Examines the rhetoric used on the both sides of the gay rights debate.
The gay-rights debate is stalemated because each side oversimplifies and pathologizes the other's perspectives, finds Caramagno (English, U. of Nebraska-Lincoln). Assuming both sides bring something of value to the debate, he shows how each marshals evidence to muster public support, but without addressing the conceptual changes needed to conduct a more profitable dialogue. He looks at areas that can be settled by science or scholarship, and at those that cannot. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)