Kakistocrat

Someone who reads this Blog but doesn’t know me personally recently asked if I could post a little bit about myself. For those of you who do know me, I am sure you can imagine how quickly any request for personal information would normally meet with a ’No!’

However, in the interests of identifying myself, I invite you to drop by my rarely used Facebook page (although today for almost 30 seconds I made the ‘Wall’ visbile again to my contacts…), and scroll down to the ’All About Me’ form that I completed.

Obviously when it comes to my revealing such sorts of information, there has to be a catch, and in this case there most certainly is. My answers in this ‘All About Me’ form are not bound by honesty and so I challenge you, check out the answers, then return here and identify all that I am lying about. The person who identifies the most amount of lies in my answers, will be recognized as the one here who knows me better than anyone else.

What an potential honour I can imagine this must be.

K.

A correct identification of a lie, combined with an incorrect identification will result in a cancellation of points.

Where does the bizarre notion come from that because a person in this life hasn’t affirmed particular propositional statements about Jesus (that he was the Son of God, that he rose from the dead…) or about the Church, that somehow Hell awaits?

While finding such a notion bizarre, and foreign to the words of Jesus on the subject of eternity, I want to remind readers that I am not belittling the existence of doctrinal orthodoxy, or the importance of it, or even the need for evangelism.

Instead of repeating arguments made here many times, let me appeal to the discussion in Hell, and to the posts Who is a Christian, and Still Before Christ, to name just a couple. If you don’t care to look there, simply answer the question asked in the opening sentence, which lasts the entire paragraph.

K.

On January 28 in the British House of Lords, Baroness Molly Meacher, in the discussion surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, described how she knew of two tiny children, born at 25 weeks with very severe cerebral palsy. The two children cannot breathe naturally, and will never talk. According the Baroness Meacher, "they lie on their backs and can do nothing." Baroness Meacher states that such children are not "viable people" and that "it would be in their best interests to have been aborted."

I certainly don’t want to romanticize the condition of those disabled, and suppose that their current state is somehow preferred to one where they could enjoy aspects of the freedom that those not disabled can, however, since this is not the first time such a conversation has come up, I would like to appeal once again to the unique value that those disabled possess, a value that is not always known by those who see them from a distance, as well as wonder out loud, what kind of society we would possess if there were no such people "to draw out levels of compassion in us, that we might not otherwise have known we had."

K.

In light of the fact that I am the most long-winded blogger I know, note that two entries in a row have been considerably short. Some of the background of this post can be found in more detail in entries such as The ‘Disabled, and Forcing Abortion.

My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;

Coral is far more red than her lips’ red;

If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;

If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.

I have seen roses demask’d, red and white,

But no such roses see I in her cheeks;

And in some perfuumes is there more delight

Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.

I love to hear her speak, yet well I know

That music hath a far more pleasing sound;

I grant I never saw a goddess go;

My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:

And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare

As any she belied with false compare.

(William Shakespeare, Sonnet 130)

Thoughts?

K.

Favouring Same-Sex Marriage by Andreas Saint-Prix

A common argument against same-sex marriage is that of one’s human nature; it’s clear that there is less biological compatibility for intimate relations between two people of the same sex than people of the opposite. Since this is the case, why would people ‘choose’ intimate relations of lesser biological compatibility if they could simply engage in heterosexual relations & engage in the fullness of biological and sexual compatibility? Since people have homosexual relationships, it’s clear that this ‘choice’ is not a choice between two equals, since one is of lesser biological compatibility. Since humans in general strive for what is best, most compatible with their nature—be it physical or spiritual—people would normally not choose a ‘lesser’ form of biological sexual compatibility unless it is precisely what they feel is best for them as individuals. The key in addition to biological sexual compatibility is what the homosexual person feels when it comes to attraction for persons of the same sex. Recent studies show homosexuality is a cerebral disposition, the part of the brain which reacts to sexual arousal and intimacy is similar between homosexual men & heterosexual women, hence the attraction to men. Likewise, it’s similar between homosexual women & heterosexual men, hence the attraction to women. Since this is the case, it’s normal that homosexuals feel attraction for people of the same sex, considering their cerebral disposition.

