Poster seems to believe that a good heuristics to evaluate the truthfulness of a statement is how challenging it is to your worldview or feelings. It intuitively makes sense to the social part of the brain since living among other humans constrains our discourse and prevent us from sharing what we feel is the truth yet the logical error seems to be that any discourse that does not respect the feelings/worldview of a given audience is more truthful.
It doesn't help that people generally advance the "only truth hurts" argument after they receive pushback on a statement trying to inflict their "truth" to others and rarely to share the experience of changing their own mind after by accepting a truth that is emotionally costly for the self
I implied no universal, nor that one need disregard the feelings or worldview of another.
Only that, yes, sometimes we allow our fear of upsetting another to impede our willingness to communicate clearly - especially (and more often than not) when we care about them.
No, you left out the bit about it being a claim of catholicism. You left out the relevant context, which was arguing out of bad faith. It would be easy to write it in the context of what a particular religion believes.
I don't see how it was in bad faith considering if you ask google "what moral system claims that oral and anal sex are immoral regardless of the genders involved" it immediately spits out catholicism. I'd say rather, you are arguing in bad faith, framing my reply as hiding something when it is very easy to find the context I had in mind.