Sorry I got caught up in watching this video. I consider the 3 people in it to be very decent sources, indeed, though I'm much less familiar with Christopher Yuan. I had planned to read his book but haven't read it yet.

Mrs. Butterfield has a very interesting perspective on SSA issues given her background. I don't necessarily agree with her on everything, she has a few strange takes, for example she also espouses a view on "exclusive psalmnody", that is, claiming that Christians shouldn't sing hymns or other christian music, but ONLY the psalms because they are in the Bible.

Ironically, she HAS written a lot of stuff on the need for closer Christian community and relationships, so it may be that she is here attempting to "balance" this stuff or something.

So... looking at this video they start off addressing not "friendship" as such but a very specific concept called "spiritual friendship", which is a terminology used by specific groups. Now, I hope these guys are misunderstanding what's going on here because I would love to believe the best of the folks who are a part of this movement. But what they're attacking is actually this idea promoted by an organization called ReVoice that it's a good idea for SSA people to form these "covenental" relationships with a person they're already same-sex attracted to. He also mentions that the book says some people in these relationships "embrace non-sexual romance". It's also been described by some as a "sexless marriage".

Before I get into it one other thing I like about the video is that Rosaria makes a really great point about Gnosticism and "secret knowledge". The idea that there need be this new terminology or "neologisms" and concepts whose spiritual meanings are known only to the initiated and that they can only be understood because by those who have unique personal experience is a very gnostic idea.

And one thing Christopher Yuan is very correct about is that from this (Side B) movement there is a great deal of messaging ambiguity, which is a major complaint of mine as well about that movement.

Then they get on to this part of the video where it's discussed how some people think intersex conditions existed prior to the fall, which is a bizarre claim on its surface since these people are frequently very sick from their condition, as well as obviously the "He created them male and female" line. But that's not as relevant to your concerns.

But I understand why you feel concerned about aspects of the video & the messaging.

That's because isolated from the context of SSA, none of the things mentioned are actually bad things to do with your friends. Cuddling. Celebrating important dates. Even living together, or in communal settings (as much as they dunk on it because it's inspired by the monasteries) or moving from place to place together. So when does this become unhealthy? I don't wanna give an "I know it when I see it" answer but. I think it's when a person has a temptation and they're not fleeing that temptation, instead they're trying to see how close they can get without going over.

So like yes. Individuals called to celibacy can struggle with community and need to form strong communities, and I feel like it's adding to the Bible to arbitrarily condemn the forms this takes. (That is, to condemn communal living would be adding to the Bible.) Again I feel like also this conversation is missing an honest look at pre-20th century norms which might include unrelated adults called "Uncles" or "Aunts" living with a family (surprising number of cases of unrelated household members getting, "adopted" as it were or at least that's my impression). None of this stuff should be considered intrinsically related to sexuality in my opinion. By contrast, the concept of "romance" is intrinsically related to sexuality.

(As an aside, Yuan totally butchered the term "bromance" - this is an older term that actually has nothing to do with homosexuality, it's an ironic/humorous term for an emotional or close friendship. It's fallen out of general use now because people take the idea of friendships becoming gay too seriously and therefore the ironic intent is lost.)

Then later Rosaria Butterfield gets to the part about excessive androgen production in people with XX chromosomes, and her response to this is, "Or maybe the fall just caused us to desire things that God hates". My response to this is really, "does she even know what the word intersex means"?

To me those last two points contribute to my general sense that the commentators are willing to speak without fully knowing what they're talking about.

Back on the topic of "friendship", you have to realize that even if all Christian relationships ARE to be defined in a family context, we ARE family. All Christians are brothers and sisters. So I don't see that as limiting. [maybe this is the closest thing to an answer to your original question]

Personally my views are marked by the fact that I do NOT see a smooth continuum between "friendship" and "romance", as it is not a matter of degree but of nature. That's why I say "I know it when I see it." SSA creeping into a friendship will corrupt its nature in a way that any degree of closeness will not. I don't see any way of policing this by policing people's actions. It is not an external sin, it is a sin of the heart.