I think it's possible to take a look at my previous post and come away with the idea that I have this deep dislike of homosexuals/"sodomites" (God, we need a more modern name than that.) The fact is, that's pretty much as far from the case as you can get. Sex acts are central the moral and ethical issues, but at the same time the realization that that's the case also tends to put the real issue in context as well. Really, the homosexually active aren't doing anything that the heterosexually active aren't entirely capable of doing as well, morally speaking - and that many probably DO do, as a matter of fact. Sure, there are some specific differences, but I honestly think the individual-level similarities overwhelm those factors.
The problem is that 'homosexual' - the bare person who has same sex attraction - is now intellectually wedded to 'devoted LGBT agitator' in the public consciousness. I'm sure that's both the fault of conservatives and liberals, and it's one of the things I think needs to end. In fact I sometimes wonder if a number of gay men really wish they could liberate themselves from the LGBT movement to one degree or another. France certainly showed that there are gays for whom 'gay marriage' is offensive. How many of them are there?
(I say 'gay men' specifically because the impression I always get is that lesbians are a different thing. With rare exception, the self-described lesbian has at least some kind of political/social agitation going on to begin with.)
I suppose the short way to say what I'm saying here is that I really don't give a shit if someone is same-sex attracted. It means next to nothing. Now, the SSA person who is also sexually active and 'out and proud' and trying to make it so condemning anal sex is a hate crime that can get you fined and imprisoned? Fuck them and their rainbows, frankly. But the two are not the same thing, and I hope more and more people start to recognize that.