Kakistocrat

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. 

Against Reincarnation by Richard Reinhardt

Reincarnation is such an outrageous idea, you wonder how people ever came to believe in it. After all, it separates the body from the soul, as though it were a garment that could be exchanged for a new one, and thoroughly confuses personal identity. And I think that that’s why the Church rejects it. Christianity is the religion of the person, for when the Divine Person descended to assume the nature of man, He exalted the human person who carries that nature. Reincarnation depersonalizes humanity and the inevitable consequence of it is that it depersonalizes one’s relationship to G-d. Indeed, in a universe of reincarnated souls, no one has a personal relationship with G-d, because he represents any number of other persons who possessed the same soul, and whose sins and merits are taken into consideration in responding to one’s prayers.

Taking a positive approach: It would seem that if G-d descended to present Himself to us in order to save us in this world, when we are separated from Him by all the temptations of the flesh, we can surely be confident that He will present Himself to those who are open to Him after they depart this world and ascend into the realm of being which is the proper domain for the revelation of God’s healing love. For what conceivable reason would He restrain his eagerness to confer the goodness of Hig Glory upon us?

Someone might say: ‘Perhaps G-d wants to give us another chance at the merit of cooperating with His grace, or for the atonement of suffering, so that the Light he confers would have a more perfect relationship to the person receiving it.’ Well, if that’s the issue, there’s a much easier way to address it. Make sure that people live as long as necessary to do all the cooperating they need to do, or suffer all the suffering they need to endure. G-d could just as well have us live 700 years as 70 years, 1000 years as a 100 years. In fact, the Bible tells us that men used to live that long. I think we can assume that each person lives as long as he needs to establish his eternal destiny according to the standards of the Father, hidden from us, as they are, in the mystery of His Wisdom. Indeed, we might even infer from the Biblical stories of our longevitous ancestry, that our lives, which we measure in decades rather than centuries, are as complete when they come to an end as the lives of our forebears who lived so much longer.

Then there’s the argument from empirical data. There are children who purportedly demonstrate a knowledge of a past life that they could not have by any natural means. First of all, even if that did indicate that they were reincarnations of other people, we could not infer from that, that children who don’t have any knowledge of past lives are also reincarnated. At best, it makes a case for saying that the rare child demonstrates knowledge of a past life is reincarnated. Children who don’t aren’t. But even that goes much too far because the doctrine of reincarnation is invoked to explain their remarkable knowledge of another person’s life. It’s not proven by the data. It is a theory to explain the data. It is perfectly legitimate to accept the data but reject the explanation, for which no further proof is offered.

What other possible explanation could there be?

First of all, we don’t need to offer another explanation. It is perfectly respectable to say, ‘I don’t know.’ Don’t we do that all the time when some difficultly comes our way and, no matter how bad it is, we say to ourselves: ‘This is from the loving G-d, it must be for some good end.’ We don’t have to be able to explain God’s Providence in detail (which has not been revealed to us) in order to justify or validate our understanding of His Providence in general (which has been revealed to us). Similarly, we know that the soul is not reincarnated. Okay, I can’t explain how this little girl knows just where some woman hid her wallet before she died, but that doesn’t mean that reincarnation exists. It just means that I can’t explain God’s ways in detail.

Besides that, I think a quick look at the history of astronomy can add light to our problem.

It used to be that the greatest minds agreed that the planets moved in circles. The circle is the perfect form and they held it unfitting to the dignity of the celestial bodies to trace any less perfect an orbit. The intellect alone, uninformed by empirical realities which only the eye could reveal, could not begin to fathom the complexity of astronomical phenomena, or the maze of laws and chaos which governs the heavens. How naive their speculations seem to us, who have grown accustomed to checking out the facts before spinning theories.

We ponder the mysteries of Providence with our rational minds. Where sacred tradition guides the way, we can be certain of our knowledge. But when asked to explain the details, where is the eye that can see what is actually going on? We don’t have one. Our speculations are as groundless as those of the ancient philosophers who assigned circular orbits to the heavenly bodies because by the light of reason, unassisted by concrete knowledge, that’s what seemed right. The only intellectually honest thing to say is that the universe of thought and intention in the Divine creative act that forms a soul is at least as complex as the heavens. How can we, who have no concrete knowledge of what really happens there presume to explain the occasional strange phenomenon that arises?

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9

The confession of ignorance is one of the foundations of faith. In the reports of children who remember what they could not have known, we confront our ignorance and are called to that confession of ignorance which places us before the greatness of G-d.

Richard Reinhardt

I just want to extend my appreciation to Richard for this post. Richard has contributed to a number of topics in the past, and I would 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 all are aware, the views represented in this post, or in any future post by a Guest, do not necessarily reflect my own.

K.