Justin,

Good job, sir. You continue to show the nuance and double-talk of Mr. Sullivan (which he would condemn - indeed, has condemned - out of the Bush Administration on any number of issues; wrongly, in my opinion) on this issue.

Basically, Mr. Sullivan is trying to continue to make his "conservative case" for gay marriage...by bashing social conservatives. He figures that he has enough "street cred" as a (sometime) hawk on foreign policy and (sometime) hawk on deficits that this can mask his anti-moralism and (there's no other word here) Oprah-like whining and passive-aggressive (I hate to use that term, but here it's appropriate also) attitudes towards the American people (a majority, as it happens) who disagree with him.

Truly astounding. He is Clinton-like in his ability to bob-and-weave (and, very un-conservative) on this issue.

What's truly astounding, but at the same time completely understandable, given the media reaction to him, is that he continues to be quoted by the mainstream press (and, invited on Chris Matthews' show) as a "conservative."

He knows not what real conservatism is, and he seems to be upset that folks like you and Jonah and Dr. Kurtz have figured out his game.

If I may quote/paraphrase a generally horrible movie (The American President):

"Andrew's problem is not that he doesn't BELIEVE it.
His problem is HE CAN'T SELL IT!"

Congratulations again.

Homosexuality should not be favorably acknowledged. I don't expect public officials to condemn it, but I don't want the idea to be put out there that it is okay.

Amen to that Joe.

"favorably acknowledged"... friend don't mask your true feelings... if you think it is a disease call it that... don't hide behind loaded words hoping to sound less volatile...

It is not a disease, it is simply immoral and aberrant behavior. Are people born with these tendencies? I suppose so but it is proven that some people are born with criminal tendencies. Are we going to condone that also? You can try to help them --but condoning it isn't being a bigot!

Core's Law of New Media: "There Is No Such Thing As Local News Anymore: In the Internet Age, anything anybody has said anywhere, anytime, can sooner or later become known everywhere else."

As I've mentioned before (perhaps here, but I don't remember), Sullivan has one thing in common with Dick Morris: each lets his feeling lead his thinking. Each can marshal facts and reasons to support whatever emotion or intuition he is experiencing at any given time. Unfortunately, as with most people to a greater or lesser degree, his feelings can and do change, sometimes like the wind, so each sooner or later ends up arguing against himself.

Ben writes, "It is not a disease, it is simply immoral and aberrant behavior. Are people born with these tendencies? I suppose so but it is proven that some people are born with criminal tendencies. Are we going to condone that also?"

Ben, if it's simply a matter of what you prefer not the "condone," how about this? On one hand you can simply condone Gay promiscuity by saying you don't care if Gay people are relegated to social outlaw status and left to screw themselves into oblivion .... or, on the other hand, you could condone more responsible behaviour, namely fidelity and monogamy in a loving relationship, and perhaps even providing such couples the incentives (such as allowing them to designate each other as beneficiaries under Social Security) to maintain such bonds. Most pragmatic Americans, especially those who actually have made the acquaintance of Gay couples, would prefer the latter.

This is a turn that I didn't anticipate for this post, but for the record (as I've posted here), I don't think homosexuality is a disease. Disease implies a cure, and I think such a thing is neither possible nor desirable to seek.

Most folks who don't believe that homosexuality should be "favorably acknowledged" will likely agree that "disorder" is more apt. This is not the least because, rather than a "cure," it implies "reordering," suggesting a painstaking process that, by necessity, entails voluntary participation on the part of the subject.

Over the years, the gay movement has woven counterculturalism into its self image, so pushing too strenuously for participation in, essentially, deconstruction of their own identity only affirms gays' inclination to withdraw. That's the tough part of the discussion (and it ought to be a tough discussion), and in my view, it's the best argument for same-sex marriage.

Of course, I believe that the argument is still inadequate, given current circumstances (in part because of that countercultural streak).

CA: on the other hand, you could condone more responsible behaviour, namely fidelity and monogamy in a loving relationship, and perhaps even providing such couples the incentives ... to maintain such bonds.

Chuck, most pragmatic Americans (yes, even those of us who know and love gay people) would consider "social outlaw status and screwing themselves into [a diseased] oblivion" a pretty strong incentive towards more responsible behavior in its own right. But as Justin points out, this doesn't even come close to satisfying the counterculture aims of pro-gay advocates...

Does Sodom and Gomorrah mean anything to anyone. Probably not! I am no fanatic but that example is pretty clear.(and there are others) Just depends what you consider immoral or in this case, what God considers immoral. If you don't think the Bible example is true then I suppose you don't have a problem.

Hello Ben,

I hope it was clear in my previous comment that I'm essentially in agreement with you. I will note, though, that Sodom and Gomorrah don't amount to synonyms for homosexuality. (See here, especially the comments, for more on this.) After a bit of negotiation, God promised Abraham to spare the entire city of Sodom if He could find just 10 "righteous people"; my understanding of the New Testament is that we're called to be among that symbolic 10 and to increase our number.

The question, therefore, is how we go about living righteously and converting modern Sodomites (again, not meaning just homosexuals). The counterculturalism of recent history make both tough propositions. That's why I suggested that Chuck's argument is the best that SSM advocates have to offer, although it's still inadequate to carry the day.

Actually Chuck, as a semi-pragmatic American, I would prefer that gay practitioners repent and turn away from the life-style in order to NOT be relegated to social outlaw status and screw themselves into oblivion. You shouldn't overlook reform as a pragmatic solution.

Justin--the article you point to is correct. These are all sins but my point is we were talking about homosexuality. Furthermore, my next point is that we should call them "all" what they are and not simply a "lifestyle"! Even though I don't think that many people would argue that adultry isn't immoral and a sin--there seems to be an increasing tendency to give homosexuality a pass!

I disagree Ben. Calling them "all" Gay enables their sense of it being a state rather than a choice. I say they are Gay Practitioners so that it demonstrates the objectionable action. Calling their habits a life-style does not imply acceptance of their behavior. I use the term life-style only to imply that they make it an active part of their lives. Calling it an orientation belies the fact that the practice is a concious decision.

oops... should have been conscious instead of concious.