PabloSerna said:

---

So right off the bat - no one is arguing for two natures.

ETA- accidentally hit the post button. What I mean by free and exclusive is that it should align with the Catholic teaching on love and responsibility. I still maintain, but want to learn more, that love can exist at some level between two persons of the same sex that is more than friendship. Zobel and others have called this "desire" and someone else I asked said it was a "perversion of authentic love" - ouch.

---

Then I need to know what you mean by the nature of the homosexual person. The Church's body of work on the philosophy of the human person, our essence, the good, our purpose and ultimate end point in exactly one direction as it relates to human sexuality. I don't think it could be more clear or comprehensive. The nature of the homosexual person can't be in competition with its humanity, but the homosexual act is not and can't be an expression of our humanity because it's sinful. there's no way to square this circle. The synod doesn't have the authority to send Moses back up the mountain for a re do.

PabloSerna said:

---

I see that you are locking in on the theological definition of "nature" as in the dual nature of Christ as truly God and truly man.

I am not saying that there are two natures, one heterosexual and another homosexual. Not at all. Instead what I am observing is that there are persons who are heterosexual and others that are homosexual. This sexuality is a reflection of their being. Part of their essence.

It was recently published that no "gay gene" was discovered - so another point to factor into our understanding.

---

Wrong. If it were true that homosexual attractions were part of their essence, then you'd have to talk about people who stopped have a same sex attraction as a different person. Not just metaphorically, but their former selves would cease to exist.