# Ask the Gay Guy II! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2000, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028 "2000-05-09T18:13:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/321 "2000-09-12T19:35:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \*You’re still missing the point - the very fact that a separate institution such as domestic partnerships has to be set up only proves, as **lissener** put it, that there is a wide gap that needs to be filled in for the inequality that already exists. As if one company’s benefits equalled what the city, state and government provide when two people get married? Please. And even for those companies whose policies are set up solely for same-sex couples (which, IMHO, should not be the case - I think they should extend to opposite-sex couples as well, including people supporting their elderly parents), opposite-sex couples still have the option of getting married, even if only for the sake of convenience. I did not deny the point made by lissener. But it is also true that the redress ends up giving gay couples an option that straight couples do not have. You seem to be acknowledging this when you say “I think they should extend to opposite-sex couples as well”. > [@](#): > > people get married for all kinds of reasons, and marriages of convenience is one of them. Same-sex couples can’t get married for _any_ reason, period. Besides, what’s divorce for? Divorce is very compicated and messy. It is alot more difficult to get out a marriage than to end a “domestic partner relationship”. It is primarily for this reason that many people prefer the domestic partner arrangement to marriage, until they are ready to give the level of commitment that marriage requires. Sure many people get married for convenience. But many don’t. And if you are in this group of people who don’t wish to do so, you are at an advantage (in certain cases) if you are gay in that you can have your domestic partner relationship qualify you for corporate benefits. Again, this is not to say that gays are not at a disadvantage in that they cannot be married. But they also have, in these instances described, an advantage. Frankly, I don’t think that straights are crumbling under the heel of oppression due to the facts described. But they are facts nonetheless. > [@](#): > > Wrong. For the City of Philadelphia’s DP benefits, you are required to provide several pieces of evidence to prove your relationship, including proof of co-residence (mortgage or lease), proof of financial interdependence (joint accounts, utility bills in both names), etc. The burden of _proof_ lies on the couple. I did not deny that proof of domestic partnership is required. What is not required is proof of a **long-lasting** domestic partnership. This is typically something that is checked off on a form. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/322 "2000-09-12T19:51:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > **. . . the redress ends up giving gay couples an option that straight couples do not have. . . .** By your bizarre (but entertaining) logic, Izzy, straight couples should not be allowed to marry because it’s a option non-straight couples don’t have. > [@](#): > > _continued_ > **Divorce is very compicated and messy. . . .** Boo fucking hoo! Let’s make the convenience of straight couples the central issue here. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/323 "2000-09-12T20:00:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > **By your bizarre (but entertaining) logic, Izzy, straight couples should not be allowed to marry because it’s a option non-straight couples don’t have.** What could possibly be giving you the impression that I am opposing giving domestic partner coverage to gays? Certainly not anything I’ve posted here. > [@](#): > > \*\*Let’s make the convenience of straight couples the central issue here. \*\* Central issue of what? ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/324 "2000-09-12T20:29:04Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **IzzyR** _ > > I did not deny the point made by lissener. But it is also true that the redress ends up giving gay couples an option that straight couples do not have. You seem to be acknowledging this when you say “I think they should extend to opposite-sex couples as well”. I do acknowledge it - based on the list **beaker** provided, it looks like it’s about half that offer to both and half that offer to same-sex only. But based on the way society is currently structured, i.e., overwhelmingly heterosexually oriented, this drop in the bucket is the start towards equality. O, woe is the poor opposite-sex couple who doesn’t want to get married but wants the benefits anyway. Is it fair? Maybe not, and as I said, I wish it weren’t so, but I think it’s a small price to someday achieve the goal of equality for everyone. > [@](#): > > Divorce is very compicated and messy. It is alot more difficult to get out a marriage than to end a “domestic partner relationship”. It is primarily for this reason that many people prefer the domestic partner arrangement to marriage, until they are ready to give the level of commitment that marriage requires. Hey, it was the movement the gay community started