From a reader:

Greetings from a long-time reader of both you and Andrew Sullivan,
I would think that of all the faults that one might (fairly or otherwise) ascribe to Sullivan’s writings, among the last would be coyness, indirection or other such subtleties that would make a reader have to parse his sentences carefully to get at his true meaning. I would argue that one of his best aspects as a writer is his remarkably honest and direct polemical style, which enables him to cut through a lot of bull. Then again, what’s also his strength is also a very glaring fault at times, in that his rhetorical style leads him into excessive, hyperbolic statements that stretch his arguments at times to absurd levels.
Look for example at the post from today titled “What is Sexy?” where Sullivan turns what had been a fairly reflective and even innocuous discussion over at The Volokh Conspiracy into a tirade of generalizations against the habits of heterosexual men and especially women (not to mention homosexual women).
Look even more at “The Marriage Thing” post, where he claims you have insulted him by allegedly saying that his own writing for a gay magazine doesn’t count as being real writing; in his words specifically, “if you write something for the gay press, you haven’t really written it”.
Look most of all at his attempt in his post “Over at Lucianne” to tie a few really repugnant statements made by some people over at Lucianne’s website to broader conservatism (and of course to you and your mother as well).
These are all stretches of rhetoric in the extreme and are all various forms of logic fallacies. Now I think it is a little telling about you that you skipped over that “Marriage” post at first (but then you yourself have said that homosexual marriage isn’t a big issue for you, so you are being consistent), but I’m not sure how he can make the leap he did from what you wrote in your initial post on the subject of the Advocate article.
Say what you will about the man, but the meaning behind what Sullivan writes is anything but unclear.