If homosexuality is contrary to natural law, then why did God create people that way?

[Frankenfurter]

I believe we can take out the particular reference to homosexuality, and simply replace the word with sin. Sin is counter to natural law, but of course it exists in creation.

So may I change your question to the more general case?

Sin is said to be a violation of natural law. Natural law is a part of Gods will and God cannot go against his will.

So how would it be possible for him to create Sin without violating his nature?

We have to also understand that sin has consequences. And those consequences have actually affected all of nature itself. Nature has been altered by sin. A person can be born having inherited the consequences of sin. This is our reality as creatures of God’s creation while having freedom of will to act outside of natural law.

Some folks focus in on homosexuality like it is a special kind of sin. But we are all sinners. And we are all affected by sin. Homosexuality is just one of many ways that we fall. We are all sinners. Please remember that and follow Jesus’ commands to not judge sinners and instead feel compassion for them, and God will have mercy with you as well. Jesus came for sinners. That was all of us, not just some.

As soon as God gave us free will and the ability to alter creation outside of natural law, he created the possibility for sin. I pray that it was worth it. He must know that it was. Jesus really did correct for our sins. This is deep stuff. It means that we can have faith in the cross of Christ, and that our free will enables us to be forgiven and feel God’s love for us, which is what we have been created for.

 

[Nonatheist]

Even as a Christan(Which l am not), l have no reason to accept natural law theory, as it’s a philosophical position, not a revelation.

 

[rom]

l will ask one question here, if sexual activity is there only for reproduction and not bonding, would it be immoral?
Is reproduction more important than bonding? My opinion on this is that sex has two main reasons for existing, reproduction and bonding. Neither is more important,

I said in Post 269 that sex has a double purpose: propagation of species and bonding. Even old couples who are past the stage of reproduction must keep their sexual union open to the transmission of new life

There is a difference between have a bias(having a goal) and being politically biased.
It’s common for both sides to twist or even lie, that’s why scientific papers hold more worth.

Even scientists are sometimes politically biased, so don’t assume that a paper is immune from political bias just because it is scientific. There are scientists who publish an opinion to promote a political agenda in order to get funding for their so-called “research.” In fact, some scientists also lost their grants just because they stood for their principles and told the truth. I will not name names, but that is the reality.

That site also promotes the idea that homosexually oriented people can change. As someone with SSA, let me assure you, it’s not as easy as all that.

I agree. I believe, though, that homosexually oriented people can change, although very difficult. In a way SSA is like an addiction in the sense that it is so difficult to quit, so difficult that some homosexuals begin to feel that they have no choice. But they do have a choice and need to pray.

 

[StudentMI]

I agree. I believe, though, that homosexually oriented people can change, although very difficult. In a way SSA is like an addiction in the sense that it is so difficult to quit, so difficult that some homosexuals begin to feel that they have no choice. But they do have a choice and need to pray.

? I’m not in the lifestyle if you mean that. As for the attraction, I don’t feel it’s an addiction. It’s just how I am.

Are people created this way? I don’t know. I feel God gave me this cross for a reason. But even if we are born this way it can be explained the same as cancer: a result of the fall. I don’t know why people are so resistant to that.

 

[StudentMI]

Although I guess you can play the ‘fallen world’ card now. In which case your argument doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t hold to that but only to Catholics. You might as well just say ‘the Catholic church thinks it’s wrong’ and be done with it.

You’re really skirting being offensive here.

 

[Nonatheist]

Why would it be moral for an older couple who don’t take care of kids, to have sex?
When, 1, They can’t reproduce, 2. No one benefits from this but themself.

True, but it’s rare. When l read a article from scientific paper, it has much higher chance to be unbiased/more true than a paper from political news sources.(Some are good and unbiased, but most are)

People changing sexuality on purpose doesn’t work. It may have worked for person or two, but generally it doesn’t.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Although I guess you can play the ‘fallen world’ card now. In which case your argument doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t hold to that but only to Catholics. You might as well just say ‘the Catholic church thinks it’s wrong’ and be done with it.

You’re really skirting being offensive here.

My apologies if you thought it was offensive. I am simply trying to indicate that the majority of the arguments being given apply only to those who are Catholics. An argument that uses original sin as it’s basis literally makes no sense to anyone who doesn’t hold to that concept. And if you’re Catholic there wouldn’t be a need to use that argument.

So it beats me why it’s used. It’s either irrelevant or superfluous.

 

[Freddy]

I said in Post 269 that sex has a double purpose: propagation of species and bonding. Even old couples who are past the stage of reproduction must keep their sexual union open to the transmission of new life.

I understand the Catholic view of contraception. And that some versions of it (NFP) are acceptable. Because you are still ‘open to the transmission of new life’.

But do you honestly want someone like myself to think that my wife and I must from a practical sense be ‘open to the transmission of new life’ when she is well past her child bearing days, has has a hysterectomy and I ha e had a vasectomy? And neither of us are Catholics (both atheists actually).

And this is a serious question. Do you really think that argument holds any water whatsoever as far as we are concerned?

 

[JMMJ]

I can’t speak for Lara, but maybe you should consider the possibility that Lara’s comment reflect a concern for neighbor, specifically their souls.

Fat chance.

 

[rom]

That lips are used to show affection is just the point I made. They are not made as a tool for affection.

And how did you know that for sure, may I ask? Millions of people since time immemorial have used their lips to show affection, and you tell me that lips weren’t designed for that purpose also?