for equality that even gave _some_ heterosexuals the option of a domestic partnership instead of marriage. Before us, it was either single or married, and no in-between (even common-law marriages are still marriages). If anything, the gay community is _bringing_ equality to heterosexuals. > [@](#): > > Again, this is not to say that gays are not at a disadvantage in that they cannot be married. But they also have, in these instances described, an advantage. > > Frankly, I don’t think that straights are crumbling under the heel of oppression due to the facts described. But they are facts nonetheless. One miniscule “advantage” in a small handful of companies. I’m not losing any sleep. > [@](#): > > What is not required is proof of a **long-lasting** domestic partnership. This is typically something that is checked off on a form. Also wrong. I should have clarified that those proofs of partnership must be _at least a year old_. Again, as someone already pointed out, an opposite-sex couple can get married and have those benefits extended _immediately_, but a same-sex couple has to wait a year. Yeah, that’s fair… :rolleyes: Esprix ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/325 "2000-09-12T20:51:43Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Esprix \* > Also wrong. I should have clarified that those proofs of partnership must be at least a year old_\* Sorry, but you are wrong here. You may be correct about the case that you are familiar with, but it is not typically the case. (Also I think a full year is a bit longer than average as well). ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/326 "2000-09-12T21:01:19Z")
**IzzyR** , > [@](#): > > **I did not deny the point made by lissener. But it is also true that the redress ends up giving gay couples an option that straight couples do not have. You seem to be acknowledging this when you say “I think they should extend to opposite-sex couples as well”.** Wrong. The redress given **by a very small number of corporations** gives **a very small number** of gay couples an option that straights working at those companies don’t have. In the VAST VAST MAJORITY of cases, gays are S.O.L. This is NOT something that is available to ‘gay couples’ in general. And in no cases at all do gay couples get all of the other benefits and legal protections given to straight married couples. And the fact that **Esprix** agrees that it’s wrong when gays have an option not available to others simply shows that he doesn’t have a double-standard on this issue. > [@](#): > > \*\*Sure many people get married for convenience. But many don’t. And if you are in this group of people who don’t wish to do so, you are at an advantage (in certain cases) if you are gay in that you can have your domestic partner relationship qualify you for corporate benefits. > > Again, this is not to say that gays are not at a disadvantage in that they cannot be married. But they also have, in these instances described, an advantage.\*\* And that is wrong. Straight couples should not be denied DPR status because they’re straight. Just like gay couples should not be denied marriage because they’re gay. But come on, get real. A minute number of gay couples have an advantage over a very small number of straight couples. And the vast majority of straight couples have a huge advantage (remember the DPR status in question applies only to CORPORATE benefits, not all the rest of the marriage bonus) over all gay couples. Why are you blowing up such a tiny advantage to elephantine proportions? > [@](#): > > **Frankly, I don’t think that straights are crumbling under the heel of oppression due to the facts described. But they are facts nonetheless.** Gosh, I’m glad to hear that. I was about to call for a chorus of tiny violins. 😉 > [@](#): > > \*\*Divorce is very compicated and messy. It is alot more difficult to get out a marriage than to end a “domestic partner relationship”. \*\* Wrong again. Divorce **may** be very complicated and messy. That is not necessarily true, however. You don’t even need a lawyer to file a no-fault, no-child, uncontested divorce. I know people who’ve done it. You agree to what’s yours & what’s theirs (doesn’t even need to be in the decree as long as there’s no significant property that’s legally jointly owned) and file a piece of paper with the court clerk. Just about like ending a DPR, huh? On the other hand, dissolving a long-term DPR, especially for folks who have resorted to other legal means to give them the marriage benefits they’re not allowed (joint ownership of property, medical power of attorney, living wills, etc etc etc), can be very complicated and messy as well. Since you don’t have the one-stop-shop of divorce court, you have to handle each of those issues separately and individually. And sundry deities help you if you’re involved in a messy breakup and forget one! > [@](#): > > **It is primarily for this reason that many people prefer the domestic partner arrangement to marriage, until they are ready to give the level of commitment that marriage requires.