Consider his portrayal of the liberal argument:
Homosexuals argue they are born this way, they say. Therefore, since we can't change who we are, then we should be just as protected as minorities and females.
That's a stupid argument, and no intelligent liberal should use it. For starters, it's politically foolish to rest our case on such a flimsy premise which could well be disproved by new evidence. More importantly, the argument isn't even valid. If some people are born with a predilection for violence, that doesn't mean we should allow them to commit murders. The "it's natural!" argument is just as idiotic as the "it's unnatural!" argument; neither justifies any moral conclusion whatsoever.
Homosexuality is perfectly acceptable regardless of whether it arises from nature, nurture, or is a freely-made choice. Better arguments will reflect this. For example, one could appeal to J.S Mill's harm principle: that is, the value of liberty, and the utter lack of any decent justification for curtailing it in this case.
But the writer of this article ignores such arguments, preferring to attack the straw man. Remarkably, though, he can't even do that properly.
Why am I so sure that a gay gene "isn't there"? It's a simple matter of (surprise) Darwinism... In the case of homosexuals, same-sex couples cannot reproduce. This is the fatal flaw in the homosexual argument that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore, even if you grant that a "gay gene" did exist at one point, it couldn't have been passed along to future generations since same-sex couples can't reproduce.
There is so much wrong with this I'm not sure where to start. But I'll try anyway. (1) Genetic influences are rarely so blunt as a single "gay gene". [Note: follow the link in the update for my explanation of precisely why this is a problem for his argument.] (2) Recessive alleles can be passed on by 'carriers' who do not themselves experience its phenotypic effects. (3) Gay people can still have children the usual way. (4) Non-reproducing family members can help their relatives to pass their genes into the next generation. It's also rather telling that homosexual behaviour has been observed in other animals.
As I mentioned above, the genetic question is rather irrelevant anyway. But it's worth pointing out that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Just look at this fallacy:
If the presumption [in the "liberal argument"] is not true, then homosexuals do not have a right to marry.
Um, no. A false premise invalidates an argument, but it does not guarantee the falsity of the conclusion. There could always be some other argument which establishes the conclusion.
Lastly, there's the usual tripe about homosexuality being "unnatural":
[S]ame-sex sexual relations deviates from the biological standard of male-and-female sexual relations. Any other type of sexual relations (e.g., human-and-animal) is similarly deviant. Pretty black-and-white, folks... As everyone knows, male homosexual relations involves the anus. And everyone also knows that the biological function of the anus is not sexual.
It's pretty stupid to assert that just because an object has some function, it's immoral to use it for any other purpose. The biological function of the mouth is the consumption of food and drink. Does that make kissing immoral? I use my hands to play the piano. I'm pretty sure hands didn't evolve for that specific purpose though. As for the reproductive purpose of sex, I take it that the "biological standard" is fertile male-and-female couples. So does that make it "deviant" for the infertile to have sex? Should post-menopausal women not be allowed to marry either?
This article is no more philosophy than creationism is science. The Philosophy News Service should be ashamed of itself for implicitly endorsing such rubbish.
Update: For more on the first article, see the PNS forum.