pageok
pageok
pageok
Gays and Lesbians and Golf:

I was glad to read Orin's post below, and had a few thoughts about it.

A. I don't think that the golf analogy quite captures things. To make it closer, you'd have to posit the following:

  1. Some fraction of people doesn't just "get a great deal of pleasure from golf," but feels that playing golf is very important to their happiness and personal fulfillment (in the way that people feel that love, romance, or even an erotic relationship to the right person is very important to their happiness and personal fulfillment), and that not playing golf would cause them deep misery.

  2. Those people encounter lots of social pressure not to play golf, though many of them overcome that pressure, start playing golf, and feel their lives are far better as a result.

  3. Those people suspect that there are others like them who are still being victimized by this social pressure, and who are likely to be miserable (if they're mostly homosexual in orientation) -- or at least not as likely to find the right person for them (if they're roughly evenly bisexual in orientation -- as a result.

The closest sports analogy, I suspect, is to women who found sports to be a very important part of their lives, who found sports despite having been pushed away from it because they were girls, and who suspect that other girls who could be very happy playing sports are likewise being pushed away from it. Even this doesn't capture the importance of love and sex to people's lives, and the degree to which society discourages homosexuality; and the one other difference is that many people think all girls should be interested in sports, at least in some measure, while I suspect that most gays and lesbians recognize that only a small fraction of the population is likely to be at all interested in same-sex relationships. Still, it seems like a closer analogy. And in this situation, many feminist groups do try to influence society so that girls who might be interested in sports are encouraged to experiment with it.

2. But more broadly, I do agree with one aspect of Orin's post: The phenomenon that I was describing was not supposed to be shocking or unusual. It's just human nature, which is why I think it's such a plausible hypothesis. What strikes me as being implausible is the claim -- against which I was arguing -- that it's somehow a "myth" that gay and lesbians (not every such person, but many) are interested in converting some people to gay or lesbian behavior. As I pointed out, it's highly unlikely that they're trying to convert heterosexuals generally. But, as I argued, it does seem likely that they're trying to convert the orientationally bisexual but behaviorally heterosexual into at least exploring their homosexual sides: "[T]he [gay rights] movement . . . necessarily, and I suspect intentionally, also helps people who are attracted to both sexes be more willing to explore the homosexual facets of that attraction."

That is exactly the claim I was making in my original post. It is not a claim of unusual human behavior; rather, it is a claim of quite normal human behavior. And whether or not it's "a somewhat odd question to consider" if one is coming to it from a blank slate, I'm considering this question simply because it's a question that others have raised.

Anderson (mail) (www):
I could've mentioned this sooner, but I'd like to thank Profs. Volokh &Kerr for addressing each other's arguments. The VC used to read like a dozen separate blogs jumbled onto the main page, possibly from fear of toe-stepping. I think all readers benefit from seeing these fine bloggers interact and discuss, and I hope to see more of it in future.
8.23.2005 1:39pm
Columbienne:
I think it ought to be clear by this point that reasoning by analogy is not going shed any light on the matter.
8.23.2005 1:56pm
Downtown Lad (mail) (www):
I think this behavior might be normal for straight people, but it's not normal for gay people.

When I came out, many straight people didn't understand, and would say things like "but you really just need to date a girl" and "try it (going straight), maybe you'll like it", etc. All gay people have heard this, and the arguments drive us crazy. We don't choose our sexuality. It just is what it is. So I think it would be extremely rare to try and find a gay person who would want to dictate or even pursuade his sexuality on someone else.

If someone's truly bi and has not tried his gay side, I don't care. He has to do whatever he is comfortable with. Personally, I don't understand why bi people don't stick with their straight side, since it's so much easier and they don't have to deal with all of the demonization that they are going to get from the straight community if they "go gay".

From personal experience, if I was truly bi, I would just stick to straight relationships. It's so much easier to just fit in.
8.23.2005 2:06pm
Downtown Lad (mail) (www):
A more valid comparison might be a white guy who only dates Asian girls. Let's say he has a male friend who likes both blonds as well as Asians, but happens to be dating a blond girl.. Do you really think he is going to go out and say to his friend "Dude - You have to stop dating blonds and start dating Asians. They are so much better looking, etc."