** Many of us who don’t marry do it for our own reasons, not for yours, thank you very much. > [@](#): > > \*\*I did not deny that proof of domestic partnership is required. What is not required is proof of a **long-lasting** domestic partnership. This is typically something that is checked off on a form. \*\* You’ve made this assertion several times. Please provide some backup. Every corp that I’ve heard of that offers DPR benefits (not that I claim to have vast experience - it’s pretty unusual around here) requires the couple to prove that they’re more than just temporary roommates. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/327 "2000-09-12T21:25:55Z")
**redtail23,** > [@](#): > > Why are you blowing up such a tiny advantage to elephantine proportions? This idiotic sentence seems to underline your whole post, so I’ll respond to it. I am not blowing anything up into elephantine proportions. I am not trying to compare the overall advantages that gays have with the overall advantages that straights have. In fact I specifically acknowledged at least once that straights would have it easier. Unfortunately this has failed to penetrate into your head, so I am repeating it again. It is unfortunate that many people are unable to look at specific facts on their own and persist in seeing everything as part of a larger battle. > [@](#): > > You’ve made this assertion several times. Please provide some backup. Every corp that I’ve heard of that offers DPR benefits (not that I claim to have vast experience - it’s pretty unusual around here) requires the couple to prove that they’re more than just temporary roommates. Sorry, no backup available. I am employed as an employee benefits consultant, and as such, have dealt with these issues. Take it or leave it. I should add that it would be helpful to you if you paid attention to what I actually said, which you evidently did not. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/328 "2000-09-12T21:50:20Z")
The thing is you can’t be for same sex only DPR and against straight only marrage. Its hypocrisy. I don’t exactly see how this is bizzare logic, ever heard the saying 2 wrongs don’t make a right? Also for divorce it takes a year to complete. (or at least that has been my admittedly limited experience with it. Also if you have Klinefelter(sp?) syndrome in Texas you could probably get married because thats where a person has XXY genes instead of XY(though it can go up to XXXXXYYYYY) ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/329 "2000-09-12T22:30:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\ ***redtail23,** > > > [@](#): > > > > Why are you blowing up such a tiny advantage to elephantine proportions? > > This idiotic sentence seems to underline your whole post, so I’ll respond to it. I am not blowing anything up into elephantine proportions. I am not trying to compare the overall advantages that gays have with the overall advantages that straights have. In fact I specifically acknowledged at least once that straights would have it easier. Unfortunately this has failed to penetrate into your head, so I am repeating it again.\*\* Yes, you stated (a couple of times, actually) that straights have it easier. You also asserted at least that many times that gays have this advantage over straights. The implication is that gays in general have an advantage over straights because gays can get benefits without getting married. This, in case you are not aware, is pretty damn close to the well-known “those queers are always wanting special rights” argument that is widely used in the anti-gay crowd. Perhaps that is not your intent. However, you keep arguing the point, which makes it seem to be your intent. \*\* > [@](#): > > It is unfortunate that many people are unable to look at specific facts on their own and persist in seeing everything as part of a larger battle.\*\* And it is also unfortunate that many people falsely imply greater import to specific facts than those facts actually merit. No one has argued against the fact that, on rare occasions, gay couples can get DP status from certain corps that don’t give that status to straight couples. In fact, everyone has acknowledged it. What I disagree with is your implied message. The one that you keep restating over and over. \*\* [quote] _Originally posted by redtail23_ You’ve made this assertion several times. Please provide some backup. Every corp that I’ve heard of that offers DPR benefits (not that I claim to have vast experience - it’s pretty unusual around here) requires the couple to prove that they’re more than just temporary roommates. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by IzzyR_ Sorry, no backup available. I am employed as an employee benefits consultant, and as such, have dealt with these issues. Take it or leave it. I should add that it would be helpful to you if you paid attention to what I actually said, which you evidently did not. \*\* > [@](#): > > ## You have to prove current relationship. Regarding the long-term aspect, generally you must merely assert that you’ve not had another relationship in the past year and a half or so. > > ## Again, assert, not prove. These kinds of things can be difficult to prove.