National Review and Gays

This election campaign has revealed a lot, hasn't it? Whatever happens tomorrow, some people have finally revealed what they really believe. A reader writes:

The terminology of the NRO piece is fascinating:

"Gay advocates reason that because a man has a temptation to homosexuality, he has little moral choice other than to obey it."

"A temptation to homosexuality?" I assume gays are "tempted" by homosexuality in the same way straights are "tempted" by heterosexuality. In other words, homosexuality is as much of a "temptation" as lefthandedness. We're not talking about temptations; we're talking about what people are.

The analogies are fascinating, too:

"...another thing that makes a homosexual temptation difficult to resist is that, at least until the advent of AIDS, it produced no physical ravages (as alcoholism and anger do)."

Here, Klinghoffer seems close to an epiphany, but he's just missing it: homosexuality is different from alcoholism, anger, etc., because homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone - at least, no more than heterosexuality.  Which is part of why it's ridiculous to describe sexuality itself as a "temptation."

Ice cream is a temptation. Hunger is a condition. If you think hunger itself is a temptation, you just bought yourself a one-way ticket to an eating disorder.

Keep fighting, my friend.

I will.