You seem to have missed the point.
All three openly admit that they disagree with Church teaching.
Not one of them argues that their indefensible positions are based on Catholic tradition. Whenever they defend themselves against critics, they use secular or heretical arguments for their position because they cannot proceed on Catholic principles. They basically argue: "We are keeping up with the times: the Church is backward now, but we think it will catch up to us."
Vines, by contrast, builds his arguments on at least two core principles of the Reformation: the principle of the sufficiency of Scripture and the principle of private judgment of Scripture.
RE: All three openly admit that they disagree with Church teaching.
And Matthew Vines agrees with the church’s teachings?
Did you miss the refutations by Pastors and Scholars of various denominations to what he wrote?
RE: Vines, by contrast, builds his arguments on at least two core principles of the Reformation: the principle of the sufficiency of Scripture and the principle of private judgment of Scripture.
On the principle of sufficiency of scripture, scripture itself ALREADY condemns homosexuality both in the Old and New Testament. No amount of appeal to tradition is going to change the minds of people like Pelosi, Cuomo, Kerry or Vines.
On the private judgment of scripture -— what’s going to stop people like these from making their own private judgments of tradition?