Had he used another analogy, the article would have been much less unique and remarkable. It's got whatever traction it does have because the insight supposedly comes from his experience as a gay man. Because I think that experience doesn't imply or even really relate much to the lesson he's imparting, it feels like we can infer that maybe he chose the analogy knowing it would have publicity value (rather than because it's a good analogy).

That would hold more weight if "gay" was in the title. It wasn't. That he is gay was an easy analogy for him to make. There are many other people that aren't gay that could make the same analogy with aspects of their life.

Being gay isn't the point. That you are gay doesn't add weight to your point either. If anything, it suggests that your ideas like merit to stand on their own.