Where sin begins in same-sex physical intimacy

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Is a person to act on a Homosexual inclination? -be it towards “sexual acts” or consent to sexual thoughts or desires or say even “dating” a person of the same gender or kissing them romantically or be engaged in some “romantic relationship” with member of the same gender??

No.

Homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered inclinations* and as such are not to be acted upon. The acts too are disordered to which the inclination is directed.

*“the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3)

For a guy to “date” a guy is yes to act upon his disordered inclination.

---

From Catholic Answers Staff:

Question:

The Church does not say anything specifically about this. Can two gay men date, and even get married, but remain celibate and not sin?

Answer:

As to the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has spoken: It is not possible. Since dating is a preparation for and discernment of marriage, it follows that those who cannot marry each other should not be dating.

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862

(there is a link with in the text that one can follow but one needs to go to the original)

---

What is key is “disinterested friendship” (CCC 2359). Such is rich and is a way of holiness and thus of Christian perfection - friends helping each other be more and more the saints they are and becoming more and more saints in their following Christ in true life.

I already posted a document from the Catholic Church showing your interpretation of the phrase “objectively disordered” is not theologically sound.

 

[Bookcat]

I already posted a document from the Catholic Church showing your interpretation of the phrase “objectively disordered” is not theologically sound.

Nope.

Take it up with the CDF.

 

[Bookcat]

I already posted a document from the Catholic Church showing your interpretation of the phrase “objectively disordered” is not theologically sound.

Nope. What I and Catholic Answers Staff note is quite theologically sound.

Such is saying part of what I have been saying.

Just because a Christian has such attractions does not mean that “they themselves” are disordered as persons. They are Children of God. They can become quite holy!

And those disordered inclinations while in themselves “objectively disordered” - are not in themselves sins. They need to be acted upon (interiorly or exteriorly) to become sins. Consent to sin must be present…not just say a temptation.

Some where confusing the inclination with sin itself. That is the sort of thing that keeps needing to be addressed. And rightly so!

Thanks

 

[Rau]

Question:

The Church does not say anything specifically about this. Can two gay men date, and even get married, but remain celibate and not sin?

Answer:

… Since dating is a preparation for and discernment of marriage, it follows that those who cannot marry each other should not be dating.

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862

(there is a link with in the text that one can follow but one needs to go to the original)

That does not seem a good answer. “Dating” need not be solely for the purpose of discerning marriage. That may be the intention of the participants. Or maybe they simply seek to enjoy each other’s company.

 

[Bookcat]

That does not seem a good answer. “Dating” need not be solely for the purpose of discerning marriage. That may be the intention of the participants. Or maybe they simply seek to enjoy each other’s company.

Being out doing things as non-romantic friends (to try to give some other term) -such can yes be quite good. Enjoying each others company while doing something - sure.

When I say to the movies with a male friend I went to university with - my wife is not confused as to our relationship. And would be quite fine with that and rightly so.

(now if I started sending him love notes -telling him I cannot wait for when see each other again - or if I give him a goodnight kiss - she is going to have a quite different reaction. Rightly so).

I and the Catholic Answers Staff Apologist mean dating. Going on a date.

Not going out for some fun with a friend.

(I know the word “date” gets used oddly these days – kids having a “play date” etc but that is not what is meant).

Friendship is very important!

 

[SMGS127]

Being out doing things as non-romantic friends (to try to give some other term) -such can yes be quite good. Enjoying each others company while doing something - sure.

When I say to the movies with a male friend I went to university with - my wife is not confused as to our relationship. And would be quite fine with that and rightly so.

(now if I started sending him love notes -telling him I cannot wait for when see each other again - or if I give him a goodnight kiss - she is going to have a quite different reaction. Rightly so).

I and the Catholic Answers Staff Apologist mean dating. Going on a date.

Not going out for some fun with a friend.

(I know the word “date” gets used oddly these days – kids having a “play date” etc but that is not what is meant).

Friendship is very important!

