Why would god make someone?

[chrysostim83]

There’s no telling why God makes some people gay, but there is a lot of room for reasonable conjecture. For instance, it could be that the experience of same sex attractions is a side effect of an essentially good characteristic which God wills some people to have. One such characteristic might be the personality trait of being more easily perfected through close friendships than marriage, for it is not difficult to imagine how this trait could lead (in a world and culture such as ours) to the experience of same sex attractions. If this is the case, then it would be good for gay men and women to pursue chastity in celibacy, since chastity is so closely linked with friendship. While this is a totally unsubstantiated conjecture, it seems worthwhile to keep it in mind, since it shows how God could make people gay and at the same time turn around and expect them to live up to and be perfected by the demands of His moral law.

 

[roysheehan]

There’s no telling why God makes some people gay, but there is a lot of room for reasonable conjecture. For instance, it could be that the experience of same sex attractions is a side effect of an essentially good characteristic which God wills some people to have. One such characteristic might be the personality trait of being more easily perfected through close friendships than marriage, for it is not difficult to imagine how this trait could lead (in a world and culture such as ours) to the experience of same sex attractions. If this is the case, then it would be good for gay men and women to pursue chastity in celibacy, since chastity is so closely linked with friendship. While this is a totally unsubstantiated conjecture, it seems worthwhile to keep it in mind, since it shows how God could make people gay and at the same time turn around and expect them to live up to and be perfected by the demands of His moral law.

Chrysostim, I believe what you say is substantiated fact of Holy Scripture, all humanity is called to moral obedience which is at war with the flesh according to Saint Paul, whose credibility far outweighs any scientific research findings.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There’s no telling why God makes some people gay, but there is a lot of room for reasonable conjecture. For instance, it could be that the experience of same sex attractions is a side effect of an essentially good characteristic which God wills some people to have.

Following up this thought…

When we say that we are attracted to someone, what are we saying? If we are merely saying that we find them beautiful, then why should men only find women beautiful? If anything, this is an unreasonable expectation imposed by culture. If you go back through history, you will find many many “straight” men calling other men handsome or beautiful.

The problem with modern culture is this: it sexualizes any attraction. No wonder boys become confused when they find themselves attracted to other males. Our society codes this behavior, calling it a “sexual orientation”. Those boys who repress this feeling often overcompensate by expressing disgust at other men who look good; those boys who don’t repress struggle with “sexual identity”.

Perhaps the virtue associated with being in the latter category – and thus being more prone to self-identify as “gay” – is connected to aesthetic honesty?

 

[roysheehan]

Following up this thought…

When we say that we are attracted to someone, what are we saying? If we are merely saying that we find them beautiful, then why should men only find women beautiful?

There is a very simple and useful litmus test which defines ‘gay’ attraction man to man and it is ‘sexual arousal’. When a man finds himself sexually aroused over the appearance of another man then there is no doubt that his arousal is gay. Attraction to another man that is not gay is called admiration and us caused by personality characteristics that one finds desirable as the same characteristics [of character] that a man wants to obtain and so sexual arousal over the ‘person’ of another man is the litmus test. Admiring another man’s character is healthy, normal and in fact desired when that character is marked with the faith of Christ. This same litmus test can be used to determine “lust” from man to woman, as it is through ‘sexual arousal’ when gazing at a woman is what attraction is not suppose to be about, rather man should use the same criteria with men and women in fact admiring character traits that identify with Christ. Sexual arousal is that which defines a Sacramental Marriage in the Catholic faith as the means to procreation with God and is the only acceptable place to express it as prescribed by Catechism.

 

[roysheehan]

“A recent study suggests linkage between a mother’s genetic make-up and homosexuality of her sons. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is “switched off”. The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases though, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. Bocklandt et al. (2006) reported that, in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.[17]”

Dear Ethical Honest, No one to date who works in medical science can make the claim that they have received "direct revelation’ revelation from God which proves that the findings of medical science are not credible. Saint Paul of Scripture however can and does make the claim of “direct revelation” from God furthermore proved his assertions through signs and wonders and his subsequent Martyrdom. Saint Paul is the most credible source of “what God intended” when he made man [and woman] and Saint Paul says that the spirit of man is at war with his flesh which means that we all are in constant effort to prevent our “desires of the flesh” from super-cedeing what is morally in constancy with all that God has expressed as Holy, right and just in morality with the Commands and Church Doctrine as ordained by Christ whom Saint Paul represented in truth. Saint Paul specifically named and condemned homosexuality as a evil and wicked act in defiance of God’s will.

