A quote, from somewhere in Newsweek (I couldn't find the original) via GetReligion:

But there is clearly discomfort with the movement’s apparent obsession with sins of the flesh.

Actually, I think it's fair to say that it is the media (and perhaps many gay activists), not mainstream Christianity, which is obsessed 'sins of the flesh.'

Take the Haggard affair. Do you think Haggard would still have been forced to step down had he only been found to have been buying drugs -- with no hint of sexual infidelity? Of course. But would the media have covered it the same, to the same extent? Of course not.

And look at Christianity Today's news summary: Sifting through the wire stories, Ted Olsen (and co) finds recent articles tended to fall into one of six categories: "Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay — Plus... a few other non-gay stories from online sources around the world."

I have attended churches. Really. Quite a number of them. So I'm qualified to comment on the "focus" I've observed. The media, generally less so.

First, the message is mostly positive: more in favor of things we should do, rather that against things we ought not. And even then it's been my experience that selfishness, laziness, greed, insufficient love for God and neighbor are inveighed-against far more than lust. And even then, it usually generic or heterosexual lust: filter your 'net reading, turn off the trashy TV, etc.

I get the sense that many on the left and in the press don't want "sins of the flesh" mentioned ever; their simple inclusion in the pantheon of vice is what so rankles. Stories like this serve as a kind of negative example: "Look at these mean, hypocritical, sex-obsessed Christians."

That, and there's always money to be made by focusing on sex.

Yet both angles indicate interest by the press and/or their readers, not necessarily an inappropriate fixation on the part of those being covered. Indeed, the whole idea of the media accusing churches of being sex-obsessed strikes me as farcial beyond words.