Some raise a Biblical argument to oppose such relations, but the argument is flawed. In the Old Testament, among a host of other laws, homosexuality was considered deviant, especially since homosexuality wasn’t conducive for procreation, which was the primary objective of sexual relations. Reproduction was essential to continue the life of the tribe or nation. In the New Testament in Romans where Paul seems to talk about homosexuality, the passage clearly shows that Paul had no scientifically based knowledge to understand what homosexuality is. He associated it with lust, that people ‘leave’ the heterosexual state to ‘become’ homosexuals. We know today that this isn’t the case. There may always be cases where heterosexuals dabble in homosexuality, but in such cases, we can consider it sexual immorality or fornication, and heterosexuals also may engage in sexual immorality or fornication within the domain of heterosexuality.

We may also say that homosexuals that engage in homosexual relationships just for pleasure without love, that is just as morally wrong as heterosexual relationships that are engaged without love. The issue is homosexuality as being a cerebral disposition scientifically confirmed by brain scientists. In either case, the biblical arguments fall through & are useless. We should accept the reality of the love lived by homosexuals even if it’s biologically less compatible that between heterosexuals and accept the love lived between homosexuals. Love, "eros," which is a type of love specifically demonstrated in sexual intimacy is important for human development. 1 John 4: 8 tells us that God is Love. If we refuse homosexuals the right to love like heterosexuals, we are not just refusing them love, we are refusing them God, and how unchristian can one get than to refuse God to people?

Another fallacious argument used against same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage & family. As if allowing same-sex marriage will be the cause of weakening of heterosexual marriage. A heterosexual will decide to marry or not regardless of the personal decisions of homosexuals. A heterosexual will not marry a homosexual just because homosexuals will have the right to marry as well.

The question that always comes with same-sex marriage is the question of homopaternality. While one may assume that it’s every parent’s right to desire children, one has to also consider the development of the child. Would a child grow up in a parental environment to develop sound psychological capabilities? Experts say that what’s important in homoparental relationships is that the child has adults of the opposite sex of the parents in his close environment, so that the child can mature psychologically to the best of his abilities. This however needs to be followed on a case by case basis by the social services. One argument that is also wrongly used is that acceptance of homosexuality will lead inevitably to other forms of ‘deviant’ sexual relations, such as pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy & this is a wrong argument for all three.

Firstly for pedophilia, it’s clear that real love cannot be lived between an adult and a child, as the child isn’t physically & psychologically mature to understand love in it’s sexual & intimate expression, likewise the adult who wishes to engage in sexuality with children has clearly a psychological impediment, as he doesn’t realize this incompatibility, or if he does, his pulsion overrides his reason, which makes him just as much a potential danger. Pedophilia is therefore refutable.

Secondly, we can see how since sexual intimacy is what is most intimately shared between two people, for bestiality the case is that when a person would engage in acts of a sexual nature with an animal, it would reduce his human nature to that of an animal nature insomuch as concerns the sexual relation itself. Since the nature of something cannot be elevated to that which it is not, clearly the nature of the animal cannot be elevated to that of the human. Simply put, bestiality is naturally inhuman, therefore it is refutable.

Thirdly, for polygamy, this is more a question of a psychologically immature conception of love. As true love is shared equally between two persons, if one of the partners has more than one spouse, there would be an imbalance in the love lived & expressed between all the persons married together. If all the partners would have an equal number of married partners, this can be considered as love which is not lived to its full potential between two people. Polygamy is hence also refuted.

In closing, we Christians should move to accepting same-sex marriage & the love lived between two adults of the same sex, as no argument to my knowledge can refute the case.

Andreas Saint-Prix

I just want to express my appreciation to Andreas for this post. While a newer reader here, Andreas has contributed to a number of recent topics, and I would like to extend the invitation to any of you who would like to move beyond only commenting, should you be interested in writing a Post. However, just so we are all aware, the views represented in this, or in any past or future post by a Guest, do not necessarily reflect my own.

K.