Would that really happen? I doubt it. I think people are smart enough to realize that people have different tastes. And why would they care who they are sleeping with?
8.23.2005 2:08pm
nelziq:
This analogy makes alot of sense to me. I personnally have spent plenty of time proslytizing and converting others from driving automatic transmission cars to driving manual. Why? My driving enjoyment increased immensly when I switched and I wanted to give others the same opportunity. I dont see why the same wouldnt work for many other things.
8.23.2005 2:09pm
Downtown Lad (mail) (www):
It's a horrendous analogy. I assume Eugene Volokh gets a lot of pleasure by having sex with his wife. But I don't see him out there trying to "convert" other men that they should be having sex with his wife too.
8.23.2005 2:22pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
It often bothers me when people say Jews aren't greedy and out to make money. I mean, of course they are. All people are out to maximize their resources and make money. Thus, Jews are greedy and out to make money. Lest you accuse me of excusing anti-semitic stereotypes, I am only considering this question simply because it's a question that others have raised. I.e., if those Jews diddn't deny it, I wouldn't be blogging this.
8.23.2005 2:23pm
chicago dyke (mail):
what is it about conservative "straight" people going on and on about all manner queer behavior? one may come to the conclusion that there are far more queers on the right than is generally held, and that many of them are so deeply within the closet that they can't even admit it to themselves.

seriously: your posts on gay issues make no sense to me whatsoever. as has been pointed out above: reasoning by analogy is as useful as masturbation when it comes to factually assessing a situation.
8.23.2005 2:23pm
Caliban Darklock (www):
Downtown Lad: I don't think these gays see themselves as dictating and persuading sexuality, I think they see this as identifying and unlocking the other person's.

Gays suffer a great deal as teenagers with the usual angst and grief about who and what they are, and some of them successfully lock up the gay part of themselves for many years. Unfortunately, this often makes them MISERABLE, and they don't really know why. They're unprepared to confront the reasons behind it, and without someone else encouraging them to do so, they would go right on being miserable.

It's sort of like religion. A truly devout christian doesn't really see conversion attempts as forcing religion on you, but as saving you from eternal hellfire. Likewise, when a gay man tries to convince me to experiment with my gay urges, he's trying to save me from the misery of living someone else's life. The intentions are good. He thinks I'm really another gay man, and all I need to do is admit it. Then I would be happy.

You know, I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't the gay version of "damsel in distress". Men by nature want to rescue. When what you want to rescue is another man, there are very few situations you could handle that he couldn't. But in most cases, only a gay man can bring a self-denying gay man out of his misery and into full-fledged gay culture. This may just be plain old testosterone-induced pigheadedness, of exactly the kind straight men experience.
8.23.2005 2:28pm
Jeremy:
Yes, but this still begs the question of why this was necessary to post in spite of the obvious fodder it would give to those that use that myth to fearmonger that gays are actively 'turning people gay'.

If all Eugene "was describing was not supposed to be shocking or unusual. It's just human nature...", why such indepth analysis to say that if someone likes driving a manuel, they will try to get their friends to drive a manuel?
8.23.2005 2:29pm
(Greedy) Jeremy:
Greedy Clerk sums it up so much better than I just did. Go back and re-read the greedy jew analogy and lets see when eugene posts about that one.
8.23.2005 2:32pm
Downtown Lad (mail) (www):
Maybe the proper anaology is "sex" in general. If you think sex is fun, you might convince a friend to try it. Although since most people already think that, you really don't need to have that covnersation.

But "who" you have sex with is another matter. You have sex with someone you are attracted to. Ideally somebody you love. And "who" that is happens to be a very personal matter.

It's not the "gay" part of gay sex that gay people enjoy. It's the fact that they're having sex with someone they are very attracted to.

I think if you were to talk to bi people, they would say it's not the type of sex (gay or straight) that is important, it's the person they are with that matters. In fact, the sex experience itself is probably very similar emotionally, even if the sex act is the same. So whether the person who rocks their boat is male or female is irrelevant.
8.23.2005 2:32pm
Caliban Darklock (www):
Chicago dyke: It's the Kinsey scale. We're all closer to the center than we want to admit, so we cover it up by having intellectual discussions about it.

