Gays and lesbians need to concentrate on their political rights as citizens of a liberal state if they wish to attain social parity, said Andrew Sullivan MPA '86 Ph.D '90 to a crowded Emerson Hall lecture room yesterday afternoon.

Sullivan, the editor of the political journal The New Republic, was in Cambridge completing the last week of a 12-city book tour touting his new book Virtually Normal released September 11 and published by Knopf.

"This book is primarily about politics," said Sullivan, who is homosexual.

For the talk, sponsored by the Harvard Gay & Lesbian Caucus, Sullivan read selections from the work, a political look at homosexuality aimed at a mass-market audience.

"I wrote this book for the general reader," said Sullivan. "I wrote it to present an argument. It is not a gay, straight, black or white argument, but an argument."

Speaking on the issue of civil and political rights under the law, Sullivan called for society to remember the common humanity in heterosexual and homosexual life.

"We can be equally human while radically different," Sullivan said.

Virtually Normal presents Sullivan's conception of four dominant "politics of homosexuality" in America today: liberalism, conservativism, prohibitionism and liberationism. Sullivan concludes the work by presenting a fifth alternative, which he did not discuss in his speech, to these strands of thought.

In his speech, Sullivan borrowed from Hobbes and Mill, arguing for a return to the classical broad, liberal conception of citizenship and political equality.

"We have to leave some deep emotions aside and concentrate on civics," said Sullivan.

The book, which has gained widespread attention and prominent reviews, brought a curious audience out to the filled lecture hall, and elicited a mixed response.

"I don't think he answered questions directly, particularly those about non-discrimination laws," said James Stiles, a doctoral student in education.

Some audience members, while not agreeing with Sullivan's argument, noted that the book had succeeded in sparking discussion.

"I don't think the argument is a sustainable postion," said audience member Jed Kolko '92, a graduate student in economics, noting the strict emphasis on politics.

"But, to his credit, he acknowledged the limitations of his work," Kolko added. "People will certainly be talking about the book.