 

[Ruthie_again]

I just read a post in AAA by Michelle Arnold; it was about a different subject, but I believe she answers the “why” very well.

“God knows all that will happen because he is omniscient, but that does not mean that he actively causes everything to happen, if we mean by that that he hurls geese into planes, planes into buildings, and storms into cities. Sometimes events happen simply because it is either a matter of human free will or within the possibility of the nature of creation or created beings.”

I believe the science on SSA has neither shown that SSA is congenital, nor that is is not. We do not have an answer to the question, “Nature, or nurture?”

I have had many homosexual friends. Some always knew they were different; others’ stories indicate to me that they were “nurtured” into it, by being “seduced” at a young age by a predator.

Choice comes into it as temptation. As with all temptations, the choice is whether or not to resist it. It may be natural for a homosexual to desire someone of the same sex, but that doesn’t mean he/she is forced to have sex with them.

The culture of death is constantly presenting us with temptations. Prodigal Son got it exactly right: “The problem with modern culture is this: it sexualizes any attraction.” (it even sexualizes food!)

It also sells us moral relativity, by saying that all questions of ethics are just a matter of personal choice.

Ruthie

 

[ethical_honesty]

Dear Ethical Honest, No one to date who works in medical science can make the claim that they have received "direct revelation’ revelation from God which proves that the findings of medical science are not credible. Saint Paul of Scripture however can and does make the claim of “direct revelation” from God furthermore proved his assertions through signs and wonders and his subsequent Martyrdom. Saint Paul is the most credible source of “what God intended” when he made man [and woman] and Saint Paul says that the spirit of man is at war with his flesh which means that we all are in constant effort to prevent our “desires of the flesh” from super-cedeing what is morally in constancy with all that God has expressed as Holy, right and just in morality with the Commands and Church Doctrine as ordained by Christ whom Saint Paul represented in truth. Saint Paul specifically named and condemned homosexuality as a evil and wicked act in defiance of God’s will.

But Roy therein lies the beauty of science, it does not require personal “revelations” from God which can be misconstrued or abused for some individuals arbitrary desires. Medical science relies on rigourous, unbiased, double-blind testing on naturally occurring biological phenomena. It is built around a culture that is constantly seeking to refine and adjust scientific ideas as better, more reliable data emerges. In this way, over time, tangible results come out. These results are not based on blind faith, they are based on actual zero-bias evidence. It is by using this system that diseases such as chicken pox, diphtheria and polio (to name just a few) have been eradicated as a threat to human life (at least in the West). Indeed, with the aid of medical science and improved sanitation our average life expectancy has risen from 47.3 years in 1900 to 77.85 years in 2000 (those figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau). We need to have much greater support for medical researchers if we are to truly save lives. With enough funding and very hard work, it is a very real prospect that we will be able to find a cure for most forms of cancer and AIDS in the next decade or two.

Apologies if I deviated a little from the topic of this thread there, but I believe the above points are very important to bear in mind. It is not acceptable to have such little support for medical science when it can save so many lives. It will no doubt save us at some point in our lives. Perhaps it has already saved some of you.

 

[roysheehan]

But Roy therein lies the beauty of science, it does not require personal “revelations” from God which can be misconstrued or abused for some individuals arbitrary desires.

Ethical honesty, I would not call it the beauty of science, I would call it the hit and miss of science. No science to date has proven itself absolute in integrity. Within the scientific community are those who “slant” their findings to “prove” what they want to prove and then some time later another scientist comes along and disproves what is proven. This has been the history of science since man first became aware of his curiosity to “figure” it out with methodology.

The true beauty is in the Word of God and the Word of God made flesh which “cannot” be misinterpreted if you are Catholic as we have what is known as “infallible” doctrine. Perhaps you are not Catholic. God has already revealed to mankind what his intentions are so we do not need science to tell us what we already know.

Science is merely a means for curious people to stay busy and stay funded and to falsely claim themselves as authoritative when very few actually pay attention to them except those who make their living on selling scientific findings or being funded for the research. There is relatively little in science that has not or will not be dis-proven by a brainier scientist. This is the fallacy of science.

What is evident in Divine Revelation is that it cannot be dis-proven as the Creator of the entire Universe reveals to us what he did and why he did it. Science will never be able to make that statement, not in our lifetime, not in any lifetime. Even God Himself in the Holy Scriptures calls us to pray for our “scientists” so that they don’t by accident make us sicker that we already are.