And as for our sexual organs being given to us for procreation within marriage, you might note that we’ve had these organs for a few million years.

Humans have not been on this planet for a million years.

A very long time indeed before the concept of marriage was proposed.

Marriage was natural and existed with us from the beginning of humanity. Legal marriage came when political order was established. It was the sacrament of matrimony that came last, when Christ established it.

Are people created this way? I don’t know. I feel God gave me this cross for a reason. But even if we are born this way it can be explained the same as cancer: a result of the fall. I don’t know why people are so resistant to that.

A massive study published in Scientific American says that a single genetic cause for homosexuality is hard to find. See Link.. I am therefore more inclined to think like you do, that it is a cross that you need to bear. After all, we all have a cross to carry, whether we were born with it or not. But any kind of disorder in us is the result of original sin. You see, there was a triple order before the fall of Adam and Eve. Prior to their sin (now called Original Sin), there was harmony (1) between man and God, (2)between man and all of creation, and (3) between man’s body and soul. The first means that Adam and Eve were friends with God, the second means that they were friends with all the animals and all of nature, and the third means that within themselves there was also order: their passions were subject to reason, and their reason to God. After the fall, all the orders were ruined. We lost our friendship with God, with nature, and the harmony within us - between body and soul. This last means that our passions now sometimes overwhelm us, so that we do what we know we are not supposed to do. Concupiscence , or our inclination to sin, is the result of Original Sin.

 

[Nonatheist]

This has nothing with people using it. If it was, that l could just say in recorded history millions of people used sex for more reasons than means of production.

No, ‘humans’ as homo sapiens existed for about 500.000 years. Over all, all homo species existed for much longer.

 

[Thorolfr]

StudentMI:

That site also promotes the idea that homosexually oriented people can change. As someone with SSA, let me assure you, it’s not as easy as all that.

I agree. I believe, though, that homosexually oriented people can change, although very difficult. In a way SSA is like an addiction in the sense that it is so difficult to quit, so difficult that some homosexuals begin to feel that they have no choice. But they do have a choice and need to pray.

So called SSA is probably no more “like an addiction” than what opposite sex attraction (OSA) is “like an addiction.” Sexual orientation is not a type of addiction. I agree that it’s difficult to quit being gay, just like it’s difficult to quit being straight.

 

[rom]

But do you honestly want someone like myself to think that my wife and I must from a practical sense be ‘open to the transmission of new life’ when she is well past her child bearing days, has has a hysterectomy and I ha e had a vasectomy? And neither of us are Catholics (both atheists actually).

And this is a serious question. Do you really think that argument holds any water whatsoever as far as we are concerned?

If you already had vasectomy, and she is past child-bearing age, then what else is your problem? As long as you are not performing a sexual act for the sole purpose of pleasure without love, then your act is moral. Sexual pleasure is good, and it is a means toward the end of encouraging sexual procreation and bonding. It has the same relationship between the conductor’s baton and the music. If sexual procreation is no longer an attainable goal and there is also no affection to attain bonding, then any sexual activity you perform just for the sake of pleasure, is like the act of a musical conductor who concentrates solely on his baton and forgets about the music. That is a disorder right there. So, to keep yourself in good standing before God (whether you believe in His existence or not), enjoy the sex but simultaneously love your wife.

So called SSA is probably no more “like an addiction” than what opposite sex attraction (OSA) is “like an addiction.” Sexual orientation is not a type of addiction. I agree that it’s difficult to quit being gay, just like it’s difficult to quit being straight.

I am not calling SSA an addiction. I am only saying that it is like an addiction in the sense that it is difficult to get rid of it. Also, I don’t think anybody would want to quit being straight, just as nobody would want to quit being healthy. We can lose our health, yes, but often due to carelessness, but not because we purposely want to be unhealthy. And that is the same thing with being straight.

Well, gentlemen, I will be out for a while now. I hope I clarified a few issues. Have a great evening!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That lips are used to show affection is just the point I made. They are not made as a tool for affection.

And how did you know that for sure, may I ask? Millions of people since time immemorial have used their lips to show affection, and you tell me that lips weren’t designed for that purpose also?

Mmm. So parts of the body can be used to show affection and give pleasure as well as being used for the purpose which they serve. I’m glad you have accepted that at last

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But do you honestly want someone like myself to think that my wife and I must from a practical sense be ‘open to the transmission of new life’ when she is well past her child bearing days, has has a hysterectomy and I ha e had a vasectomy? And neither of us are Catholics (both atheists actually).

And this is a serious question. Do you really think that argument holds any water whatsoever as far as we are concerned?

If you already had vasectomy, and she is past child-bearing age, then what else is your problem? As long as you are not performing a sexual act for the sole purpose of pleasure without love, then your act is moral.

If sexual procreation is no longer an attainable goal and there is also no affection to attain bonding, then any sexual activity you perform just for the sake of pleasure, is like the act of a musical conductor who concentrates solely on his baton and forgets about the music. That is a disorder right there. So, to keep yourself in good standing before God (whether you believe in His existence or not), enjoy the sex but simultaneously love your wife.

So the first part of your argument applies to gay couples as well. As long as the sex they are having is not simply for pleasure without love then they are ok as well. If they love each other then they can use it for bonding. Just as my wife and myself do.

They can, as you say, simultaneously love their partner and enjoy the sex.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It is not how many who are saying it, but the credibility of the people and reasons they cite that count.

That’s wrong a good sample size is important.