Surely your aware of what caused the whole dust-up, yes?
As for agreeing with the panelist on having violent sex because he didn't like her, I mean, really? I don't like the way they were carrying on, and I would have likely felt uncomfortable on that panel, but aggressive or "angrily" does not necessarily mean violent, it just doesn't. It was an extremely tongue-in-cheek statement on a late night comedy program that even when taken literally doesn't necessarily yield your interpretation, and Savage used language that is often used in consensual contexts. Again, I don't condone what they said, but you're stretching.
On your last question, admittedly, the left would not be defending you. But here's the thing: neither would I. I did give up on being a part of either the left or right long ago but suffice it to say, if you wanted the situation to be a true analogue, we would have to have the power situations reversed. You don't find that relevant, fine. So there's our irresolvable disagreement.
I mean look, I argue with people on the left not infrequently when they assume that say, white interests are the same as rich interests, or when the left speaks of defending the powerless, but turns around mocks "rednecks" for sport. I don't think the power dynamics are as cleanly cut, or that they cut the way the left often thinks. But on the issue of homosexuality, I think they have it more or less right.
You don't think the power situation is a relevant factor, fine.