Why Did God Create Gays?

[shelby_sun]

Ask a Jew who runs a restaurant or a grocery store. No one expects him to violate his religious convictions while conducting business.

The sin is in the appearance of approval. We must never appear to approve of sin.

Sorry, but IMO that is a stretch at best. With your thinking, isn’t your responsibility for a business person, doctor, policeman to do an extensive background check on who they do business with or who they help so they do not violate their beliefs. When someone thinks as you do they must limit themselves to their “own kind”, which verges on Hitler like.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Ask a Jew who runs a restaurant or a grocery store. No one expects him to violate his religious convictions while conducting business.

But you are expected to conduct business according to the law of the land. And since being gay is a legal identity you cannot exclude them based on your religious convictions.

The sin is in the appearance of approval. We must never appear to approve of sin.

So if a person works for supermarket chain that sells condoms they are approving of the sale of contraceptives? Just because something qualifies as a sin does not mean it qualifies as illegal or that accepting a legal qualification is the same as approval. You are not sinning by taking photos at a gay wedding or selling cup cakes to gay men! That is not a reasonable or practical position i don’t believe the Catholic church argues that selling a service to people who happen to be gay is a sin.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But you are expected to conduct business according to the law of the land. And since being gay is a legal identity you cannot exclude them based on your religious convictions.

But in America, the first amendment protects our religious convictions. Government cannot prevent the free exercise of religion.

So if a person works for supermarket chain that sells condoms they are approving of the sale of contraceptives? Just because something qualifies as a sin does not mean it qualifies as illegal or that accepting a legal qualification is the same as approval. You are not sinning by taking photos at a gay wedding or selling cup cakes to gay men! That is not a reasonable or practical position i don’t believe the Catholic church argues that selling a service to people who happen to be gay is a sin.

If the owner of the supermarket refused to sell condoms he would be entirely within his rights.

Selling wedding cakes to gays or photographing gay weddings are not sins. But a person with deep seated religious convictions who does not want to promote or legitimize a deviant lifestyle …should be able to choose who he serves.

 

[chrisb]

Asexual reproduction in some lower life forms such as bacteria is the fastest way to expand a population. Bacteria or tapeworms are very efficient in this regard. Higher life form which use sexual reproduction, on the other hand, are less efficient at procreation and at expanding their population. They also tend to use sex for other reasons in addition to reproduction such as to strengthen social bonds, for pleasure, etc. Homosexual sexual behavior can be used to strengthen social bonds and for pleasure and this has been documented in humans and in closely related primates such as bonobos, for example. Humans are more evolved than bacteria or tapeworms and sex can be used for more than just one thing.

This seems to presume sex as a means of personal expression. Before the advent of birth-control such a novel understanding of sex would have been problematic because of the consequences of the sexual act itself, that being pregnancy.

Pair-bonding was and continues to be necessary for establishing an emotional and physical dependency between two for the sake of the raising of children in a stable and long lasting relationship between the mother and the father. The fact that modern partners use sex to establish an emotional and physical dependency isn’t making the argument that such is not a misuse of it’s purpose.

A lot of psychological harm is done by the misuse of sex and it’s effects on the emotions of the pair engaged in it.

The fact that same-sex partners engaged in sexual acts can establish pair-bonding doesn’t make the case that such is healthy or normative for our species nor does it make the argument that having a preference toward these acts suggest that God has created such within the species. In fact, for those who are Atheist or Agnostic or who believe in macro-evolution through mutation of our species should find this to be a mutation that would be harmful for the species. Not that I am making their case for them on this matter.

The point is our overly sexual society is pushing us into greater explorations and deviant desires for sexual gratification. Ultimately, I don’t know what this means for the West but I don’t see it as a good sign of our health and well-being as a culture. This is manifesting at the same time that we are exhibiting extremely decadent behavior. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

My 2 cents.

 

[Thorolfr]

But a person with deep seated religious convictions who does not want to promote or legitimize a deviant lifestyle …should be able to choose who he serves.

What if someone has a deep seated religious conviction that black people are inferior to white people and he does not want to serve black people? Or perhaps he has a deep seated conviction that white people should not marry black people, so should he have the right to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

 

[cena]

All of these statement mean nothing to anyone unless they are Catholic or are educated in Catholic doctrine and knows how to “speak Catholic”. Infertile sex within a marriage is of course “conjugal” since “conjugal” just means “relating to marriage or to a married couple” (Merriam-Webster). And what does it mean that infertile sex is not procreative but is “ordered to it”? It’s either procreative or it’s not procreative. The phrase “ordered to it” would have no meaning except to someone steeped in Catholic doctrine.