Bisexuals are second-class citizens, you know. You need to be on one side or the other, not in the middle.
8.23.2005 2:34pm
Roaring Tiger (mail) (www):
Downtown Lad -- I'm afraid all "us gays" (to make a play on Caliban's "these gays" comment)...all "us gays" are just going to have to fess up. Despite all our denials, we really do earn prizes for converting heteros to the gay life. Shoot, I hope that I don't lose my standing in the Gay Coalition now that I've let lose the secret.
8.23.2005 2:37pm
Greedy Clerk (mail):
It often bothers me when people deny that blacks are generally lazy. I have statistics to prove that the average black person would prefer leisure to work, and on average tries to get away with doing as little as possible in order to sustain the lifestyle to which s/he has become accustomed.

It is not a claim of unusual human behavior; rather, it is a claim of quite normal human behavior. And whether or not it's "a somewhat odd question to consider" if one is coming to it from a blank slate, I'm considering this question simply because it's a question that others have raised.
8.23.2005 2:42pm
Shelby (mail):
Most of what I've seen in comments re this topic (in the last couple of days on the Conspiracy) consists of people talking past one another. There are more than two sides to these issues, but people seem to think anyone espousing a view other than their own is hostile to them.

I sympathize with Eugene's effort to express a view on how, in some sense, gays and lesbians could be said to be "trying to convert" others. Certainly there are many people who level that charge; it's worth trying to get into their heads and see things from their perspective, if only to better refute them.

If debating this topic, even a bit awkwardly or imprecisely, is "bigotry" (as some have charged in comments on previos posts), then it's effectively impossible to talk about these issues. Which is nonsense.

Kudos to Eugene for pressing ahead with this effort, despite the considerable flak he's getting. I've seen relatively few comments that actually engage his arguments; for the reasons I gave above, people seem to assume he's making arguments that he isn't. Perhaps the discussion can't ultimately be had in this venue, which would be a pity.
8.23.2005 2:43pm
kipp (mail):
There are a few metaphysical ideas underlying this discussion that may not be shared by everyone but certainly influence the perspective on 'conversion'.
Playing golf does not exclude one, in any way really, from playing tennis or knitting. Thus being "converted" into a golfer does not really alter pre-existing attributes of the person converted.
In the case of gay conversion, though, I think there is an implicit notion that conversion does leave that person changed: They were 'straight', now they are 'gay' (not quite that simple, of course). Whereas a new golfer does not ncessarily cease being a soccer player (he does trivially cease being a non-golfer), a gay convert ceases being straight - and I think we could agree that the term straight means more than simply "not gay". Thus, whether you think the conversion is morally good, evil or neutral - the term "conversion" in the gay context carries a stronger connotation than conversion in the golfing context. Sexuality has a polarity that golfing does not (even though many historians have argued that treating 'sexual behavior' as 'sexuality' is a modern phenomenon).

I'll end with noting, of course, that bisexuals challenge sexual polarity - and they could rightly claim that "gay conversion" is often just bisexual maturation. Food for thought.
8.23.2005 2:47pm
Roaring Tiger (mail) (www):
Jokes aside, folks, the only issue to ask yourself here is, "Are you comfortable with your sexuality?" Then expand that question to be "Do you like yourself?" If you are comfortable and do like yourself, then fabulous. Go forth and enjoy your life.

If you aren't comfortable with your sexuality or don't like yourself, then go within and find out why. If it helps, then talk with caring individuals (regardless of sexual orientation) who can act as your sounding board while you process the questions of your life. If any of those individuals try to tell you your answers, find another source of help because your so-called caring individual has an agenda and within that agenda is an element of control. Those folks who really care about you, will allow you to discover your own truth in your own time and will support you regardless of who you find yourself to be.

Once you understand who you are, then ask yourself what, if anything you need to do in order to live in integrity. Then do it...or don't do it. It's really up to you.

In my own life while coming out, I gained suppport from both heteros and gays. The greatest greatest support and love, though, came from a dear friend who is and was a happily married (and straight) woman who listened without judgement while I talked about my life.
8.23.2005 2:52pm
BevD:
The bigotry and absurdity of Volokh's latest posting should make all thoughtful people weep in despair. He has no evidence either anecdotal or empirical, and yet he claims that homosexuals are "converting" bi-sexuals to - to what, I don't know - their side? (And what is their "side?" That all human beings should be treated with respect and are entitled by their birth to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?) There is no proof whatsoever that homosexuals are recruiting anyone to do anything other than treat them with the dignity that we all deserve by virtue of being human.

