"Unions" is the key word there.

I have already said multiple times that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. A "union" was thought as an alternative to marriage, since scripture is clear on the conjugal act. However, it became clear that it was trying to mirror marriage, hence so-called "gay marriage" when it cannot be. So what you are reading and will find throughout much of the documents regarding human sexuality is in that light- heterosexual lens.

I am saying it is not like marital love precisely because it does not have the procreative dimension. So the question remains- is it love at all?

If you ask people in those long term, self giving relationships - they would say yes. The relationships that I have personally witnessed all exhibit virtues of love (selfless, patient, kind, sacrifice). So I don't agree with those that say it is a perversion of love because it is not self directed. Earlier someone brought up addition, porn, etc., all of which are not like the love between the people that I know.

Again, if not love, then what is it?

Already we can establish that it is not some gay gene- which only underlines my point that it is love not some reaction in the mind.

PabloSerna said:

---

I have both and can tell you that they are geared toward marital love between a man and woman.

While there is a rich understanding that can be gleaned from each; it does little to address what I believe is a condition (same sex attraction) allowed by God since birth for the glory of God.

ETA: Sodomy is a sin in marriage because it denies the hand of God for the creation of new life.

ETA 2: I'm glad you cited Augustine, because he rightly understands one of the two dimensions of the conjugal act. Again, not talking about love between two persons of the opposite sex.

---

Augustine had it wrong, and JPII's theology was a critique of Augustine who borrowed from Manichaeism, which he was before his conversion. The integral view requires both things. The self giving, unitive aspect and the procreative aspect. Augustine posits one without the other. Your position is even less tenable because you don't even have the possibility of the procreative aspect.

PabloSerna said:

---

"Unions" is the key word there.

I have already said multiple times that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. A "union" was thought as an alternative to marriage, since scripture is clear on the conjugal act. However, it became clear that it was trying to mirror marriage, hence so-called "gay marriage" when it cannot be. So what you are reading and will find throughout much of the documents regarding human sexuality is in that light- heterosexual lens.

I am saying it is not like marital love precisely because it does not have the procreative dimension. So the question remains- is it love at all?

If you ask people in those long term, self giving relationships - they would say yes. The relationships that I have personally witnessed all exhibit virtues of love (selfless, patient, kind, sacrifice). So I don't agree with those that say it is a perversion of love because it is not self directed. Earlier someone brought up addition, porn, etc., all of which are not like the love between the people that I know.

Again, if not love, then what is it?

Already we can establish that it is not some gay gene- which only underlines my point that it is love not some reaction in the mind.

---

Nice try. Read the second sentence of that quote.

Augustine wasn't all wrong. JP2 was drawing upon Pope Paul VI's Humane Vitae for a basis to build TOB. All directed toward the love and responsibility of that love action between a man and a woman. That is crystal clear.

My point is not arguing that understanding, rather I am trying to understand the love that people of the same sex say they have for each other.

You would have to say that it is not love. Right?

Wasn't trying anything because I said I addressed that second sentence in my explanation and question.

Thanks for the conversation. I will pick it up a little later. I am reading a commentary on John 9 that is fascinating and not too far off topic.

PabloSerna said:

---

Wasn't trying anything because I said I addressed that second sentence in my explanation and question.

Thanks for the conversation. I will pick it up a little later. I am reading a commentary on John 9 that is fascinating and not too far off topic.

---

You didn't. You're just saying that this addresses sexuality through a heterosexual lense which is preposterous. If nothing the church says about human sexuality pertains to gay people, then I think you're unwittingly arguing that gay people aren't human.

PabloSerna said:

---

Augustine wasn't all wrong. JP2 was drawing upon Pope Paul VI's Humane Vitae for a basis to build TOB. All directed toward the love and responsibility of that love action between a man and a woman. That is crystal clear.

My point is not arguing that understanding, rather I am trying to understand the love that people of the same sex say they have for each other.

You would have to say that it is not love. Right?

---

How far do we take this fetish? What if it's a father and son? Both adults both consenting, very much in love.

PabloSerna said:

---

"Something happened to these people"

Because there is no way God permitted them to be born this way- right?

ETA: Amazingly you sound like one of the disciples (John 9, RSV)

1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

---

"Permitted" is the operative word there. Unless you're saying that God chose this one individual and intentionally blinded him, which I don't think you are, then we have to deal with the reality that blindness is due to either genetic defect (nature), or a developmental/environmental cause (nurture).

What's even more important is the fact that his blindness is rightly noted as a deprivation of the natural good, and he was healed from it Blindness is not a condition that humans are supposed to have. If you want to say that having same sex attraction is a depravation of the natural good that humans shouldn't have, then we have common ground to build from. And you've already agreed homosexual inclinations aren't genetic, so we're left with an issue of nurture.

But let's say we throw all that out. If I granted you that homosexuals are "born this way", and if there are any parallels to John 9 here, it would follow that there are people suffering from this issue and God wants their healing "so that the works of God may be displayed in him". You still end up in an unnatural condition that needs healing, which goes well with what I said. The only way out of that quandry is to rewrite the gospel so that Jesus says " you're exactly the way God wants you" and doesn't heal the blindness

See now that would be disordered