[RobertBauman]

I've read the book and it's great. What I don't understand is why Sullivan once again tries to spin something as an endorsement of his lifestyle? Aren't some things better left private? I'm curious if the author wanted Andrew Sullivan to blast his private bedroom preference all over the place. I'm not a so-called 'homophobe', but why do the gay militant types try to turn everything into an issue of either you endorse the homosexual lifestyle as virtuous or else your're an evil bigot?

[RobertBauman]

What the heck do the gay militants like Sullivan mean by 'openly' gay? I never hear them refer to normal people as 'openly straight'. If their lifestyle isn't a choice, then what is so 'open' about it? Could it be something more akin to 'openly evil' or 'openly immoral' such as a straight person who is 'openly adulterous'? It just seems strange that on the one hand they insist their lifestyle is so normal, but they still want to hide the embarrassment and shame of it.

[ProudGOP]

why do the gay militant types try to turn everything into an issue of either you endorse the homosexual lifestyle as virtuous or else your're an evil bigot?

Simple. They seek acceptance of their lifestyle. It is not enough that we appreciate them for their accomplishments, in Sullivan's case, his writing. They want us to think of their lifestyle as normal and acceptable. I believe this is so important to them because deep down they realize it is not normal.