::::::So you're arguing that an organization can be gay one minute and not gay the next, depending on its popularity and which way the prevailing political winds are blowing, and that encyclopedia content should be constantly varying, according to the instantaneous reading of some sort of gay-o-meter?  For the purposes of documenting history, this is probably not the right definition of "gay" to employ.  At a rally trying to make a persuasive argument for gay rights, it probably is.  Since Wikipedia is factual knowlege, and not a rally, the gay community doesn't get to vote on the daily gayness of gay things, and that includes NAMBLA, which is a gay organization.