I know I said I wouldn’t respond, but I need to reiterate a few more points:

• There is no teaching in the Church opposing romance between same-sex individuals, only sexual activity/acts.
• Married couples are naturally more restricted than singles. It would likely be immoral for you to spend 2 hours in a room alone with another woman, yet that is completely licit for any single person. It would absolutely be immoral for you to caress another woman’s cheek and tell her she’s beautiful, but that is completely licit for singles to do. Seriously, marital restrictions have no bearing on the restrictions of a single person.
• You have completely ignored the discussions of intrinsic vs. objective in this thread, which again is showing your personal bias regarding this matter.
• Finally, as I have said, romantic friendships (or, as they were better known for 1900 years of Church history, friendships) have been extremely prevalent throughout human history, especially in the Western world. Please explain to me why you believe the Church has allowed for something you consider to be a grave moral evil to perpetuate and promulgate through society.

Throughout all of history, disinterested friendships have existed between friends that included lifetime commitments, kissing, making out, physical contact, sleeping in the same bed, etc. Either address them and why the Church would have literally no teaching on something very popular that you consider to be a grave moral evil, yet have clear teachings on SS sex and contraception, or I would politely ask you to leave my thread.

 

[SMGS127]

I’m so sorry for your tears… Be assured of my prayers for you!

I was out of town and couldn’t reply, and it seems the conversation may be wrapping up.

I understand your frustration, confusion, looking for something to fill that void – in order to support you in being faithful to Christ. I don’t have any documentation from Magisterial sources to hand on to you, sorry. But I do recommend that you seek spiritual guidance from a priest regarding how to move forward. You seem very committed to your opinions – that making out is fine, that you can have a committed and exclusive relationship that is chaste and in keeping with the Church’s teachings. I think discussing this with a priest will give you more authoritative direction.

There is so much more i could say if I hadn’t just spent 11 hours driving across Nebraska and Colorado :yawn:

God bless you, dear one! You are very much in my prayers

Gertie

I am going to get spiritual guidance, but I cannot do so for at least another month, which is why I asked here to see if anyone had any Magisterial teaching on the issue. It is saddening that there is none.

Either way, thank you for the kind words and God bless you

~ SMGS

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS, this is an incredibly important topic. Thank you. I think the fundamental answer to your initial question is: prudential judgment. But too often, same-sex attracted folks are seen as moral children, incapable of such judgment and unworthy of anything save moral censure, which is doled out for their own good. Since they can never be trusted to make the right decision in a potentially tricky moral situation, the opportunity to actually choose the right (whatever it might be) in such a situation should be denied them because the temptation to choose the wrong will only ever be too much for them to handle. There’s a whole lot of fear (not to mention a condescending paternalism) going on in all that.

YES, thank you. There is a reason I asked people to stop mentioning near occasions of sin in this thread. I am tired of people treating gay people as uncontrollable time bombs of sexual explosion who can’t do anything except jump on each other 24/7 if not stopped by the nice, “healthy,” straight people. We have self control too, just like everyone else.

 

[Rau]

…disinterested friendships have existed between friends that included lifetime commitments, kissing, making out, physical contact, sleeping in the same bed, etc. Either address them and why the Church would have literally no teaching on something very popular that you consider to be a grave moral evil, yet have clear teachings on SS sex and contraception, or I would politely ask you to leave my thread.

I have never studied history, sociology or anything else that touches on this topic, so I ask this from a position of ignorance… but were the friendships you describe above largely the province of homosexual persons?

Or, are you saying (by way of example) that a man in ages past who is heterosexual may perhaps have had a romantic friendship with another man, that included kissing, making out, etc., but then, perhaps some years later, married a woman (and lived a conjugal, married life)? And if so, would the friendships (described above) have continued in the same manner after marriage?

 

[Rau]

I already posted a document from the Catholic Church showing your interpretation of the phrase “objectively disordered” is not theologically sound.

