I seem to have chosen the wrong stretch of text to dispose people favorably toward the writer. He may or may not have missed the point, but he's right that their point is unrelated to his point, or the evidence he used to support it. When he points out the same dodge in other contexts, it's mostly less insufferable, but it's precisely this moral outrage (that one feels against *him* in this case) that he's pointing out as a non-argument. People who are morally outraged at the idea of gay marriage have not contributed an argument. People who are morally outraged by the lack of gay marriage have not contributed an argument.