Whether knowingly or not, Volokh is insinuating that homosexuals have some sort of insidious and devilish plan to increase their ranks by enticement to what despite his disingenuous and pius disclaimers to the contrary is in his view dangerous behavior for the health of the nation.

In essence, Mr. Volokh is denying the humanity of homosexuals. He seems unable to comprehend that homosexuals, like heterosexuals choose partners for the very same reason he does - companionship, love and committment. Bigotry is the inability to see others as we see ourselves, with the same capability for love and emotional attachment, faults and virtues and empathy and compassion for the more vulnerable amongst us. If we deny that others have these human qualities, it's easier to discriminate and inflict pain upon them. No sorrow, no pity...
8.23.2005 3:01pm
Aultimer:
Downtown Lad - Your any-sex analogy misses the issue of social pressure that (purportedly) creates these people who are interested in same-sex relations but haven't yet acted on the interest. Guiltless adulterers or engagers-in-premarital-hetero-relations would be more apt because of the (purported) social pressure not to be in those categories.

Greedy Clerk - What's your point? It's semantics. The premise is that gay people deny encouraging those they perceive as likely to benefit from gay behavior(EV calls this "converting", but I'd call it "encouraging"). I suspect that a gay person's denail of "converting" is actually a denial of manipulating otherwise hetero people into adopting and enjoying gay behavior. If Jews deny that they maximize profit, or if African Americans deny prefering leisure to hard work, then they should be criticized along with the (potentially empty) group of gay folk EV criticizes. I suspect the Jews and African Americans in question actually deny doing those things MORE THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON. As for golfers, they have clubs to keep interested people OUT of the group...
8.23.2005 3:20pm
Caliban Darklock (www):
Roaring Tiger, keep in mind that when I say "these gays" I am doing so EXPLICITLY to identify that the gays who are actively engaged in "conversion" attempts do *not* represent ALL gays. They largely represent gays who honestly believe that this conversion process will be good for the people they convert, not because it "swells the ranks", but because it will make those people *happy*.

That's the real foundation of homophobia. Not the idea that you have sex with the same gender, but the idea that the straight and gay communities are somehow at war, and every gain on one side diminishes the other. In that case, a conversion operation is frightening. In reality, gays who "convert" are just as likely to help a confused teenager recognise and admit that he's NOT gay, because their aim is not to win some imagined battle with straight people - it is to locate and expose the truths that will improve another human being's life.

BevD, the plan is only "insidious and devilish" when you thrust your own value judgements upon it. Most decisions with which you disagree could be likewise demonised, but it wouldn't prove anything. It's just prejudicial language.
8.23.2005 3:31pm
DelVerSiSogna:
GreedyClerk's posts are right on, but there's something else wrong with Prof. Volokh's argument: When people talk about gay people wanting to "convert" straight people, they just aren't using the word "convert" in the way that Prof. Volokh is. Rather, they're envisioning a gay person seeking out a straight person and convincing (if not forcing) the straight person to have a homosexual sexual experience. They then envision the straight person as being so debauched, or screwed-up, or whatever, by this experience, that he or she (but generally he) has "turned" gay. Most of Prof. Volokh's argument seems to rest on an equivocation that allows him to use a much weaker sense of the word "convert."

He thus ends up arguing against a straw man. Prof. Volokh has convincingly refuted anyone who claimed that gay people don't generally want other people to be able to explore their sexuality without undue pressure from society to conform to a heterosexual norm. I doubt anyone ever made that claim, though.

In the spirit of GreedyClerk: "Some people say it's a myth that male schoolteachers are likely to be child molesters. But I disagree. 'To molest' is to disturb. In my experience, many (though not all) male schoolteachers actually disturb their students on a regular basis. Occasionally the children will be talking amongst themselves, and the male teacher will interrupt their conversation -- that is, disturb them -- and ask them to get back to work. Thus I think it's clear that many male schoolteachers are, in fact, molesters of children."
8.23.2005 3:33pm
Kipp (mail):
Aultimer-

"I suspect that a gay person's denail of "converting" is actually a denial of manipulating otherwise hetero people into adopting and enjoying gay behavior."