Could you advice what section / page / para of that document you are referring to. I did note this section with interest:

"Cardinal Hume emphasised the message of the Gospel that all love is
f rom God and that each person is precious in the eyes of God. ‘The love
which one person can have for and receive from another is a gift of God’
(A Note Concerning the Teaching of the Catholic Church Concern i n g
Homosexual People, 1997), paragraph 17). The Church recognises the
value of friendship between homosexual people when it is lived chastely
in accordance with her moral teaching. What the Church does not
countenance is any attempt to express this love in a sexual way.
114. The present state of the law and common public opinion re f l e c t
the immemorial belief founded on the natural law that only a
relationship between a man and a woman can be a marriage. There
may be people who hold this view out of fear or prejudice, but the
position is not itself arbitrary or unfair and it should not be re g a r d e d
as discriminatory. Furtherm o re, attempting to create a legal category of
‘same-sex marriage’ threatens to undermine the meaning and status of
marriage. Nonetheless, it may be necessary, as many have argued, to
remedy by law unjust situations in which the bonds of friendship are
i m p roperly disregarded (for instance, being excluded from appro p r i a t e
consultation regarding medical care or from funeral arrangements). In
such cases the right to justice is founded on the dignity of every human
being and citizenship and not on sexual activity or orientation."

 

[SMGS127]

I have never studied history, sociology or anything else that touches on this topic, so I ask this from a position of ignorance… but were the friendships you describe above largely the province of homosexual persons?

Or, are you saying (by way of example) that a man in ages past who is heterosexual may perhaps have had a romantic friendship with another man, that included kissing, making out, etc., but then, perhaps some years later, married a woman (and lived a conjugal, married life)? And if so, would the friendships (described above) have continued in the same manner after marriage?

As far as I am aware, most of these friendships were between women (at least in the time period I am most familiar with, the Victorian era), but there were some with men as well. I believe Shakespeare was theorized to be in one with another male. Some did continue into marriage, though I don’t think THAT could be allowed from a Catholic standpoint. Most of the Victorian-era relationships were between married wives, while their husbands were at work. These relationships were not exclusively homosexual at all [the numbers were much too great for this to be the case], though lesbians certainly took advantage of the societal acknowledgement of these types of relationships by secretly having sexual dalliances with their [also lesbian] partner. They got married to men out of societal pressure, but had their true, meaningful sexual relationship on the side with another lesbian in the same situation. Obviously an extramarital sex act is inherently immoral regardless of intentions though, so we can rule that out as well.

But this is just one time period; these types of romantic friendships have existed for forever with societal acceptance for at least the women who entered into them, in various degrees and natures, and were merely considered close friendships until the Puritans ran in and protested happiness of any kind. The modern-day, emotionally-repressive, and I would argue unhealthy culture that we live in is one very unique to the United States and to Puritan culture, and, indeed, you often find that American Catholic theologians are heavily influenced by this Puritan culture much more than non-American Catholic theologians.

In fact, I would argue that the Puritan movement directly led to the current immorality of our current culture. When the Puritans ran in and demanded that everyone link sex and emotional intimacy theologically, emotional intimacy became impossible without being able to engage in licit sex. This led to people trying to figure out how to have licit sex without responsibilities in order to obtain this emotional intimacy, which led to contraception and abortion, which led to marriage being separated from its procreative aspect, which led to marriage being seen as a commitment ceremony, which led to same-sex marriage since there’s no argument against SS’M’ if procreation is taken out of the picture. And now we’re where we are today.

Imagine if the Puritan movement had never happened. Romantic relationships and pre-marital relationships would still be separated as concepts. People would thus not feel the need to have sex in order to engage in a romantic relationship. Emotional intimacy would be satisfied, and marriage would be seen as purely a means with which to codify relationships aimed to be procreative. I like this reality much better than the one we got from Puritans and Puritan-influenced Catholics .

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I have never studied history, sociology or anything else that touches on this topic, so I ask this from a position of ignorance… but were the friendships you describe above largely the province of homosexual persons?

Given that many of these relationships were conducted quite openly including between clergymen (though not all Catholic priests) I think we can safely say that it was probably not largely the demesne of homosexuals.
"James I:

I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.[12]

As you can see from this not only was it considered not sinful, it was considered highly compatible with Christianity, indeed modeled after Christ.

Or, are you saying (by way of example) that a man in ages past who is heterosexual may perhaps have had a romantic friendship with another man, that included kissing, making out, etc., but then, perhaps some years later, married a woman (and lived a conjugal, married life)? And if so, would the friendships (described above) have continued in the same manner after marriage?

Yes. Although to be accurate the making out was largely confined to women especially in the Victorian Era though certainly men did kiss.

