Why would God create gay people if God considers it a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Diamandis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Diamandis

Guest
Why is being gay considered a sin if god created people in their own image?
 
Last edited:
Being attracted to the same sex isn’t a sin.

Whether it is biological or psychological in nature, it’s disordered attraction. Disordered attraction is a result of original sin.

God doesn’t “make gay people”. Our sexuality is part of being human, but due to original sin sometimes we have disordered attractions.
 
What I don’t understand is that people who are gay can’t have sex or get married. I just think that denying those things for the rest of someone’s life simply because of their sexual orientation is horrible.
 
That is totally different. Cheating is a choice. Being gay is not.
 
If being gay WAS a sin, it would be, but it isn’t. Having a certain desire isn’t a sin, even if its for something really sick. Only actions are sins and those are always choices.
 
The same sex attraction is disordered. A person is not “disordered”. But his or her appetites might be.
The only appropriate use of our genital sexual faculties is in marriage between a man and a woman, ordered to both unity and procreation.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Sexual expression outside of that, for those who are single whether same or opposite sex attracted, the use of one’s sexual faculties is a sin against the sixth commandment.
 
Diamandis said:
That is totally different. Cheating is a choice. Being gay is not.
Click to expand...
Acting on our sexual appetites is always a choice.

And there is no definitive proof whether same sex attraction is biological, psychological, or a combination of the two. Whether or not it’s something willed or desired, the attraction is disordered. As Church documents say, this is often a great trial for those who suffer SSA.

People with SSA are not sinning by having the attraction. They should be treated with dignity and respect. I’ve linked to a couple of documents.
 
Last edited:
Diamandis said:
What I don’t understand is that people who are gay can’t have sex or get married. I just think that denying those things for the rest of someone’s life simply because of their sexual orientation is horrible.
Click to expand...
Our sexual faculties have a purpose. Using them in ways other than for their purpose is a sin against the sixth commandment. For same and opposite sex attracted people.
 
curiousaboutlife said:
I disagree that its a sin, but i respect your belief. To me a sin is something harmful, unkind, or malicious. None of those describe gay sex, especially between loving couples.
Click to expand...
Sin is an offense against God. There are many sins against God, including many sexual ones. Genital expression outside of marriage between a man and a woman is one. There are also disordered uses of the sexual faculties within marriage.
curiousaboutlife said:
Its certainly not something to be compared with beastiality or pedophilia or rape.
Click to expand...
Those are sexual sins, too. As are adultery, masturbation, contraception, fornication, pornography, and others. There are different kinds and degrees of sexual sins, but they are all sins against the sixth commandment. It’s not a comparison between any two sexual sins. They are all sexual sins.
 
That’s ok, he wrote a lot of it down and established a Church to enlighten any gray areas.
 
curiousaboutlife said:
Isnt eating shrimp a sin?
Click to expand...
No.
curiousaboutlife said:
Im pretty sure its an abomination in the bible along with cutting your hair and working on sunday.
Click to expand...
This is a common misunderstanding regarding ceremonial, disciplinary, civil, and moral law in the Old Testament. They are commingled in the books of the OT, but they are not the same thing.

Just as today the Church also has such disciplinary laws. Some things in canon law are divine law and some are merely ecclesial law. Merely ecclesial laws bind those who are under the authority of the Church. Just as disciplinary laws bind the Jews as far as dietary laws. Those disciplinary laws no longer bind Christians, see the New Testament.

The sin is not inherent in the object, but in disobeying lawful authority— for example abstaining from meat on Fridays of Lent, following canon law on marriage, etc.
curiousaboutlife said:
I think some reconsideration about what is or isnt pratically harmful is needed.
Click to expand...
It isn’t about practicality. It is about the moral law, which is divinely give . The Church’s role is to teach. The Church has no authority or ability to change divine law. Only ecclesial law.
curiousaboutlife said:
I think God is infinitely more displeased with things like racism and greed than something as inconsequential and petty as consensual sex.
Click to expand...
All sin displeases God.
 
Last edited:
Of course you can. So, too, can we respectfully disagree about the age of the Earth, but this does not change the fact that the Earth has an objective age and that other opinions of its age are wrong. In the same manner, sin is sin whether you think it ought to be or not.
 
curiousaboutlife said:
I think God is infinitely more displeased with things like racism and greed than something as inconsequential and petty as consensual sex.
Click to expand...
How would you know racism and greed are bad, anyway? In fact, how do you know “badness” is bad?

There’s nothing “inconsequential” or petty about consensual sex. There’s a larger standard here, that once was explicit and fairly well understood in Western society, regarding the purpose of sex.

Today people are just as moral as they ever were, but their morals are taken out of context, often contradictory.
 
The dietary prohibitions of Leviticus were removed in the book of Acts. There were many ceremonial laws for the Children of Israel. We are not of the Jewish faith, we are Christian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top