gabriel
New
If you mean by resort to logical enquiry alone, no. The church sees entertainment sex as disrespectful of the other because each are sacred beings, not biological robots in need of a hit. The terms used are comfort and procreation, or words to that effect, not comfort or procreation. Do people fail in that ideal? Of course, which is one of the reasons confession is available. However confession means a sincere resolve not to commit the same errors. If you go into a confessional without sorrow and regret for your sins, knowing you'll do the same thing at the first opportunity, absolution is not available. This isn't an exclusively homosexual thing, anyone living outside matrimony in a sexual relationship has to resolve to at least try not to continue their lifestyle. Unless you're a Catholic, these questions are irrelevant.OK, so it's an attitude: is there an argument to back it up? Why does sexual intimacy only matter when heterosexual couples are trying to procreate?
As the church doesn't see homosexuality as sinful, any act that falls short of intentional arousal isn't an occasion for sin. You could live in a homosexual commune (a monastery?) or as a life couple and it would be no more sinful than living with your sister, so long as you don't shag either. If you can't keep your hands off each others bits a priest might recommend living together was too much of a temptation, and if you're sincere about your faith living separately is a good idea. Again, only a problem for Catholics.Let's stick with the basics: loving intimacy of the "traditional" variety, involving sweet talk, caresses, holding, kissing gently (or passionately), etc etc, nothing that a conservative person might term "perverted" (other than, potentially, the homosexual varieties of this type of intimacy). Why would this be valid for heterosexual couples seeking to procreate, but invalid for homosexual couples seeking to nurture and bring their love to fruition?
These things are easily researched and have evolved from a particular view about the nature of reality and the human condition. They are completely consistent with that world view, but are certainly strange to modern liberal views honed in physicalist enlightenment values. Discussing them on a forum in which they are only remotely relevant is something I find tedious, but ennui at the state of the forum and the challenging nature of some podcasts towards Christianity, means I'm asked to "justify" those views or I'm provoked into posting by clear misrepresentations of either my position, or the Catholic one. Which is why posting on the forum isn't nearly so much fun as when it was about table turning, precognition or the nature of consciousness.