I hope this is not taken the wrong way, but as an outsider in this discussion (since I am not in communion with any of you, or the person whose statement apparently started this whole ruckus), it does sort of read like "let's get the people who are insufficiently against the thing that we're all against". I suppose it depends on whether or not you think it beneficial to see nuance in something that (I agree) should be black and white, or whether it is more useful in your estimation to call a spade a spade or however you'd put it.
I would hope, at least, that in all our personal dealings with people who may be homosexual or otherwise living lifestyles that we know are against the gospel of Christ and His Church that we can allow for nuance, so as to not reduce people to their sins in the way that the modern narrative on this topic seems to (where, I suppose following Aristotle, you are what you repeatedly do), and hence do violence to traditional Christian anthropology. If we mostly do not have power in today's western societies, I would venture to guess that this is because of the triumph of a wholly secular and ultimately evil view of mankind's origins, purpose, and perfectability absent God, which is the view that pervades the modern media, academia, etc. Now, I'm just some yokel, but it would seem to me that to get that unthinkingly accepted view to change would require a deeper connection with the individuals we know than simply reiterating what the Church and the faith say they should/n't do in their bedrooms. Most post/ex-Christians either know or think they know all about that, but if they don't know that this is a very surface-level way of looking at things, I'm not sure we can say that we aren't at least somewhat to blame for that.
