Sunday, October 17, 2010

"The state has no place in the bedroom of the Nation"

"It's certainly the most extensive revision of the Criminal Code since the 1950s and, in terms of the subject matter it deals with, I feel that it has knocked down a lot of totems and over-ridden a lot of taboos and I feel that in that sense it is new. It's bringing the laws of the land up to contemporary society I think. Take this thing on homosexuality. I think the view we take here is that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think that what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public this is a different matter, or when it relates to minors this is a different matter."

These words were famously uttered by Pierre Trudeau as Justice Minister (later Prime Minister), in 1967. That would be the 100th anniversary year of Canada's confederation.

These words make absolutely no sense whatsoever. They have a sort of mass appeal that makes them popular with the general populace, but when analyzed, they fall flat and make no sense.

Most people believe the state does have a place in the bedrooms of the nation.

What if a child is being sexually assaulted? Would the state turn a blind eye to that?

What if a woman was being raped in a bedroom?

For that matter, what if a person is being abused or even killed in a bedroom?

Obviously the state does have a say in what happens in the bedrooms of people.

To be fair, what Pierre Trudeau was actually trying to say was the state has no place in dictating what homosexual acts are legal and which are illegal.

So, people should be clear about what that saying means.

The problem is making the leap from homosexual acts being legal to gay "marriage" being legal also. It's difficult to legislate on a non-violent act between two consenting adults that will not directly harm others. I mean if two people wanted to dress up as chickens and dance around the house, they could do that as well, despite the fact that it has no benefit.

So what about gay "marriage". Well, this is another matter. It's no longer a private thing. Once gay "marriage" is legal, schools must encourage children to "decide" their sexuality, to offer classes on homosexual lifestyles, etc. Adoption agencies are forced to adopt children to two men or two women despite that organization's moral belief that such unions are not best for children. Religious institutions must rent their properties for homosexual celebrations which violate their moral code. A child's welfare is trumped by gay rights. It enters into a completely new category. Society suffers when such a ruling is made.

Marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. If we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, there is no logical reason to exclude any other grouping, such as a father and daughter "marriage", one man and 5 women, a sort of "daycare" arrangement where a group of say 20 men and women decide to form a fluent group of people who raise any children in that arrangement. Who is to say that these groupings cannot be included in the defintion of "marriage", since we are completely throwing out what marriage actually is.

We must love and respect all people, whether gay or straight, but this does not mean that each person must be treated exactly the same. Just because a father cannot legally marry his daughter does not mean he has fewer rights than everyone else. Any man has the right to take advantage of the laws concerning marriage, or any woman for that matter. But we do not all get the right to change the law based on our whims.


  1. "...done in private between [consenting] adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code."

    The phrase assumes people understand adults to mean consenting people of age of majority. Rape, murder, child abuse doesn't constitute consent.

    You are correct in that Trudeau was addressing homosexuality, but the statement also affects everyone else as well by allowing people rather than government to make decisions for what sexual acts (between consenting adults) is permissable. In some areas in the US the state government dictates the sexual lives of heterosexual male-female couples concerning what acts they can perform, use of stimulants & sex toys.
    Pierre Trudeau's statement has blanket-like qualities, but it's a press statement - not a legal document designed to cover all loopholes.
    All he's saying is "the public decide for themselves". There are too many religions, schools of thought to cover and it would be nearly impossible to enforce without an invasion of privacy into innocent people's homes.

    As for these other groupings, you are also correct - they are legal in some places & religions and could potentially become legalized as well.

    However, society is demanding more than just religous institutions and ancient text stating the immorality of such things, they want far more concrete reasons. This makes no sense to believers "what could be more concrete than God's commandments?", but for those who doubt the authenticity or infallability of texts like the Quran, TOrah, Bible, etc, it's no longer the sole source of guidance.
    When studies and science contradicts (even temporarily contradicting or flawed studies) people begin to question and doubt traditional beliefs. This is of course important otherwise we may still believe the earth is literally 5000years old as opposed to the adopted billions of years old now accepted by the most predominant religous institutions (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, etc), amongst many other things.
    Religions and society in general therefor need to look into these issues and find multiple reasons to stand on rather than faith and tradition alone.

    This could include studies into children raised in same sex/group marriages and their academic success, which may indicate whether it should be legal or not to allow adoption to these groups.
    Attempt to study the length & quality of these unions cmpared to tradional ones. Some of these studies would take a long time, but society has turned around on issues before after studies show poor results. (pharmisuticals, medical treatments, smoking/tobacco are some obvious ones). So even if it becomes legal, doesn't mean it's here to stay, then again just because traditionally things are one way doesn't mean they are here to stay either.

