Read what I wrote a bit more carefully before yelling your head off... I'm talking about tolerance - not a civil recognition of rights (which is what you're talking about in suffrage and civil rights). Tolerance exists on a personal level. It's the attitude you or I have toward something or someone, and no law or government can dictate it.
My point: a person knows how he feels about the position of LGBTs whether or not there is an awareness group to spread information around. Ergo, an officially sanctioned gay-mer group is wholly unnecessary - and its existence adds a completely needless political shade to the Escapist.
P.S. I note that you have made the astoundingly sophomoric error of assuming that equality is some ultimate social goal. Perhaps you could read a bit instead of accepting majority socio-political dogma.
P.P.S. Incidentally, I am a double major in U.S. History and Philosophy and a minor in Gender Studies. Now, WHO never read a history book in his or her entire life?
Is a double major like a double rainbow? But besides, if your last aim was to turn the comment round on me, it doesn't work. (and I'll never not yell my head off. It's not how I work. I'd rather jump feet first into an interesting conversation than pussyfoot around my viewpoint) I may have no formal qualification in history, but I'm well read. However, I agree you're correct that there is a definite difference between tolerance and legal acceptance. I still disagree with you that once legal equality is attained all you can do is wait. Campaigning, consciousness raising, and the like all have a vital place in communicating the overall message, and it is a message that still needs communicating. Not everyone has made their decision or is closed to discussion. Many people simply believe bigoted things because they were taught to, and enough people saying otherwise can cure them of their incorrect belief, or by being noticeable, can clue people -in- the minority into knowing that they're not alone. Look at the spread of atheism throughout the western world, particularly in the US. In many places it's not OK to be an atheist. You can lose your job (especially if you're a teacher), or be ostracised from the community. However, the atheist community has been getting bigger and more vocal. Atheist groups are popping up more and more, providing both safe spaces for atheists to meet without having to hide an aspect of their personality, whilst showing the world that atheists aren't the mean baby eaters that people think they are. The number of 'out' atheists is growing, and it would be entirely wrong, in my opinion, to say these people are just popping up out of nowhere, and for no reason - that the atheist community has contributed nothing to this trend.
LGBT groups like the gaymers achieve the same thing. It's not easy being LGBT. I've suffered regular abuse just on the street because I'm visibly T. Having this community says a few things. Firstly, it tells me that the admin and ownership of the escapist is more likely to be on 'my' side than not. Second, It tells me that the community of the escapist acknowledges that LGBT people exist and are less likely to just go 'lolfag' on sight. It tells me that if I want it, there's a community I can join where people are a little more likely to 'get me'. These things might not make it 'necessary' because nothing save food, water, and oxygen is necessary. They do however make the group a 'good thing'.
As for your bit about equality not being the 'ultimate goal'? Perhaps I wasn't invited to a few meetings of the minority agenda movement, but I've never been aware of any other goal? This just sounds a bit conspiracy theory for my tastes.
And I think I've covered a response to everything you said. Point out anything I haven't, if it's important.