 

[proteus]

God does not create people deliberately inflicting them with disorders of any kind. He allows the natural process of generation he created to go on according to natural law. .

But God, as the creator of those laws, must take responsibility for the consequences of them.

In this universe, we are subject to a force we call gravity, are we not? God, being the creator of gravity, could not punish us for succumbing to gravity, as you say he should.

And if he did, he’d be no God of mine.

 

[roysheehan]

But God, as the creator of those laws, must take responsibility for the consequences of them.

In this universe, we are subject to a force we call gravity, are we not? God, being the creator of gravity, could not punish us for succumbing to gravity, as you say he should.

And if he did, he’d be no God of mine.

In case you did not know, God did take responsibility for the faults of mankind when he sacrificed his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, to Redeem man for totally disobeying what God instructed them to do. God is not the one who disobeyed his own Commands, man disobeyed every Command ever written, then blamed God for their own faulted behaviour and thinking. I would say man [and woman] are the fickle creatures and quite ungrateful as well while God is immensely forgiving and kind toward all his creation.

 

[proteus]

In case you did not know, God did take responsibility for the faults of mankind when he sacrificed his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, to Redeem man for totally disobeying what God instructed them to do. God is not the one who disobeyed his own Commands, man disobeyed every Command ever written, then blamed God for their own faulted behaviour and thinking. I would say man [and woman] are the fickle creatures and quite ungrateful as well while God is immensely forgiving and kind toward all his creation.

But the faults of mankind are the faults of God himself. As you say, God is the creator. Creator of the fundamental laws which govern our existence, and the existence of every body and particle in the universe. That being the case, God cannot punish those whom he inserted into HIS environment for being subject to the laws he made.

Moreover, God, being omnipotent, surely knew what was in store when he put these laws into place. He knew that the creatures he made would often live in opposition to the laws he handed down, but created them anyway. This is tantamount to creating a society of people with the intention of condemning them to “hell” for not living according to his law, when in the beginning he knew they wouldn’t anyway.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There is a very simple and useful litmus test which defines ‘gay’ attraction man to man and it is ‘sexual arousal’. When a man finds himself sexually aroused over the appearance of another man then there is no doubt that his arousal is gay. Attraction to another man that is not gay is called admiration and us caused by personality characteristics that one finds desirable as the same characteristics [of character] that a man wants to obtain and so sexual arousal over the ‘person’ of another man is the litmus test. Admiring another man’s character is healthy, normal and in fact desired when that character is marked with the faith of Christ. This same litmus test can be used to determine “lust” from man to woman, as it is through ‘sexual arousal’ when gazing at a woman is what attraction is not suppose to be about, rather man should use the same criteria with men and women in fact admiring character traits that identify with Christ. Sexual arousal is that which defines a Sacramental Marriage in the Catholic faith as the means to procreation with God and is the only acceptable place to express it as prescribed by Catechism.

Roy,

I’ve thought a lot about this since you posted it. You’ve said some very sensible in this conversation, but I disagree with the above analysis. Nevertheless, I very much respect the analysis, because I think you have some helpful ways of thinking about things.

Admiring another person’s character is healthy and normal, in all circumstances; there we agree. You talk about “sexual arousal” as a litmus test for “gay” attraction. This is unclear, however: are you saying that any person aroused by a person of the same sex is gay? This is clearly false. But then again, I don’t think it was what you meant.

Still, I want to say that sexual arousal outside of marriage is not an guarantee of sin, nor of lust. Sure, the two things often go together, but not always. One may find oneself aroused, and seek to get out of the situation, or simply exert mental and physical self-control. Sexual desire is a good thing, and it is something that is involved in many different relationships, to positive effect. A young woman is likely to be deeply affected by an attractive young priest who preaches about his love for God, partially because of the sexual feelings involved. A beautiful and virtuous female teacher can effectively model the traits of a good wife to her male students, whose attention to her has a sexual component. Human beings are sexual beings, and this can be a force of tremendous good in our lives!

Now of course “sexual awareness” is not “sexual arousal”. But if a person happens to get aroused, then so what? Involuntary reactions are not blameworthy. And if a person happens to get aroused by a person of the same sex, so what? That’s not being gay; that’s being human. As I said before, we force these things into our own categories, which make them self-fulfilling prophecies.

