Honestly: all the stuff about whether it's "accepting" of straight people to not expect us to be huge bigots was asked and answered really thoroughly long ago in this thread.
(The short version: straight people don't have to "shout" for acceptance because they already have it, that's what any form of privilege basically is; and the claim that it's oppressing straight people to ask them not to be hugely bigoted against and judgmental about LGBT people is as immensely foolish and fallacious as claiming that it "oppressing" whites to keep them from lynching blacks for the crime of being black. Meikle covered those bases quite comprehensively, and with greatest respect to Dashenka, it is -- to put it as nicely as possible -- really super-questionable for her to keep cranking out the same lines over and over as if none of that happened, as if she expects mere repetition to do the job for her.)
More interesting just as a question in itself, and as a direction of discussion, is what Imogen brings up about the role of emotion in influencing this debate. Because I actually think emotion has
played a strong role, and a very interesting one, in the evolution of homophobia and the reactions to it.
One of the most common critiques of the "gay marriage" movement from more radical activists of the Stonewall generation in North America was that it was about gaining access to bourgeois privilege, that it wasn't addressed the wider issues of poverty facing gays and other marginalized communities and that in general it was an attempt to acclimate to an institution that some radicals believed was something of a patriarchal trap to begin with.
Now, I think the "gay marriage" movement has proved its critics wrong. This is not to say that I at all accept this nonsense about how gays should not "shout about" anything: the first step in mounting a movement with any kind of self-confidence, and in beating back the self-loathing so often evinced by the "let's-just-all-stay-in-the-closet" mentality as we've seen it exemplified here, is taking the opportunity to seize your space in the public square and force your opponents to make consistent, rational arguments against your being there. Which of course, for most forms of bigotry including homophobia, can really not be done. This is a key step because, while the irrational roots of bigotry can still be used against you, court systems which depend on rationality to survive and justify themselves become harder and harder for your enemies to use, and easier and easier to turn against them, the longer you keep forcing that conversation. This is the story of the NAACP, women's lib movements, gay rights movements, not just in North America but in many places around the world for some decades.
But there's a further phase beyond just carving out some public space, the way Pride and similar phenomena did. That further step is about going beyond confrontation and catharsis and into genuinely normalizing oneself as an element of the community. And this is what the marriage-equity movement did; it built on the base of self-confidence Pride provided and allowed same-sex couples to simply stake out a place as a normal, open part of everyone's lives, of PTA meetings and bake sales and community volunteer committees and so on. Once they were able to move into this niche, homophobia's most powerful tool -- the ability to get people to turn against their loved ones by pretending "the gays" were some Satanic cult out there trying to steal their souls -- was neutralized. Suddenly, "the gays" were not some absurd child-molestation stereotype spoken about as whispers. They were simply our brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters, simply part of our families.
That they're part of our families makes attacking them much riskier. Suddenly it's not easy to walk up to someone and strike up a derogatory conversation about "faggots," because there's no knowing if the person you're talking to has a gay relative or sibling and will take your words as fighting words. The resulting change in the culture even in just the last decade is palpable. Once we started fighting for our loved ones
instead of letting ourselves be pitted against phantasmic gay villainy, open homophobia just stopped being acceptable. It's a great example of emotion being used successfully in behalf of
Russia, of course, is obviously still at a far earlier stage of this process. But I hope a similar trajectory is eventually managed there.