Hmm you said he was assigned it? As in like he has to review its themes and the philosophies of its arguments?
Glancing through it, it basically appears to be one of those faux-intellectual/pseudo-psychological take on the philosophical arguments against homosexuality...
From an anthropological point of view, it's a very ignorant and ethnocentric piece of work. To start with, they point out that they don't pretend to be a "representative" group of Americans. Most importantly, they start out with a presumption that homosexuality is bad, and that for one, they as heterosexuals can correctly dictate what is proper and right for people not like themselves (See last quote)
Assumptions they make:
Christian and Jewish traditions are today monolithic and consistent in their approach to homosexuality.
That the American civilization is dependent on religion to define its moral and philosophical discourse.
That "the great majority of Americans have been surprised, puzzled, shocked, and sometimes outraged by this movement for radical change"...
The only people I know who are confused are conservative Christians.
That one can separate the sin from the sinner- "To those who say that this disordered behavior is so much at the core of their being that the person cannot be (and should not be) distinguished from the behavior, we can only respond that we earnestly hope they are wrong"
"Many in our society-both straight and gay-also contend that what people do sexually is entirely a private matter and no one's business but their own. The form this claim takes is often puzzling to many people-and rightly so. For what were once considered private acts are now highly publicized, while, for the same acts, public privilege is claimed because they are private. What is confusedly at work here is an extreme individualism, a claim for autonomy so extreme that it must undercut the common good."