I believe Ron was asking, Is it acceptable to censor in order for gays to be seen in a better light, and to be more acceptable to society at large? Whether that censorship comes from without or within is immaterial.
To deny the dark underbelly is foolish. To not write about it for fear of others' reactions is a personal decision, but if there is a strong story to be told, with more to it than titillation, to not tell it for fear of reaction toward all gays may be an act of cowardice.
If gays are to be accepted into the mainstream, they must be accepted, warts and all, and the realization must come about that the only thing all homosexuals have in common is same-sex attraction. We (gays) are a rainbow within our own subset. Some of the colors in that rainbow may not be pretty.
Publishing outlets and web sites and coffee shops on the corner all have the right to choose which subject matter they permit or don't permit, for whatever reason. To deny them that right is to limit THEIR self-expression.
A strong trend has emerged, to portray same-sex relationships as more than a casual hook-up. GA is full of such stories. Nifty, often reviled, has seen many more of them than in the past. This reflects the reality and fosters the hope of LGBTs living a life within the mainstream. No, 2 guys cannot ever have their own biological child, emerged from a birth canal neither of them have. But they can raise a child, however it came into their lives. They can have pets, and successful careers, and take vacations to Disneyland, and kiss one another on Main Street in broad daylight.
This is a change I welcome, but it's not the only reality, and may not be the most fertile ground in which to plant the seeds of a story.