Could you advice what section / page / para of that document you are referring to. I did note this section with interest:

"Cardinal Hume emphasised the message of the Gospel that all love is
f rom God and that each person is precious in the eyes of God. ‘The love
which one person can have for and receive from another is a gift of God’
(A Note Concerning the Teaching of the Catholic Church Concern i n g
Homosexual People, 1997), paragraph 17). The Church recognises the
value of friendship between homosexual people when it is lived chastely
in accordance with her moral teaching. What the Church does not
countenance is any attempt to express this love in a sexual way.
114. The present state of the law and common public opinion re f l e c t
the immemorial belief founded on the natural law that only a
relationship between a man and a woman can be a marriage. There
may be people who hold this view out of fear or prejudice, but the
position is not itself arbitrary or unfair and it should not be re g a r d e d
as discriminatory. Furtherm o re, attempting to create a legal category of
‘same-sex marriage’ threatens to undermine the meaning and status of
marriage. Nonetheless, it may be necessary, as many have argued, to
remedy by law unjust situations in which the bonds of friendship are
i m p roperly disregarded (for instance, being excluded from appro p r i a t e
consultation regarding medical care or from funeral arrangements). In
such cases the right to justice is founded on the dignity of every human
being and citizenship and not on sexual activity or orientation."

Paragraph 111, page 51 in the document, folio 26 of the PDF, the full Paragraph reads

1. The Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual. Consequently, the Church teaches that homosexual people ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). In so far as the homosexual orientation can lead to sexual activity which excludes openness to the generation of new human life and the essential sexual complementarity of man and woman, it is, in this particular and precise sense only, objectively disordered. However, it must be quite clear that a homosexual orientation must never be considered sinful or evil in itself.

Of course also remember Lord Tennyson who wrote the famous “'Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all” about the loss of a man who he dearly loved.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

As far as I am aware, most of these friendships were between women (at least in the time period I am most familiar with, the Victorian era), but there were some with men as well. I believe Shakespeare was theorized to be in one with another male. Some did continue into marriage, though I don’t think THAT could be allowed from a Catholic standpoint. Most of the Victorian-era relationships were between married wives, while their husbands were at work. These relationships were not exclusively homosexual at all [the numbers were much too great for this to be the case], though lesbians certainly took advantage of the societal acknowledgement of these types of relationships by secretly having sexual dalliances with their [also lesbian] partner. They got married to men out of societal pressure, but had their true, meaningful sexual relationship on the side with another lesbian in the same situation. Obviously an extramarital sex act is inherently immoral regardless of intentions though, so we can rule that out as well.

But this is just one time period; these types of romantic friendships have existed for forever with societal acceptance for at least the women who entered into them, in various degrees and natures, and were merely considered close friendships until the Puritans ran in and protested happiness of any kind. The modern-day, emotionally-repressive, and I would argue unhealthy culture that we live in is one very unique to the United States and to Puritan culture, and, indeed, you often find that American Catholic theologians are heavily influenced by this Puritan culture much more than non-American Catholic theologians.

In fact, I would argue that the Puritan movement directly led to the current immorality of our current culture. When the Puritans ran in and demanded that everyone link sex and emotional intimacy theologically, emotional intimacy became impossible without being able to engage in licit sex. This led to people trying to figure out how to have licit sex without responsibilities in order to obtain this emotional intimacy, which led to contraception and abortion, which led to marriage being separated from its procreative aspect, which led to marriage being seen as a commitment ceremony, which led to same-sex marriage since there’s no argument against SS’M’ if procreation is taken out of the picture. And now we’re where we are today.

**Imagine if the Puritan movement had never happened. Romantic relationships and pre-marital relationships would still be separated as concepts. People would thus not feel the need to have sex in order to engage in a romantic relationship. Emotional intimacy would be satisfied, and marriage would be seen as purely a means with which to codify relationships aimed to be procreative. I like this reality much better than the one we got from Puritans and Puritan-influenced Catholics **.

You’d still have to deal with Rousseau causing marriage to be centered on love instead of offspring and property.

 

[Rau]

Paragraph 111, page 51 in the document, folio 26 of the PDF, the full Paragraph reads

*Quote:
111. The Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual. Consequently, the Church teaches that homosexual people ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). In so far as the homosexual orientation **can ***lead to sexual activity which excludes openness to the generation of new human life and the essential sexual complementarity of man and woman, it is, in this particular and precise sense only, objectively disordered. However, it must be quite clear that a homosexual orientation must never be considered sinful or evil in itself.