  2. For a member of a contextualist religion, you're taking his words a little bit too literally. It is obvious Truedeau is not referring to murder or child abuse.. in fact he explicitly states when it relates to minors this is a different matter."

    Maybe all laws should be based on the bible?

    Do you have a daughter? Well, if you're running low on money you could always sell her as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7

    And Phil, have you ever spoken to a women while she was on her period?Lev.15:19- 24 strictly prohibits this. I know it's an awkward question, but seriously, if you don't want to be stoned to death make sure you are informed of women's menstrual cycle schedules.

    I also pray to the good Lord you have never had a haircut, Lev. 19:27 prohibits that too.

    Is it just homosexuals you discriminate against, or do you do that for people with defects in their sight too, because the bible sure does:Lev. 21:20.

    I'm not homosexual and I was raised Catholic myself, but you really mustn't follow every word the bible says. I know the difference between right and wrong, and I believe in equality.

    They chose to be gay the same day you chose to be straight.

  3. Many things can, and have been said on the topics of homosexuality, gay marriage, and the words of Pierre Trudeau. Here is what I have noticed:

    1. When the person against gay marriage speaks, they go on tangents, using the most extreme examples that are not well linked to the topic at hand.

    Example a) "What if a child is being sexually assaulted? Would the state turn a blind eye to that?"
    -this takes an extreme example, and does not correlate with the words the writer is trying to contradict. It was specifically stated that it was referring to bedroom activities between adults, and that instances including minors are another matter.

    Example b) "...It's difficult to legislate on a non-violent act between two consenting adults that will not directly harm others. I mean if two people wanted to dress up as chickens and dance around the house, they could do that as well, despite the fact that it has no benefit."
    -once again, an extreme example. To be fair, this one does relate to the topic at hand, but another issue is raised.

    First of all, if I go dancing around the house dressed as a chicken, I agree that there is no benefit. Thank you for making that clear, I am sure that we all enjoy that knowledge.

    Secondly, there is benefit to gay "marriage". Sure you can say that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, but I do not care for a moment what you call it.

    The benefit is the same as any union between a man and a woman. Sure there is the difference that god doesn't say that it is alright to do things in the bedroom now, but two people make the same commitment as they would heterosexually.

    It is a ceremonial symbol of a commitment to loving another person. A binding union telling everybody that you plan to be with this person the rest of your life. You can't say that there is no benefit to this, for it is the same benefit in this "marriage" that is accepted under these religious beliefs.

    Gay "marriage" (whether the name is technically correct or not) along with straight marriage is a brilliantly shining projection of love.

    Example c) "...Adoption agencies are forced to adopt children to two men or two women despite that organization's moral belief that such unions are not best for children..."
    -"forced"? "moral belief"?... I would love to see a study on how much you can twist a single sentence to try and scare people from an idea as possible.

    The word 'forced' is a little strong for the same thing adoption agencies have to do for straight couples as well as gays. The agencies have to do checks for things that will affect safety and health, which homosexuals can provide as much as heterosexuals.

    In addition, where does the speaker pull the words,"moral beliefs" from? The only beliefs that have in any way tried to contradict adoption by gay couples is by religion. In fact,the ONLY thing that IMPLIES that gays cannot adopt is the simple religious belief that they aren't allowed to BE a couple in the first place.

  4. (continuing from the last comment)
    I do understand that if god were to say things that prohibit gay couples, he would have a reason, wouldn't he? Has it ever been considered that God just wanted that to be so we could continue to reproduce and not die out? If so, there is no longer reason for such restriction. there are too many people for the planet to easily sustain, so maybe this legalization is God's way of saying it's alright now.

    If one wants to believe in and respect God, one must keep an open mind and try to understand his messages. Taking every word and point in direct literal meaning, and applying it wherever you see fit? That is pure disrespect to what is believed to be the most important being in the universe.

    Well, I guess I'm done with my bit. All I have left to say is that one should always keep an open mind, in the pursuit of all that is good. Pierre Trudeau did. Half English and half French, having toured the world, trying to understand all points of view. He learned through experience, and made his own decisions. Of course, no one can be exact in what they mean all of the time, but it's everyone's job to try to understand each other.

    I'm not religious, and I'm not gay. I love the bible and the teachings within. I love the idea of legal homosexual MARRIAGE. I think that gays MUST be open to the moral teachings of the bible to understand homosexuality properly and, that religious people MUST be open minded when it comes to interpreting their religion.

    Never challenge anything that you have not considered from all points of view. Never judge someone until you've walked in their shoes, tried on their skin, seen through their eyes. It's not just what God would want, but what all people should.

    To everyone here:
    Have a wonderful life

  5. That isn't what it means at all, it means we have no business to judge what a couple dose in their bedroom, Ignorant fool.