[papertyger]

I’m sorry. I’m not sure I’m understanding your question, but if it helps, a point I’m making is that, had there been a more objective and rational public debate on the subject, instead of simple verbal tug-of-war where each side uses its own rope, their media campaign would have had less impact, because it would fail to sway people who were better informed.

I understand that: I'm disagreeing.

Your presumption that people who are less offended are better informed is a conceit.

I maintain your theory breaks down because the "gay campaign" works because it is just that, a campaign, not because it resonates with people who do not share the same proclivities as homosexuals regardless of how "informed" they are.

[william clark]

Your presumption that people who are less offended are better informed is a conceit.

Again, you're misreading my words, and then apparently basing your disagreement on that.

It has nothing to do with being offended or not being offended. You're making that connection, I'm not.

It's all about being informed, whether a person has a basis for being offended by it or not. If the issue had been debated objectively in the public square, so that it was common, research-based knowledge that people are not born homosexual, then a PR campaign proclaiming "God made me this way, so it's bigotry for you to object" simply wouldn't get a lot of footing.

The reason the movement has made so much progress is that the only counter-arguments one hears in the public arena are those based on moral/religious objections, and we all agree that we're not a theocracy, so we're not going to be able to use those arguments with people who don't believe as we do. To them, the arguments of the activists sound perfectly reasonable. They may, however, be persuaded by rational, scientific arguments that they unfortunately have never heard.