So this says the *orientation is objectively disordered only to the extend that it **can *lead to sexual activity.

By extension (if I understand), this means that homosexual orientation that seeks other goods - say, comfort, warmth, solace, [add more nouns] - is not objectively disordered, so long as it **cannot **lead to sexual activity.

The debate with Bookcat (et al), as to what is moral or immoral in a close friendship would seem to revolve around whether the actions one engages in (viz. kissing, making out etc.) flow from a desire for these ‘goods’, or in fact evince an inextricable link with, or “can lead to”, sexual activity.

Now - who can attest to which of these possibilities is the case? It is hard to go beyond the participants of the relationship.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So this says the *orientation is objectively disordered only to the extend that it **can ***lead to sexual activity.

By extension (if I understand), this means that homosexual orientation that seeks other goods - say, comfort, warmth, solace, [add more nouns] - is not objectively disordered, so long as it **cannot **lead to sexual activity.

The debate with Bookcat (et al), as to what is moral or immoral in a close friendship would seem to revolve around whether the actions one engages in (viz. kissing, making out etc.) flow from a desire for these ‘goods’, or in fact evince an inextricable link with, or “can lead to”, sexual activity.

Now - who can attest to which of these possibilities is the case? It is hard to go beyond the participants of the relationship.

Deo Volente describes it well:

Bookcat, this is a common (and dangerous) misunderstanding of the catechism. The catechism uses two words to describe two different things when it comes to the “disorder” of homosexuality: “intrinsically” and “objectively.” In this context, these two words are not synonyms, but carefully chosen descriptors. The catechism describes homosexual genital acts as “intrinsically disordered” while describing the homosexual inclination to those acts as “objectively disordered.” The difference is this: “intrinsic” describes a thing in itself and is appropriate to describe an act while “objective” describes the object of a desire (or an inclination for a particular act or thing) and is appropriate to describe a desire or an inclination. That is: homosexual genital expression is seen as having no intrinsic moral value and is thus intrinsically disordered, therefore any inclination which has as its object homosexual genital expression will be disordered according to its object–i.e., it will be objectively disordered.

 

[Rau]

Deo Volente describes it well:

I think I understand Deo Volente in so far as the distinction he makes is concerned. But that is not helping me decipher what is sinful and what is not.

Where I struggle is this: In the course of the acts (Kissing, making out etc), is it likely that the desire for the acts which are intrinsically disordered (eg. Sexual acts) will arise? If so, does a same-sex couple, do sufficient to avoid sin by: not seeking those sexual acts, and successfully resisting any temptation to those acts? OR, is engaging in acts which are likely to lead to a desire for sexual acts a sinful course? - Bookcat would I think say yes.

Of course, a single heterosexual person engaging in (appropriate) kissing, making out etc may experience the equivalent temptation, but without sinning on the grounds that there is no objective disorder.

It remains unclear to me whether the Bishops are endorsing anything more than “disinterested friendships” among persons of homosexual orientation.

 

[Bookcat]

There is no teaching in the Church opposing romance between same-sex individuals, only sexual activity/acts.

*“the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3) (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

For a guy to “date” a guy or “make out” with a guy is yes to act upon his disordered inclination.

What is being missed is that it is not simply what one could call -(homosexual) sexual acts -that are disordered. They are yes disordered -as are sexual acts of a guy and girl who are not married. But not only those acts.

While Christian persons who struggle with SSA - homosexual inclinations - do not for that reason sin -nor are they as persons “disordered” - rather they are persons Children of God who struggle with temptations etc (we all struggle with differing temptations and that which is nor ordered within us).

Now that being emphasized - what is being missed as I started to say is that the “homosexual inclination” is itself “objectively disordered” (2358). It is “itself” disordered. Not only “homosexual sexual acts” that can happen due to it. Other acts (or interior choices) then that flow from that inclination too are disordered.

