5 ms·
Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
by debatem1 9y ago
Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
- quantumofmalice 9y agoThat's a reasonable perspective. I would have to ask my children to remain celibate, though, and would it be fair to put that burden on them, even (maybe especially) if they didn't accept it? It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
- azinman2 9y agoWhy do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?
- jschwartzi 9y agoBecause the people who would want to get rid of their homosexual children want to do so because they consider it a sin.
- bobthechef 9y agoThis is a common confusion. If homosexual attraction were found to have a genetic cause, it would be understood as a genetic or genetically-caused disorder. That in itself would not be a sin because sin only applies to voluntary actions and not conditions. So from this POV, someone with genetically caused homosexual attraction would not be sinning if he refrained from engaging in homosexual acts.
- debatem1 9y agoEven without genetic predisposition this is the Catholic stance-- that being gay isn't a sin, but having gay sex is. Of course, this is sophistry; ask about whether two celibate gay men would be allowed a Catholic wedding and the answer will be no because they can't have children, nature of marriage, yadda yadda. Ask whether a man or woman without intact junk can get married and suddenly it's love that is really important.
- debatem1 9y agoIf you consider homosexuality a sin (worth saying: I don't) and determinism is at play, the risk is that you go full Zvingli. That would be very unusual today, so it seems worth asking about.