“... overlooks the fact that none of these are the basis of a poitical movement and are sooner or later recognized as shameful.”
I think that's kind of his point, that by creating this idea of stable “sexual orientation” as a part of a person's innate personality, we have elevated a sin to a lifestyle in a way that we don't with things like adultery, etc.
Thus, I think he would ask you this - Is someone who experiences, from time to time, twinges of temptation to commit adultery, but who fails in anyway, either mentally or physically, to act on those twinges of temptation, an adulterer? Of course not!
If someone experienced same-sex attractions from time to time, but failed to act on that attraction in any way, neither mentally nor physically, not even fantasizing about it, should that person be labeled “homosexual”? The author is saying that that's reification of an act or even just a feeling, even an involuntary one, into a personality attribute.
sitetest