"The translation is from the dictionary."

Obviously the concept of citations has no relevancy for you. :D Still, nice concession, if unintentional. It's "from the dictionary" (which one? who knows? who cares?) NOT the Vatican's official translation. I repeat, it is their translation that matters, not yours.

"The words are interchangeable."

No they are not you boldly claiming they are doesn't change that.

"The Italian Catechism uses the word delicatezza, which translated in English is..."

Not according to the English Catechism on the Vatican's site. So your translations, from whatever "dictionary" you conjured them up are irrelevant.

"the Pope used the word marginalized when he quoted the catechism, the French original catechism uses the word marginalise."

Irrelevant to an English language discussion and it won't be the first time Pope Francis told a whopper.

"The Catechism has been translated into many many languages..."

Quite so, and since you're writing in English and describing in English what The Catechism supposedly "says", then the Catechism in English takes precedence.

"...and the point it is making in #2358 is that people with such inclinations should be treated with respect, delicacy an not be discriminated against."

Wrong. You'd think you'd learn by now. The catechism makes a critical distinction you, either out of ignorance or bias, omit. I quote: "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Emphasis, mine. Only unjust discrimination is to be avoided, not all discrimination or any discrimination. Refusing to allow a convicted homosexual pederast to work with young boys is discrimination. It's also entirely just, which is why The Church now runs background checks on those applying for positions that involve working with children.

"That you are quibbling with this simply looks like you want to win an argument rather than have a simple discussion."

What did I tell you about self-serving projection, hon? I'm quibbling because you are entirely willing to do so when it suits you and just as reluctant when you get caught in an outright mistake.

"You arguing like this makes me not want to waste my time responding to your comments."

Umpteen paragraphs later... :P Your time is your own. You don't like being caught. I get that. However, I'm not... inclined... to throw a fish back in the lake once I've hooked it and landed it.

At least I argue out of a commitment to the truth which can't be said for V.R.S.

"I once heard an antiCatholic claiming he Biblically refuted the teachings of the Catholic Church after debating a Catholic apologist;"

False comparison since I am a.) a Catholic b.) a traditionalist c.) defending the teachings of the Catholic Church against your false re-wording of them and, most recently your inaccurate interpretation (i.e. discriminating against homosexuals is entirely permitted by the Catholic Church, only unjust discrimination is not.)

"all he really proved was that he wasn’t listening to anything, and was just concerned about not losing an argument."

Still a false comparsion. I'm paying very close attention to what you're writing. Exceedingly close. I'm simply disagreeing with it and pointing out the errors in it. More importantly, I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about "not losing an argument". Me? Debating the likes of you? :D

Losing for me isn't even a possibility, not against you. That isn't even gloating or pride. It's simply a fact. Your overall position is based on error. It takes an exceedingly clever debator to argue from a position of factual weakness and then still overcome an opponent who recognizes that.

You ain't that good. Not even close.

"This is certainly true."

Concession noted.

"the Catechism is speaking about persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development."

The Catechism makes no reference to where these tendencies "stem from" in CCC 2358 where the word "tendencies" occur referring to homosexuality.

So, no, The Catechism isn't speaking about "persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development." because it makes no mention of where their tendencies stem from.

You're putting explanations into the Catechism that aren't there... again. You just don't learn, do you? :P

"Dismissing someone that have these psychological issues by simply telling them to stop thinking about such thoughts may seem like the simple answer"

I'm doing nothing of the sort, so there's no reason to introduce this as a rejoinder. Strawman Argument on your part.

I wasn'tt dismissing their sins, or suggesting means for homosexuals to avoid sinning. I was explainging why a homosexual inclination is sinful by virtue it stems from conscious thought. The sin exists because they aren't thinking about something else. If they were thinking about something else, then there would be no inclination.

"but for some it has become their identity and lifelong psychological and emotional state of mind."

The same is true for some theives and murderers. Theft is still a sin, so is murder. The fact they've built their identities around sin doesn't change the fact it IS sin.

"Think of the psychology of someone with an addiction..."

Yes, they're notoriously duplicitous, manipulative, and almost always refuse to take genuine responsibility for their actions -save as a means of telling others what they want to hear. Typical of many sinners. Good example, providing you were arguing from my position and not yours. :D

"or a child who has been sexually abused"

Not all sexually abused children grow up to be sexual abusers or sexual deviants. Failed analogy.

"imagine a sibling with a heroin addict, or an alcoholic; such people often need special help. Some even may want to stop and they can’t. Studies have shown how pornography rewires the brain, especially at a young age."

So does alcohol and smoking. All these examples of yours are addictions that were entered into by choice. The addicts chose the sins they indulged in and indulged in those sins repeatedly until such changes occurred.

"it’s one thing to have the gift of faith, be Catholic and have all the sanctifying Grace from the sacraments; it’s quite another thing if one is lost in the world and enslaved to sin."

...implying the two are mutually exclusive. ;-) ...readily contradicted by all the paedo clergy and homosexual higher-ups in the Vatican.

"Statistics show the extremely high rate of depression/suicide among these groups."

Poor them. Sin leads to greater sins, including the sin of suicide. Such is the nature of sin. None of which contradicts the Catechism.

"telling such persons they should simply stop thinking about thoughts is like telling a heroin addict to stop thinking about heroin."

Irrelevant since I have not done so. In short, you're compounding your fallacy of a strawman argument with the fallacy of an argument from repetition.

"In the context of what we are speaking about, what is the difference between 'inclination' and 'tendency' ?"

There is one. The former refers towards the mental predisposition, the latter refers primarily towards the physical. In this context, namely of the two relevant Catechism paragraphs, which is important and I'm glad you raised that.

"A mortal sin is a mortal sin; while some sins may be more heinous, they all lead to the same hell, a different level but hell nonetheless."

...thus you concede homosexuality is more grievous as a sin, and almost certainly in posthumous punishment. So you shouldn't conflate it with less grevious mortal sins.

Doing 10 years for tax evasion in a minimum-security prison for non-violent offenders is very different from 10 years in a max-facility packed with rival gang factions brutalizing everyone who isn't part of their "crew" when they aren't murdering each other. Hell has its parallels, and they are infinitely worse than anything Dante could have imagined.

"But as mentioned before, there are four sins crying out for vengeance from Heaven, among them are murder; sodomy; the cry of the foreigner, widow and orphan, and the injustice to the wage earner."

None of the other three were included in your otherwise inaccurate comparison, which renders them irrelevant.