"I admire the gays and lesbians. They're small in number. But they're well-organised."
"They've persuaded our legislators that the supreme moral values of the day are freedom and equality. Well they're not."
"The supreme moral values are truth and goodness, and if you forget that, you end up with the mess we're in today."
Once again, we see the catholic persecution complex in action: they're being systematically attacked by a 'well organised' group. It's as though the church thinks that there's some kind of gay hierarchy, with lay-gays, event-organising gays and maybe even leader-gays, all plotting against the church and its bronze age values.
There is simply a group of people who have human rights, voting power and a voice, qualities the church has traditionally abhorred.
And isn't it convenient that the moral values of the day are unquantifiable and subject to varying definition? There's little ambiguity about freedom and equality; it's obvious when one is being stomped on. But 'truth' and 'goodness'? The church defines what those are for its members, freeing them from the need to think about them, to make their own decisions. Because that's the last thing the church needs its people doing—thinking.
And why, when asked "can a loving relationship between two people of the same sex not be true and good?"
"Because it's not creative".
I'm assuming that he means pro-creative here, not just generally creative: the love shared between two people of the same sex is on even par with any other, and is creative in way that it enriches their lives and the lives of those around them. But he's right, it's not pro-creative: it doesn't bring new life into the world. But then, neither does a heterosexual marriage where one side or the other is sterile—does he propose nullifying such marriages, tearing such couples apart? Surely if one of them is capable of reproduction, it's a sin against god and humanity if that person doesn't find a fertile mate?