I believe the point about image and social acceptance goes to the heart of the matter. It's about how mainstream America views us. Among ourselves, we must be willing to talk about morals, to impose them on ourselves and to do so conspicuously. As long as our primary image is one of gleeful promiscuity, an image promoted not only by our enemies but also reinforced by our own magazines, our own bars, and our own public behavior, we will still be ostracised by society in general. Until we start imposing honesty, fidelity and emotion on our lives, in other words, until we are willing to talk about moral standards, we will make little or no real progress in social acceptance.

I don't believe you can gain social acceptance in Middle America without facing up to the facts. Working towards that aim means bringing out the best in ourselves and offering something admirable to Middle America.

I disagree with Bongo's assertion that image does not provide effective political leverage for gays. Social acceptance by Middle America is a nessasary condition for removing legal barriers. We don't enhance our image by conducting an assault on mainstream American values and institutions. If anything, such assaults isolate us from Middle America. We must show the broad middle of America that gays do not monolithically oppose them on a wide range of important economic and social issues. Winning the trust and support of Middle America is foundational to forging a coalition which will bring equality.

Instead, many of our organizations and leaders have repeatedly taken political stands that are calculated to offend middle America. We cannot expect to enlist their support if they see no advantage in standing up for us. Gay equality is very consistent with the traditional values and institutions of middle America.

My comments on argumentum ad hominem are consistent and correct. If your first and only response is to attack the messenger, then we must infer a person has nothing of substance or relevance to rebut it.

Admittedly, I am a genetic contrarian, so I will continue to say what I think without regard for whoever claims to be mildly offended.

No, I'm not Sun or anyone else. I did, however, chuckle to myself when Bongo (assuming he is not Jake) substituted his own odd polemic and aptly demonstrated my previous point on argumentum ad hominem.