> For me, this raises a really interesting question. Part of me wants
> to take a purely libertarian approach to these kinds of issues, like
> the ACLU does: people should be allowed to hold swingers parties (or
> whatever) regardless of whether it bugs the neighbors with increased
> traffic, etc. Of course, if one is going to take this position, then
> it needs to cut the other way: it needs to be applied to churchgoers
> clogging up the street, anti-abortion protesters shouting at people
> outside clinics, the Westboro Baptist Church and so forth.
>
> But as attractive as the ACLU position is, another part of me doubts
> the feasibility of that approach. At some point, one's conception of
> the good kicks in and we need to say "we're right and they're wrong"
> -- sex parties are good and church is bad -- and advocate for policies
> to that effect. (Or, in the alternative, strategically support the
> libertarian approach until we gain enough political power to
> legislate our conception of the good).
>
> These are the only two coherent approaches, IMO. Unfortunately, both
> of them have serious problems.
I think that it is pretty self-evident that Texas needs more sex parties and less churches.
The problem I see here with this infamous Texas sex party is that it became a nuisance to the neighbors. If the neighbors object to all of the traffic, then the sex party should be smaller and more self-contained. If the neighbors don't care about the sex parties, then there is nothing wrong here. The organizer of the parties really should talk to the neighbors, but the peeps have a right to have some kind of sex party.
Chuck0