The thing is that you can almost never argue in a way that will convince a firm ideologue of anything. They're not open to changing their minds.

This is especially true for religious people, because they don't base their beliefs on facts and evidence. You can't reason somebody out of something they didn't reason themselves into.

But I would suggest your angry articles and positions are sometimes effective anyway. My experiences in Act Up a very long time ago taught me that.

Our anger was never going to move the dedicated conservative Christians who sincerely wanted us all to die of AIDS — which they believed was God's appropriate judgment.

We knew we could never move them.

But we kept up with our angry tactics anyway, because we knew that many decent, more moderate people COULD and WOULD be moved. And they could help spread the message in whatever way felt most effective in their personal networks.

That was an overarching strategy on our part, and it worked damn well.

No one particular tactic is effective for every communicator in every situation. But don't think your anger doesn't help move people sometimes.

I'm sure it does. We all have different communication roles to play, and the one you play is probably more effective than you realize in many circumstances.

Of course your daughter is right about direct communication with committed Christians who hate queer people. Communicating with them in anger can't accomplish much or anything.

But when you stir other, more rational or decent people to passionate interest, you're doing a lot of good — and probably quite effectively.