Mutual masturbation between two legally married gay men would of course be “conjugal” since by definition it would be “relating to marriage or to a married couple.” Unless, of course, it is stated that two gay men cannot have a real marriage which is totally dependent on the special Catholic definition of marriage which states that their marriage is not legitimate.

An infertile couple is participating in an act that is designed for procreation.
catholic.org/news/hf/family/story.php?id=50864
"
Infertile couples have the right to marriage because they have the capacity to perform the conjugal act that is naturally ordered to procreation, even if it can’t lead to procreation for reasons unintended by them.
"
Humans that can’t have babies, but still can participate the natural way can marry.

Heterosexual sex is ordered to procreation is it not? Humans have a natural instinct to have sex to reproduce. Obviously some choose to see it as merely pleasure.

Humans have a natural instinct to eat to sustain themselves. Does that mean it’s bad to eat food because it tastes good? No But There were people that saw it as merely as pleasure and forced themselves to throw even when they were full just so they could eat more. They were missing the most important part of eating.

Homosexual actions are not naturally ordered to this. What are homosexual actions ordered to? What is the goal?

What is marriage? Please define it

 

[cena]

What if someone has a deep seated religious conviction that black people are inferior to white people and he does not want to serve black people? Or perhaps he has a deep seated conviction that white people should not marry black people, so should he have the right to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

Race isn’t the same as sex. A mixed couple is still a man and a woman, race won’t make their relations unnatural or stop them from procreating. Even if the individual couple could not produce children, mixed couples in general can produce children naturally whereas two people engaging in homosexual relations will never produce a child naturally

 

[Thorolfr]

Race isn’t the same as sex.

That’s not the point. Zoltan was objecting to the fact that someone would be forced to violate a deep seated religious conviction. Racism, as abhorrent as I think it is, might be a part of someone’s religious convictions. They might believe that black people are descended from Ham and are under the Curse of Ham. If that is the case, should they be forced to serve black people?

 

[cena]

The problem with this is it’s a big world out there. Not everyone agrees with your beliefs and views. And that even includes many Christians. Not everyone shares your particular faith. The world is made up of many people. All created by God… All God’s children… nonetheless with different views, beliefs and faiths. With different life experiences. We do not walk in others’ shoes to be able to see within the depths of their hearts and consciences. One believes chocolate is the best flavor. Another vanilla. Someone else strawberry.

Now sure if one believes it’s strawberry, they could try to restrain the chocolate lover and force strawberry down their throat all they want. And the chocolate lover might even sometimes enjoy strawberry. But if you’re continuously forcing strawberry down their throat, you risk your tactics becoming counterproductive and the chocolate lover ending up resenting strawberry and not having any further taste for strawberry at all.

I already hear the cries of relativism coming. But it’s not. As we shall truly know with certainty soon enough which flavor has, if any one flavor truly does, all the correct ingredients in one bowl. In the meantime it’s simply being able to accept reality that not everyone on this earth we share with each other, shares the same faith and beliefs and views.

And foremost to keep in mind, it’s a very short distance and doesn’t take much of a leap at all, before we could 'find ourselves beyond “admonishing” and instead finding ourselves looking thru our own plank ridden eyes and casting stones.

I think you have to baptized or have baptism of desire(look up more if you don’t know what it ish to be one of God’s children, it’s not just anyone. We are all God’s creation, but only the Christians are God’s children.

There are absolute moral truths, if people disagree with that they are wrong. Two people can’t have two completely views on truth and be right. If someone thought rape was okay would we say “well we can’t force our morals on them they have different views.” No, because rape is always wrong. The individual committing it is wrong

Before you start complaining that I’m calling homosexuals rapists, I have tried using other examples (including lying, polygamy, etc.) and people tried to justify those actions. If I don’t use an extreme examples you are just going to focus on trying to find a loophole instead of focusing on my point.

We aren’t casting stones at particular people we are saying a behavior is wrong.

No they are not saying chocolate or strawberry is better, that metaphor has nothing to do with this, a better metaphor would be they like to eat gasoline even though they were not biologically designed to do so. But they like it so we have no right to oppose it

 

[cena]

That’s not the point. Zoltan was objecting to the fact that someone would be forced to violate a deep seated religious conviction. Racism, as abhorrent as I think it is, might be a part of someone’s religious convictions. They might believe that black people are descended from Ham and are under the Curse of Ham. If that is the case, should they be forced to serve black people?

