Just on the side: If I remember Latin class correctly (and, this is just a figure of speech here, because I do remember it correctly) it is “Reductio ad absurdum”. I know this does not contribute to the actual debate, it’s just that it makes me iffy when people use big words and do not even know how to do so (I dare not ask if you know what it means). Go on

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

Of course, I’m a religious, heterosexual conservative and this agrees with my viewpoint…thanks.

I may have strayed into Reducto ad absurdium, if I remember debate class correctly, but I just found that hiding behind the ADA was absurd on the face.

I’m left handed, should I be covered under the ADA because of historic opression and trying to function in a society build by the right handed for the rigth handed? *snort*

If someone can be born with the wrong set of organs, does that mean you’d support abortion of gay babies on demand? I mean if the child had a ‘defect’ like downs syndrome, others have suggested it’s better to abort than raise such a child.

I disagree with your ‘disability’ premise on its face, just curious about this continuation of the line of thought.

Having said that The unedited article is great! (Or it’s growing on me, or something.)

“We do not want any change in the obligations that marriage entails. We want the same limits as now apply–but applied to people regardless of their sexual orientation.” [Sullivan, 1997]

If only that were true. Or, to put it another way: WE must make it true.

the promiscuous segment of the gay community receives much greater coverage [than their straight counterparts].

I question that. Some straights are definitely promiscuous. But in my un-scientific estimate, both (a) the proportion of the community involved in promiscuity and (b) the intensity of the promiscuity would have to be higher for gay men. (And, lower for lesbians.)

“Since the mainstream institutions were vehemently opposed to homosexuality, gays and lesbians felt little desire to conform or emulate those institutions. As mainstream society grew more tolerant of homosexuals, it diminished the need for the extreme in-your-face advocates.”

Do you notice a similarity? He’s stating that gays and lesbians didn’t want to take part in mainstream institutions such as marriage because of a perceived vehement opposition to homosexuality within those institutions (representing the larger society) and that the need for extremists diminished only when society grew more tolerant. I both factually and logically disagree. I’m not even sure he understands the differences between tolerance and acceptance, as he jumps from one to the other with only “…homophobia and hatred…” in between.

He implies later that a private commitment can only be valid if approved by the state. Once again, he’s relying on society to act in his best, private interest before he proves his self-interest is beneficial to the larger society from which he makes his demands, that the effect of his commitment is met when the cause is state approval. Whether he is committed to another has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the state and only until society is convinced that it benefits from a change in the institution of marriage will he have made his case. He hasn’t made his case.

I don’t know what Ignatius read. But, I see the same passage stating that as gay culture became more mainstream, the face of gay culture changed from crazy leather drag queens, etc to normal Americans that happen to be gay (ie: Ellen DeGeneres).

If he’s “…strongly in favor of gay marriage yet [he] understand[s] the concern of conservatives at [sic] the perceived attack…”, how can he consider himself “…caught between the two camps…” he’s described?

“As mainstream society grew more tolerant of homosexuals, it diminished the need for the extreme in-your-face advocates.” There was never a ‘need’ for extreme advocates. Is he implying that extremists helped diminish this need? He’s stating that there is an inverse proportion of extremists to tolerance. I disagree. Anyone aware of Folsom Street Fair would disagree and I don’t live in Palo Alto.

And that’s only the beginning. Depressing.