Blessings,
Prodigal

 

[Brendan]

Why would God make someone with SSA?

For the same reason He makes all of us. To love and serve Him in this world, and be with Him in the next.

We all have particular crosses we have to bear. All those are simply opportunities to rely on God to overcome them.

It is a recognition that we are to love God, and not love the cross. Many, many people choose to love the cross, be it pornography, addictions, materialism, and yes SSA.

But that is not why we were given the cross to bear in the first place. He knows we cannot bear it on our own, but stands ready to give us the Grace to make our burden light. If only we seek Him instead.

 

[BobObob]

Roy,

I’ve thought a lot about this since you posted it. You’ve said some very sensible in this conversation, but I disagree with the above analysis. Nevertheless, I very much respect the analysis, because I think you have some helpful ways of thinking about things.

Admiring another person’s character is healthy and normal, in all circumstances; there we agree. You talk about “sexual arousal” as a litmus test for “gay” attraction. This is unclear, however: are you saying that any person aroused by a person of the same sex is gay? This is clearly false. But then again, I don’t think it was what you meant.

Still, I want to say that sexual arousal outside of marriage is not an guarantee of sin, nor of lust. Sure, the two things often go together, but not always. One may find oneself aroused, and seek to get out of the situation, or simply exert mental and physical self-control. Sexual desire is a good thing, and it is something that is involved in many different relationships, to positive effect. A young woman is likely to be deeply affected by an attractive young priest who preaches about his love for God, partially because of the sexual feelings involved. A beautiful and virtuous female teacher can effectively model the traits of a good wife to her male students, whose attention to her has a sexual component. Human beings are sexual beings, and this can be a force of tremendous good in our lives!

Now of course “sexual awareness” is not “sexual arousal”. But if a person happens to get aroused, then so what? Involuntary reactions are not blameworthy. And if a person happens to get aroused by a person of the same sex, so what? That’s not being gay; that’s being human. As I said before, we force these things into our own categories, which make them self-fulfilling prophecies.

Blessings,
Prodigal

I believe that what defines one’s sexual orientation is their primary sexual attraction and arousal. If one person is more consistently sexually aroused by seeing and thinking about the body of someone of the opposite sex, then they are by definition heterosexual. If one person is more consistently sexually aroused by seeing and thinking about the body of someone of the opposite sex, then they are by definition heterosexual.

This would be unless I got the definitions of the sexual orientations heterosexual and homosexual wrong.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

But the faults of mankind are the faults of God himself. As you say, God is the creator. Creator of the fundamental laws which govern our existence, and the existence of every body and particle in the universe. That being the case, God cannot punish those whom he inserted into HIS environment for being subject to the laws he made.

Moreover, God, being omnipotent, surely knew what was in store when he put these laws into place. He knew that the creatures he made would often live in opposition to the laws he handed down, but created them anyway. This is tantamount to creating a society of people with the intention of condemning them to “hell” for not living according to his law, when in the beginning he knew they wouldn’t anyway.

God created man and woman to live in the Garden of Paradise then Commanded them to obey. When man and woman disobeyed, God banished them from the Garden and consigned them to disobedience so that God could have mercy on them. As man and woman continually sinned, God sent Jesus Christ to suffer and die for the sins of man and woman. God Himself did not sin, man and woman sinned and still do. Of course God knew through his omnipotence that man and woman would sin from their free will which God gave them as a gift and so God created Jesus Christ to redeem mankind from his own sins even though God did not sin nor did Jesus Christ.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

I believe that what defines one’s sexual orientation is their primary sexual attraction and arousal. If one person is more consistently sexually aroused by seeing and thinking about the body of someone of the opposite sex, then they are by definition heterosexual. If one person is more consistently sexually aroused by seeing and thinking about the body of someone of the opposite sex, then they are by definition heterosexual.

This would be unless I got the definitions of the sexual orientations heterosexual and homosexual wrong.