What in the world does "otherwise hetero" mean? Aren't we all "otherwise hetero" if we exclude same-sex attraction and sexual encounters? Gay people don't try to convert "otherwise heteros" - they attempt to have sex with people they find sexually attractive and to encourage other people to freely act on their same-sexual desires.

It's the obsession with a sketchy sexual dichotomy that feeds this "conversion" notion - and that tricks us into thinking terms like "otherwise hetero" are anything more than nonsense.
8.23.2005 3:41pm
Aultimer:
Kipp - "otherwise hetero" means "hetero in thought and deed but for the manipulation in question". I think that's pretty clear from context.

The point stands even if "otherwise hetero" means "hetero in deed, morally opposed to gay behavior despite overwhelming desire otherwise".

More simply - gay people aren't denying their encouragement or support of others (EV's "converting"), they're denying that they get others to act against their will and/or nature. Unless your premise is that everyone is ready and willing to enjoy gay behavior at some level, that shouldn't be objectionable.
8.23.2005 4:18pm
Richard Bellamy (mail):
I think Orin Kerr and DelVerSiSogna are correct that Volokh is not using the word "convert" in the same meaning as those who claim that homosexuals want to converts to homosexuality, and is therefore unintentionally (I assume) creating a strawman.

Most people understand "convert" as something closer to this:

http://wackyiraqi.com/rant/gay_marriage/homorecruit.htm

Unfortunately, in his initial post, Volokh only provided links to gay-friendly sites that claimed that conversion was a "myth." He did not provide any links to site that actually made the claim that gays try to "convert". Without knowing which definition of "convert" the gay groups are responding to, we can only speculate whether "convert" is being used in the everyday dictionary meaning of "to persuade or induce" or some specialized "gay only" meaning of "to permit a change in behavior."

Perhaps we could have some example of people who think gays are trying to "covert others to homosexual behavior" so we can see which definition of "convert" they are using?
8.23.2005 4:21pm
Thrax (mail):
To amplify what DelVerSiSogna said above:

The argument that gays don't attempt to convert others is often raised in response to a specific charge: that gays are a menace to children because they'll try to inculcate homosexuality somehow. They're accused of active attempts to sway children who have an incomplete understanding of their sexuality. To which they reply: no, we don't.

Along comes Eugene to call them liars. Why? Because they believe that those with some predisposition (if not necessarily an exclusive predisposition) toward gay relationships shouldn't be shamed away from exploring those relationships. Set aside whether it's fair to call that "conversion," the root of which is the Latin "verto," turning--it's arguably not a turning at all so much as an acknowledgment of what was there anyway. Isn't it obvious that this is asking a fundamentally different question?

In other words, if Jerry Falwell and his ilk were running around saying "We have to root out gay teachers from our schools because they fail to discourage teens with bisexual impulses from exploring gay relationships, through the nefarious means of providing positive gay role models and destigmatizing homosexual behavior," the answer from the gay community probably wouldn't be "oh, hey, no way." If they did, of course, Eugene would be entitled to portray that response as dishonest. As it stands, however, it's far from a fair criticism.
8.23.2005 5:12pm
BevD:
If Volokh didn't think that people can be "converted" to homosexuality he would not have used the word. He's making an absurd claim based on empty, meaningless arguments. It's as silly as claiming that an invitation by a christian to go river rafting is an attempt at baptism.
8.23.2005 5:13pm
Thrax (mail):
Or, to be more succinct:

Quite a few on the religious right accuse gays and lesbians of actively attempting and intending to cause others to engage in homosexual behavior. That charge gets thrown around with special force for said support efforts involving children. The word "convert" is often used. Most gays and lesbian respond: we don't do any such thing. Here's Eugene to say yes you do "convert" others, using an entirely different meaning of the word. Draw your own conclusions about how valuable this exercise is.
8.23.2005 5:18pm
Joshua (mail):
The closest sports analogy, I suspect, is to women who found sports to be a very important part of their lives, who found sports despite having been pushed away from it because they were girls, and who suspect that other girls who could be very happy playing sports are likewise being pushed away from it.

Actually, Mr. Volokh, if you insist on using a sports analogy, an even better one would not be golf or any other traditional sport, but poker. Consider the first two of your three points in your critique of the golf analogy, in which I have substituted poker for golf:
1. Some fraction of people doesn't just "get a great deal of pleasure from poker," but feels that playing poker is very important to their happiness and personal fulfillment (in the way that people feel that love, romance, or even an erotic relationship to the right person is very important to their happiness and personal fulfillment), and that not playing poker would cause them deep misery.

