination is impossible. But a regime of legal encumbrance coupled with social pressure can make the difference between a decent society and an indecent one.

Peter:

In those rare moments when we take a break from congratulating each other, we accept that we live in a real world full of real people, and that real actions have real, often unintentional, consequences for those people. These factors have to be taken into account before trying to impose our principles - be they puritan or libertarian - in the form of legislation.

Brit/Robert

Very well put, both of you. It is indeed a delicate task to balance freedom and cohesive common decency. It's just that, once you put group sex houses for swingers in the freedom category, you leave me flummoxed about what could possibly go in the other.

Merry Christmas, guys.

Peter:

I'm not sure keeping the intrusive nose of the government at bay puts something in the "freedom" category.

There are all sorts of things you may, but don't, do because of the resulting reprobation.

Just so here.

Merry Christmas to you, too, and all the best in the New Year.