There were two utterances in that article which struck a chord with me:
“Throwing feminine play into the mix delays, interrupts, or intrudes on the development of masculine identity.”
“There is a fascination with the theological and political left in America to appear to have an absence of judgment against immorality, while simultaneously attempting to judge the theological and political right so as to win popularity with the culture, to appear to be intellectual, and to imply that God would love it all.”
Now let’s take “masculinity”. Of course the SSM proponents would want that identity to be clouded. If it can be clouded enough, then SSM proponents will have the needed platform to further their agenda, and even legislate it. (As the author said, it’s not “equal” they’re going for, it’s “same”, and there is a BIG difference.)
And that’s where the “what people do in their bedroom is their business, not the governments” line stops for me: legislation, and that’s what most of these SSM folks are trying to do. (I am not in favor of homosexual activity, but I don’t object to “what people do in their bedroom is their business, not the governments”. Just don’t shove it in my face with legislating it.)
Now I realize that these SSM “partnerships” typically have one partner who takes on the male role. But that male role is nevertheless clouded and certainly not the same as it is in the hetero world.
So, as the author says, the identity is clouded.
Now let’s take the “God” and “morality” aspect of this. In the public square, quite a few will argue these components, and I think cite #2 is the SSM attempt to rebut those arguments. And they have been very successful at it.
While I believe in those components, I wouldn’t use them as arguments in the public square (now I might use those components in a one-on-one situation) simply because that argument will perpetually rage without resolution, plus I don’t want to give the opposition ammunition with which to assault the unwashed masses and legislate the whole thing. Conservatives are playing right into their hands.
I’d rather conduct the argument on my terms than theirs. They have their guns loaded for the “God” and “morality” argument (and probably welcome those arguments), but when conducted on a secular basis (the first cite I did of the article), the playing field is more level.