Thursday, August 18, 2005

The State has no Business in the Bedrooms of the Nation

A high profile case of incest has finally come to light here in Canada. The case involves a 43-year-old mother from southwestern Ontario and her 25-year-old son. The two were posing as husband and wife and they had three children together. A criminal court recently found the pair guilty of incest.

The CP report was published in the Winnipeg SUN, but other players in Canada’s liberal dominated mainstream media are strangely silent on this story.

It is worth asking, why is incest a crime in this country? After all, it was liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau who on December 22, 1967 uttered the famous phrase, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” He used this line back when Canada was debating whether or not to legalize homosexuality.

Another moral relativist named Christine Overall wrote an article that appeared at the christiangays.com website. In her article, she agreed with Trudeau’s logic so long as those in the bedrooms are consenting adults. She argued that the state should have no role in limiting consenting human sexual and romantic relationships.

When Paul Martin’s liberals made same-sex marriage the law of the land this year, the Canadians for Equal Marriage celebrated. They called it a proud and exciting time to be a Canadian and added,

“In a generation, Canadians will look back on a time when lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people were denied full citizenship, just as we look back on the days when women or Aboriginal people could not vote or times when Canadian citizens were interned because of ethnic origin. We will talk about these days and this battle. We will be proud, as Canadians, that we rejected rejection, that we ended exclusion, that we said to LGBT people: there are no second-class Canadians, you are full members of the community, without caveat or exceptions.”

They may say that a generation from now, but they would be wrong. They would be wrong because at the same time that homosexual relationships have been elevated to the status of equal to marriage, other Canadians are being thrown into jail on account of their sexuality. Children of incestuous couples are being taken away from their parents. And we are not talking about adoptive parents. These are the two biological ones.

During the same-sex marriage debate, Conservative groups stood up to denounce changing the definition of marriage. They talked about the slippery slope. They said, “If you legalize marriage for homosexuals today, will family members be allowed to marry tomorrow?” Yet, these Conservative groups were shouted down by the gay rights advocates and the liberal media always took their side.

The media spent the whole summer printing story after story, on the radio and on television, branding Conservatives as being out of touch with the mainstream of Canada. The media branded them as Neanderthals, clinging to an outdated definition of marriage. They called anyone who opposed same-sex marriage a bigot and preacher of hate. They accused every Conservative who used the slippery slope analogy of fear mongering as they pointed out the one thing which was obvious to everyone except the fear-mongering, hate-filled, bigoted, hate preaching, out of touch, Neanderthal Conservatives. That one thing is that, “Incest is against the law in Canada!”

Yes, and homosexuality was against the law in Canada until a liberal stood up and said, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”

7 Comments:

At 12:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that SSM is legal....and by definition, two loving consenting adults.

Forbidding other forms of union between adults, that follow the SSM defintion....is abject hyprocrisy, as it impunes other adults with a re-defintion of marriage in mind.

Is SSM about equality, or is it a matter of power?

Frank.

 
At 1:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a 50-year-old divorced father who is very much in love with his 25-year-old daughter and she is deeply in love with me.

Our relatinship just started a few years back, shortly after her 23nd birthday.

She an I love each other very much and would aslo like the right to marry. After all, we fit the criteria established by advocates of SSM - we're two consenting adults and we're not hurting anybody else. As well, I had a vesectomy, and we're not going to be having children.

I look forward to the gay community - and stright people who support SSM - to now champion my cause. Surely, to avoid being accused of hypocrisy, you must do so. You can't argue that my relationship is "morally reprehensible" because that would make you no different than those you attack for not supporting SSM.

And if your argument is that incest is illegal, well so too was homosexuality at one point. And if it were today, would you be arguing that SSM is wrong because homosexuality is illegal? No, you would argue to first change the law making homosexuality legal THEN allowing gays to marry.

If marriage being "one man to one woman" is deemed unconstitutional, then certainly "two people" is exclusionary as well by definition.

If we're in love, we're consenting adults, and we're not hurting anyone else, what's the problem I ask the SSM advocates?

Anyway, I look forward to all the supporters of SSM supporting my cause and applauding me, because I know they don't want to be accused of hypocrisy.

Imagine two gay men getting outraged at people who do not understand or embrace their relationship and then those same two turn to me and tell me my relationship is wrong.

 
At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the 50-year-old dad:

I am estranged from my wife for "obvious" reasons.

I also have another daughter who is 21. Being part of the "younger more liberal crowd," she is more "open, embracing" and "tollerant" of my loving relationship with her sister, just as I know the SSM supporters will be.

She supports us in our drive to have the definition of marriage further expanded to include us as well.

I'm hoping that her sister and I can be married in the not-to-distant future so that she can become the daughter to both os us.

She would have a sister who is also her mother-in-law.

As well, she's 6-months pregnant, meaning that when she gives birth, her sister will become the aunt/graddaughter of my - what I hope to be - soon-to-be wife.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not all bad news.

This opens up a new niche in the 'greeting card' business.

 
At 2:32 PM, Blogger Michael said...

I can understand you posting as annonymous for obvious reasons pops. But I sure wish you would send me a private e-mail as well. I would surely hold your information in confidence.

 
At 4:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what I can tell....I think these father/daughter scenerios are hypothetical.

It matters little if that's the case.

The present defintion of SSM has left the door open to this argument.

If the 'left' is not supportive of consentual adult incest or polygamy, they are hypocrites.

This is a battle that the 'left' is not ready for, nor the bewildered public.

Why wait?....Let's have it now.

Frank.

 
At 5:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's about consistency in arguing strategy - something the left has extreme difficulty with. that's why shooting holes in their arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'm not sure how they can advocate SSM with arguments such as "it's about two consenting adults in a loving relationship" and "they're not hurting anybody, so what's the problem?" and then turn around and deny others who use the same points to state their case.

If their original argument is that "one man to one woman" is unjust, then why is the definition of marriage being between "two" people not also unjust?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home