Gays, surely, have been done unto by others. However, they've also done unto themselves. Like Bruno, they’ve reinforced stereotypes they claim to hate.

I understand that harassed groups sometimes try to take back dignity by subverting aggressors' venom. Blacks try to do this with the N-word. However, I think it rarely works. Racists who hear blacks call each other N-worders think the label apt. Those who aren't racist wonder why a group continues to put itself down...like minorities who pay top dollar to wear ill-fitting clothes that prisoners are forced to wear. It tells the greater society that the minorities LIKE being odd and under. Style and other cultural manifestations are like language: It’s one thing to use slang if you have command of the King’s English; quite another if your main and only tongue is “ghetto.”

For years gays made fun of straights, calling them "breeders" who lived in boring "ticky-tacky" houses. They trumpeted that the TRULY liberated people were gays who humped anything under the sun, consigning monogamy to idiots. And, too often (by nefarious inference) kids were seen as fair game sexually. It took Village People to raise them and NAMBLA to exploit them.

Atop that, gays claimed 10% of the population was gay when most evidence concluded it's around 1-3%. I for one find hard to believe that for every 1000 people I pass on the street, 100 are gay.

The problem, politically/socially, comes when gays assert their RIGHT to marry, have kids, etc. For decades the message was that it wasn't "just" sex, but EVERYTHING about gays that was not only different, but better. Now the majority is not to react thinking millions of children will be soon be raised/warped/abused by dog-poop-eating Divines.

It would have been easier to convince straight America to support gay marriages if they were told that only a small part of the already small (1-3%) population would be involved. That it wouldn’t have a HUGE impact financially or socially (does anyone mind Mennonites marrying?). Also it would have helped if the “only” difference was sexual orientation, not “lifestyle.” Alas, most "gay pride" parades were routinely—and intentionally-- outrageous. Why? You don't see straight parades with topless women and willy-waving men “performing” in front of kids. Even in New Orleans, women SPECTATORS occasionally (and for an instant!) “flash” their hooters…not every female on every float.

Just like illegal immigrants did themselves no favor by (aside from flouting the law to enter the country) waving Mexican flags, gays harmed their own progress (and played into bigots' hands) by acting anything BUT normal publicly. What's worse, before straight America could adjust to “gays” and “lesbians” they were hectored to honor 'shemales" and "the transgendered" and other subsets.

How's that working?

My advice to gays: Start acting "normal." By that I mean, fit in more. Stop emphasizing difference. It won't work. Societies can and do stretch, but it takes time. Like yoga, you can't take a stiff person and force them to assume extreme positions. It not only does more harm than good, it causes reactions that SLOWS (some time reverses!) progress.

Gays should live their lives more privately. Don't get in people's faces unless you want reactions that “prove” you are "right" but still considered "odd men out."

Suggestion: Hold a "pride" parade where onlookers can't tell the marchers are gay. THAT will tell onlookers visually and viscerally that "gays" ARE "just like us."

Now gay groups might feel "honor-bound" to let queens, bull-dykes-on-bikes, leather-lotharios, beer-belly-bears, Wall Street trader twinks, etc. march, too. If so, fine. But then don't complain when viewers see them...and the gay agenda...as kooky.

So are ALL straight parades prim-and-proper? Not really. Some have Shriners driving around in mini-cars. Others have bands wearing big poofy feathered costumes. But few bands/groups tout their sexuality. You don't see Mormon husbands marching with their 20 wives. You don't see football/rock stars faux-humping groupies. That is, you don't see straight groups taunting spectators with red-meat bait to set off prejudices. If gays want to be respected, they need to respect their audiences, too.

Gay spokespeople might offer some apologies or at least words of understanding. That doesn’t mean they should forgive past and current outrages done to gays. It means admitting some things gays did had negative impacts, too. For example, they might say that…

…gays have acted like rebellious teens instead of mature adults. That is, they focused on things YOUTH finds important, neglecting other aspect of life and age.

…maybe there was an element of sour grapes in maligning straight marriages when gays were excluded (just like women's groups mocked men’s "silly game" before women formed the LPGA).

…maybe gays focused on sex, forgetting that life holds other gems like marriage, technology, education, raising kids, and so on.

I’m not saying gays haven’t been much maligned. I’m just saying gays can help themselves by downplaying the “difference” that sex brings up. After all, how many straight politicians would be elected if they were "open" about THEIR private sexual lives, too? How many would vote for Julie if her campaign slogan was "Vote For Me: I Like To Be Pee'd On!"?

It’s asking a lot (too much?) to expect people to embrace sexual things they are not comfortable with. As long as gays’ sexual orientation is the main thing that "scares" people, it’s unwise to keep emphasizing it.

When a company messes up during a long holiday weekend it doesn’t trot out a spokesman dressed in pajamas holding a beer with a 3-day beard. It brings out someone in a suit who sounds and looks like our “better selves.”

Gays should do the same. Once there is wider acceptance, exceptions can be made. Until then, too many Liberaces candelabras burns onlookers.

regardless of who is doing it. Borat had a few funny moments, but they mostly involved the actors (the naked wrestling with his manager for example). Putting the joke on regular folks, just not that funny.

It isn't just SBC. It is also the Steve-O/Bam Margera dichotomy on Jackass. Neither one is exactly Woody Allen, but I found Steve-O funny because most of his humor was (literally) self inflicted. Piercing your own butt cheeks: Comic Gold (I guess). Bam, on the other hand, was all outward directed, and it just felt mean spirited.