I think as Ashley has pointed out, Sullivan in chapter 8, appears to question the effectiveness of activist groups that have conflict. Today in another class we watched 'After Stonewall' and I was reminded of the history we have read in this class this semester. There is no question that the gay community has moved forward in some respect because different groups have coalesced into one movement. On the first page, Sullivan points out that community 'is a sense of commonality'. Also, as Sullivan points out the terms 'home' and 'family' are oftentimes used in political rhetoric . The desire to belong and to have credibility as well as the desire for the same rights as those who are heterosexual, are the commonalities for this cause. Like church denominations, splinter issues hinder the rate of progress for those who chose to continue to marginalize by the continuation of labelling and pointing out the differences that can often hinder the 'big picture'.
My question comes from the first complete paragraph on pg.146. Why has it been so difficult to recognise that 'shared characteristics' 'exist as such only within a given community of understanding'? When the agenda is really all about the understanding and recognising of the gay community and the rights that entails..why shouldn't the recognising begin from within on this issue, in this community of sexuality like it should begin with any other movement addressing inequality and oppression? The rate of success quite possibly could be measured much quicker to the betterment of those communities.