The National Review's logic:
From their editorial, The Future of Marriage
: (emp add)
One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.
[Heterosexual marriage] is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. ...
The NR doesn't
think channeling homosexual desire
into civilized patters of living is an important government goal.
The NR does
think channeling heterosexual desire
into civilized patterns of living is an important governmental goal.
What's the difference between those two statements? Only one thing. The status of the protagonists. Andrew Sullivan calls it
"homophobia". Hard to argue with that.
Also, reading the NR editorial, one gets the sense that it's influenced by Augustinian (or Pauline) thinking. Perhaps Sullivan, a Catholic, should ponder how much the church's doctrine is influencing the NR's point of view.