I did not choose moral categories - so why did you? I chose human categories, all of which exist.
Do you likewise claim that my statement asserts that a person with one leg is akin to a thief, a liar or a gossip - other than in the fact that none of us is perfect? I was not aware that lacking a leg was a moral impediment (though it does make auditioning for Tarzan somewhat iffy).
Why didn't you berate me for suggesting that being gay is akin to being bald or having auburn hair? Or that being me is akin to those things too? Is that a terrible judgement that you judge is unacceptable?
My point (you finger waggers) is that all these things are a natural result of birth. Or perhaps nurture, choice, and mental confusion contribute in some areas (such as supporting Arsenal), whether named or not named.
Big RR (pace Andy) is arguing that God created people that way (or not, depending on whether there is God or god or gods and we can't be sure of any of that). I'm arguing that he didn't - Adam (who he) and Eve (who she) did.
I agree Big RR that the Roman church does try to get around the difficulty you raise by asserting that somehow Mary was born without sin (the Immaculate Conception), an utterly unbiblical idea. Even I would join the snorts of derision over that one. I disagree that there is any inherent unfairness in refusing to be best pals with people who are so clearly deficient unless something changes. And we are all clearly deficient when the standard is God. If the standard is lib, many of us are not doing so badly.
PS and then there's the facile childish response that I shan't bother with