I think I get it- if  heterosɛҳuąƖs commit acts of sodomy it is against the natural law. Natural heterosɛҳuąƖ relations however illicit/sinful may remain in the natural law. Which I think was my point.

A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner. Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a truegood, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): "What food is to a man's well being, such is sɛҳuąƖ intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race." Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation.

Marriage per say rises above the realm of natural law, but one might argue that it's against natural law to be promiscuous, since a stable family is required to raise children properly.

Again, "against natural law" (contra legem naturalem) is different from "against nature" (contra naturam).  There's a very specific subset of things that are contra naturam ... things like ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and masturbation, for instance.

Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the "vice against nature," which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is "simple fornication," which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. Secondly, the matter wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with right reason in relation to other persons; and this in two ways. First, with regard to the woman, with whom a man has connection, by reason of due honor not being paid to her; and thus there is "incest," which consists in the misuse of a woman who is related by consanguinity or affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person under whose authority the woman is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is "adultery," if under the authority of her father, it is "seduction," in the absence of violence, and "rape" if violence be employed.

 ...wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

 Another poster said that, premarital or extramarital sex are sins that do not, in themselves, violate natural law."  This is incorrect and is not a mere quibble but really gets to the heart of natural law.

On the contrary, these examples of "disabilities" you mention open the person up  to becoming a saint! They may never have the capacity for personal sin. The "disability" of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, acted upon , is always a grave sin. Would God create people genetically/hard wired whose only sɛҳuąƖ expression in any capacity  is grave sin? You might say that all of these people are called to continence and their self- control would warrant them the same sainthood, but ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, from what I can tell is a wanton , polygamous unatural disposition, beyond any normal sɛҳuąƖ urges. That doesn't sound like God would create that, maybe allow it because of the sins of the world.But does God still love them? Of course.
The exorcists say ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a form of demon possession. ( Asmodeus?)

Yes, and that has nothing to do with what I said. God could permit something bad to happen to a child, but there is ZERO proof that people are born homo. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a disorder, and I think we can be fairly certain that  this poor guy was turned gαy by abuse. God does not create people with unnatural desires.

Precisely.  Bergoglio is as clever as a serpent.  So while his intended message gets out to the left (there is no hell, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is OK, remarriage is OK, etc.) ... the right defends him due to lack of proof.