*“the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (CDF Homosexualitas problema 3) (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

“Dating”, “homosexual couples”, “kissing”, “romantic dinners”, etc etc would not be something for a Christian to choose for these things are acting from that disordered inclination. Such would be to act according to that inclination which is objectively disordered.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12132922&postcount=170 (making sure you saw this post too)

*]Married couples are naturally more restricted than singles. It would likely be immoral for you to spend 2 hours in a room alone with another woman, yet that is completely licit for any single person. It would absolutely be immoral for you to caress another woman’s cheek and tell her she’s beautiful, but that is completely licit for singles to do. Seriously, marital restrictions have no bearing on the restrictions of a single person.

And as if it was one of those “friendships” that you are asking about? Lets say it is my guy friend from University -not a girl- I guess I can “make out with him” or “start kissing him” for friendly bonding…? No. (may he never read this!)

*]You have completely ignored the discussions of intrinsic vs. objective in this thread, which again is showing your personal bias regarding this matter.

Read my posts.

*]Finally, as I have said, romantic friendships (or, as they were better known for 1900 years of Church history, friendships) have been extremely prevalent throughout human history, especially in the Western world. Please explain to me why you believe the Church has allowed for something you consider to be a grave moral evil to perpetuate and promulgate through society.

You mean guys kissing guys or “being romantically involved”? - Such has been contrary to moral Theology from the get go - contrary to Christian life. Such has not been “allowed” but if confessed - penance has been given and counsel perhaps.

Through out history fornication has happened too or theft etc - has the Church “allowed” such to perpetuate? No. Such has of its own “perpetuated”.

Now “friends” - that is those who are not “kissing” etc - that is a very different matter and as I have repeatedly noted can be a way to greater holiness even.

Throughout all of history, disinterested friendships have existed between friends that included lifetime commitments, kissing, making out, physical contact, sleeping in the same bed, etc. Either address them and why the Church would have literally no teaching on something very popular that you consider to be a grave moral evil, yet have clear teachings on SS sex and contraception, or I would politely ask you to leave my thread.

“Kissing” and “making out” ? Such are NOT “disinterested friendships”.

Physical contact? well there are all sorts of physical contact - if I give my guy friend a hug - that is not “a romantic friendship”.

As my wife notes (who has a Masters Degree in Theology from a Pontifical institution in Europe) - this is in a way just common sense. At least it used to be -before the homosexual movement. Guys do not “make out” with guys. Those of the same gender do not “date” or form a “Couple”. (that was the sense of what she said). Look I can understand where the struggle is - and that it can be difficult in the current cultural environment to see this - but really those of the same gender ought not be “kissing” and “dating” – rather disinterested friendships. And I commend you seeking out the right way to live! May we all always do so!

You may contact the Catholic Answers staff -they can assist you with such research perhaps.

But in it is important to note that the Magisterium often leaves such “details” to the orthodox Moral Theologians to get into. And Priests to address in the confessional etc.

Here are some Church documents to start with- you may have missed that post: couragerc.net/Church_Documents.html

couragerc.net/

 

[Bookcat]

The Catholic Answers Site too has some articles.

These here are from Catholic Answers- new Chasity site: chastity.com/articles

I have not read them but they may have some information that is helpful here.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Bookcat,

Any argument you are making has been made. All the Church documents have been produced. At this point, you are simply repeating yourself, and – sadly – it comes off like you are ridiculing SMGS’s desire to chastely kiss a person she loves. I understand that this may not be your intention, but this is how it sounds.

Case in point:

And as if it was one of those “friendships” that you are asking about? Lets say it is my guy friend from University -not a girl- I guess I can “make out with him” or “start kissing him” for friendly bonding…? No. (may he never read this!)

You may not realize it, but this is precisely what people call homophobia. It’s just like saying “No homo” after you talk about having a good male friend. Your exclamation “May he never read this!” implies quite clearly that homosexual desire is a subject of shame.

You may be right that making out is not a proper activity between friends. But the desire to do so is not a subject for ridicule.

 

[Bookcat]

it comes off like you are ridiculing SMGS’s desire to chastely kiss a person she loves. I understand that this may not be your intention, but this is how it sounds.
.

Tis not ridiculing to note that such is not proper for Christians. Or to note that persons of the same gender ought not be “kissing” (I have explained this several times) or dating.

Is Catholic Answers ridiculing a person in saying too that those of the same gender ought not be ‘dating’ each other? No.