Ask any professional poker player and they will tell you that they regard poker as a way of life, not just a game that they play. Even dedicated amateurs such as myself (full disclosure), who've spent countless hours playing live and/or online, and reading any number of books on poker trying to improve their game, can relate to this notion. We may not have played poker all our lives, but now we can't imagine what our lives might be like without poker being part of it.
2. Those people encounter lots of social pressure not to play poker, though many of them overcome that pressure, start playing poker, and feel their lives are far better as a result.

This is where the golf analogy to homosexuality breaks down, but the poker analogy holds up. Simply put, golfers have never had to run the risk of having their games busted, and even doing jail time, as poker players often do - and as gay people once did for "pursuing their happiness and personal fulfillment" prior to the Lawrence court decision. (I won't even get into the massive legal gray area surrounding Internet poker.) Like homosexuality, opposition to legalized poker and other forms of gambling tends to come mainly from cultural conservatives - but fortunately, American cultural attitudes toward both have nonetheless become more friendly in recent years.

The Declaration of Independence asserts the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It makes no distinction between such pursuits based upon biological or genetic predisposition, and those based upon conscious lifestyle choices. Therefore the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate with regard to homosexuality strikes me as a big fat red herring. In the end, gay and lesbian people just want to be able to freely and openly pursue their idea of happiness without being treated as a criminal or a pariah - just as I, and other poker players like me, just want to be able to freely and openly pursue mine.
8.23.2005 5:57pm
JGUNS (mail):
All you have to do is to look at the culture today. Women are encouraged to engage in Lesbian behavior. You can see it in any club on a friday night. Throughout history, homosexuality was a norm in some societies, encouraged in ancient Greece and rome. There are plenty of examples of Homosexuality being reversed in some individuals, yet it is vociferously denounced by Gay and Lesbian groups. Why is this? If Gays and lesbians don't encourage gay behavior why do they react so strongly against programs that attempt to implement heterosexuality in the homosexual?
8.23.2005 6:14pm
Downtown Lad (mail) (www):
jguns - "Plenty of examples" of gay people going straight? Care to provide any data on that?

The Washington Post had an article on that the other day, and they quoted psychiatrists who have been working their entire lives to convert people. One of them said he had only been successful once, out of hundreds he has treated.

And this is from the people who believe in the process. One out of hundreds.

Gays and Lesbians are not supressing anything. We know the truth.

You are the one who is actively trying to LIE about the data, telling gays that it's EASY to change, and causing thousands of them to be extremely disappointed when they can't, many of whom end up committing suicide.

So you Jguns, have lots of blood on your hand. YOU are responsible for deaths of thousands of gay people a year. Congratulations.
8.23.2005 6:45pm
Cornellian (mail):
Throughout history, homosexuality was a norm in some societies, encouraged in ancient Greece and rome.

You got any evidence for it being "encouraged" in ancient Greece and Rome, rather than just not as viciously persecuted as it was once Christians took over Caesar's job?
8.23.2005 7:13pm
DelVerSiSogna:
JGUNS:

All you have to do is to look at the culture today. Women are encouraged to engage in Lesbian behavior. You can see it in any club on a friday night.

Are you under the impression that it's the gay guys or the self-identified lesbians who are encouraging women to get all sapphic on the dance floor? Rent a Girls Gone Wild video, man, and you will quickly be disabused of that notion. In fact, on Prof. Volokh's definition of "convert," I'd be willing to bet that heterosexual men do a vast amount of the "conversion to homosexuality" that happens in the United States these days. "Come on, baby, just french kiss your friend there. It'll be hot!"
8.23.2005 11:38pm
NickM (mail) (www):
So, when a homosexual man posts an ad in a personals section of a newspaper (especially an alternative weekly, which usually has a freewheeling policy about what it will accept) or an online bulletin board (e.g., craigslist) advertising that he wants to perform oral sex on a heterosexual man, is he trying to convert?

I think he is, and it's what comes to my mind when I hear the claim that homosexuals try to convert heterosexuals.

Nick
8.24.2005 2:10pm