The problem with business being sued is because they won’t cater for certain events. Refusing to bake a cake for two homosexuals who want to have a wedding is not the same as refusing to serve a homosexual an ice cream cone.

They are discriminating an event, they aren’t flat out refusing to serve people at all because they engage in bad behavior.

 

[Thorolfr]

Homosexual actions are not naturally ordered to this. What are homosexual actions ordered to? What is the goal?

Sex can also be used to create or strengthen an emotional bond, so sex between two men could be “ordered to” strengthening that bond.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Race isn’t the same as sex. A mixed couple is still a man and a woman, race won’t make their relations unnatural or stop them from procreating. Even if the individual couple could not produce children, mixed couples in general can produce children naturally whereas two people engaging in homosexual relations will never produce a child naturally

I am not of the opinion that the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage is homophobic because homosexuality is an ideology with no a-prior justification. But refusing to serve a homosexual couple, at a restaurant for example, is to me true homophobia and is just as prejudice as refusing to serve a mixed couple. There is no justification.

 

[frobert]

I am not of the opinion that the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage is homophobic because homosexuality is an ideology with no a-prior justification. But refusing to serve a homosexual couple, at a restaurant for example, is to me true homophobia and is just as prejudice as refusing to serve a mixed couple. There is no justification.

Where did the idea that homosexuality is a ideology?

 

[cena]

I am not of the opinion that the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage is homophobic because homosexuality is an ideology with no a-prior justification. But refusing to serve a homosexual couple, at a restaurant for example, is to me true homophobia and is just as prejudice as refusing to serve a mixed couple. There is no justification.

If it’s just at a restaurant (not baking a cake for a homosexual “wedding”) then it’s probably fine to serve them.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What if someone has a deep seated religious conviction that black people are inferior to white people and he does not want to serve black people? Or perhaps he has a deep seated conviction that white people should not marry black people, so should he have the right to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

I can’t think of any recognized religion that teaches such things.

 

[ChainBreaker]

If it’s just at a restaurant (not baking a cake for a homosexual “wedding”) then it’s probably fine to serve them.

Probably? Is this really about morality is it more about self-righteous disgust? Why would baking a cake for a wedding that happens to be homosexual in nature be wrong? If a couple comes to your shop to buy a cake for their wedding why would that be a sin? There is nothing wrong with loving thy gay neighbour. It is not the same thing as supporting homosexuality.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That’s not the point. Zoltan was objecting to the fact that someone would be forced to violate a deep seated religious conviction. Racism, as abhorrent as I think it is, might be a part of someone’s religious convictions. They might believe that black people are descended from Ham and are under the Curse of Ham. If that is the case, should they be forced to serve black people?

You have gone ridiculous now.

A reasonable black person would NOT want to be served by someone who believed such things.

Next you will suggest that the KKK is violating civil rights by not extending membership to Black Men…???

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am not of the opinion that the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage is homophobic because homosexuality is an ideology with no a-prior justification. But refusing to serve a homosexual couple, at a restaurant for example, is to me true homophobia and is just as prejudice as refusing to serve a mixed couple. There is no justification.

By “mixed couple” you mean a man and a woman…of course. That is really the only difference between people.

 

[Thorolfr]

I can’t think of any recognized religion that teaches such things.

That’s just because racism is no longer considered acceptable (although it’s still alive and well under the surface). If we went back a century and a half, we could probably find many people in the US who thought that there racist views were all in accord with their Christian religion.

 

[cena]

Probably? Is this really about morality is it more about self-righteous disgust? Why would baking a cake for a wedding that happens to be homosexual in nature be wrong? If a couple comes to your shop to buy a cake for their wedding why would that be a sin? There is nothing wrong with loving thy gay neighbour. It is not the same thing as supporting homosexuality.

If they are kissing or something that could be scandalous.

If I bake them a cake for their so called wedding, then I am condoning the “wedding” then I am condoning the sexual activity in this union, and condoning it would be wrong

If I baked a cake for the wedding of someone who was married in the Church, got a civil divorce and remarried then that would be condoning it, and condoning that would be wrong. This principle goes with any unlawful wedding (like a Protestant and a Catholic getting married in a Protestant community)