Bob Obob, Yes it is true that sexual arousal is what defines homo as well as hetero sexuality. What I am trying to point out is that a healthy relationship with any person should not be based solely on sexual arousal as this premise would create a false basis for the relationship if it is used as the only criteria for establishing or developing the relationship. Suppose we do for the sake of defining an attraction configure sexual arousal as the primary and only reason for a relationship, then we are behaving as animals do as they couple based on arousal. Men and woman also have what are called ‘human characteristics" which are either attractive or unattractive. A relationship with either man or woman must be based primarily on the human characteristics or any sexual relationship would not possible be “faithful” as sexual arousal could easily lead us to become aroused about anybody and so become "promiscuous’ in our attitude toward relationships. To achieve a “single partner” relationship, one must establish that relationship from a “character admiration” point of view. If sexual arousal is the only means we use to deciding “who” we remain with, even for a while, the arousal is lost when we become aroused by some other form of flesh in either man or woman and become what customarily is known as a “whore” who lusts after flesh of any sort. Even if we make admiration of personal characteristics the primary deciding factor for a relationship, it stands to reason then that there can be no justification for homosexuality as the desired relationship as it basically does not work in the context of bodily function as the human parts do not fit or work together to create anything of substantial value. Heterosexuality combined with admiration of human characteristics on the other hand promotes creativity and compliments the human person.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

As I understand it the church believes that same sex attractions are not sinful in themselves but the homosexual “act”.

Okaay… sooo having said that does that mean that the church aknowledges that there are homosexual people who can’t help in who they’re attracted to?
because that’s how they were born…
and they expect them to remain celibate?

Finally or ultimately the question comes to…

Why would God make someone gay?

I’ve heard two different opinions on homosexuality expressed by two people I respect. The first was my old Protestant pastor whose opinion was “Homosexuals are made, not born”.

On the other hand there was a bloke in our church who had a significant role in a Catholic homosexual support group, and he told me “It’s built in! There’s nothng you can do about it!” He himself was homosexual and had a nervous breakdown over it. He was celibate as far as I know.

Secondly I grew up near a kid who, the last I heard was a homosexual and livnig with a partner in Sydney, Australia’s gay hotbed. Even as a kid, he had effeminate ways about him, yet his father was rather macho.

On the other hand I think there is a critical turning point somewhere, a watershed event.

Finally I remember a testimony given by a former homosexual in the Presbyterian Church I was attending at the time. He was invited to speak and in his testimony he claimed that he was all set up for his second, and serious, attempt to kill himself. However he said that just as he was about to pull the pin, Christ materialised in the corner of the room (lounge room I think), moved towards him and seemed to merge. From that time on he had not the slightest struggle with the homosexual impulse. So in his case there was an obvioius spiritual bondage. He’d married a Christian woman who accepted his history, and they had a couple of young kids (probably both well in their twenties by now).

He had previoulsy made a commitment to Christ after his first suicide attempt. But obviously he had been beaten in his commitment by his long standing addiction (a bit like an alcoholic I suppose - a related question might be “Why does God make some people prone to alcoholism?”), and in despair he had decided to take his own life. But on this particular occasion Christ stepped in rather dramatically. Yet usually He doesn’t step in like this, and the suicide attempt takes its course, successful or otherwise.

So what do you make of that? Why did God save this particular bloke and not others?

I don’t know the answer. But I still think there’s a wateshed event, an initiation into the homosexual lifestyle somewhere along the line.

 

[Dameedna]

Gay people choose to be gay. God does not make them that way and there is zero proof that it is somehow genetic.

ooo…so you have gay tendancies but don’t give into them? you are sexually attracted to people of the same gender as you but CHOOSE to go with the opposite gender? Do your friends know this? That you are actually “gay” but made a choice to be straight?

Do your same gender friends appreciate your restraint?

Do people with this attitude even realize, that THEY never chose their sexual orientation?

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

But that is not why we were given the cross to bear in the first place. He knows we cannot bear it on our own, but stands ready to give us the Grace to make our burden light. If only we seek Him instead.

Brendan, Your statement reflects that of the Church and is the most reasonable in truth. I know that we are all tempted in many ways and so was Christ. We are most tempted in our greatest weakness and this is what truly defines our own personal character and behavior. If we give in to our weaknesses we are considered cowards and if we triumph over our weaknesses we are considered hero’s. There is a verse from Scripture that I most admire and it was said by Christ, “Stand firm in your faith and the devil will flee from you” which is in fact a call to heroism in faith. By standing firm in what is true and just and right, we will always triumph over evil and temptations. This is what Christ Himself did in the desert after he fasted 40 days to face Satan, the father of all lies who tempted Christ with power, glory and kingship. Christ of course remained faithful to the will of His Father and said, “Get behind me Satan”. This is the model of heroic behavior and personal character that Christ gave to us as example. Stand firm in your faith and you will be victorious is the great message of Christ.