\*\* > > ## I did not deny that proof of domestic partnership is required. What is not required is proof of a long-lasting domestic partnership. This is typically something that is checked off on a form. > > Sorry, but you are wrong here. You may be correct about the case that you are familiar with, but it is not typically the case. (Also I think a full year is a bit longer than average as well). I’m sorry, which of your statements in which you flatly stated your personal experience as fact did I ignore? My sincere apologies if THE FACT THAT I CAN NOT MARRY AS I CHOOSE makes me see your petty arguments as a much larger battle than they deserve. My sincere apologies if THE FACT THAT I CAN NOT GET THE PRIVILEGES EXTENDED TO MARRIED COUPLES tends to get me a bit tetchy. My sincere apologies if THE FACTS THAT I CAN BE ARRESTED, LOSE MY JOB, LOSE MY HOUSE, AND BE DENIED ACCESS TO MY LOVED ONES IN MEDICAL EMERGENCIES (to name only a few of the problems) cause me to view these issues as more than an intellectual debate. Apparently the fact that these are not merely entertaining discussions to some of us hasn’t penetrated into your head. When you face bigotry and discrimination on a daily basis, it’s hard to maintain that oh-so-chic sense of being above it all while someone makes idiotic statements about how easy you have it. Never mind. I’m getting concussed and I’ll have to stop now. ---
**Author:** ![beakerxf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc79bd/32.png) [@beakerxf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beakerxf)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/330 "2000-09-12T22:32:14Z")
On a more positive note, same-sex marriage is now legally recognized in the Netherlands. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/331 "2000-09-12T23:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beakerxf \* > \*\*On a more positive note, same-sex marriage is now legally recognized in the Netherlands. > > 🙂 \*\* [NYTimes article](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Netherlands-Gay-Marriage.html) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/332 "2000-09-13T00:13:56Z")
Izzy…two friends of mine (call them D and F) are breaking up. They’re two men, so it should be simple, right? But no…they’ve shared a house, but it is owned by F. But although D makes a lot less money he is a talented artist and architect and has put a lot of work into the house while F has paid most of the mortgage. They are esentially in exactly the same position that a divorcing straight couple is in, except they don’t have the legal protections from each other that divorce law gives. I expect F to probably “buy out” D for some amount, but D doesn’t have a legal case. I think that a “divorcing” couple that was married in all but name has a harder time separating. And of course there are the usual recriminations and bitterness that accompany most breakups, especially since only one of them wants the breakup. So, divorce is never easy, even if you aren’t legally married. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/333 "2000-09-13T14:39:45Z")
**redtail23** > [@](#): > > Perhaps that is not your intent. However, you keep arguing the point, which makes it seem to be your intent. I don’t agree with this. Someone says something. I dispute this. He disputes back. I dispute back in turn. At which point am I supposed to concede if I don’t wish to imply something about a larger issue? And for what reason? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, which of your statements in which you flatly stated your personal experience as fact did I ignore? You ignored the difference between proving a relationship and providing historical record of this relationship. In the example that Esprix gave, he addressed this, saying that you had to provide records that were a year old. You ignored this distinction. > [@](#): > > …cause me to view these issues as more than an intellectual debate. You can view this however you wish. In fact, you can rave away to your hearts content and I will not complain. All I ask is that, however you view these issues, you not misrepresent things that I said, and not pretend I’ve said things that I haven’t. It seems a simple request. **Lemur866,** I still think being legally married adds another layer of entanglement, and I think most people contemplating marriage will bear me out. However, even if this were not the case, there is _some_ reason why many people chose to deliberatly avoid legal marriage, even when they meet domestic partner definitions. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/334 "2000-09-13T15:10:55Z")
Shoot beakerx, I was about to post that news! A question for the gay guy: what is gay? Define it please. I know someone who doesn’t like the idea of ever having anal sex with another male. To me, this means they are not gay. Please elaborate with your extensive gay knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/335 "2000-09-13T15:40:21Z")
**Izzy** , no one is denying your statements that in some cases, same-sex couples have an advantage over opposite-sex couples in obtaining corporate domestic partnership benefits. There remains a question over the requirements of applying for such benefits (i.e., proving the existence of a relationship vs. proving the duration of a relationship), but, yes, sometimes gay folk are offered the DP option when straight folks are not. And I dare say everyone here thinks this is patently unfair, but at the same time it’s a step towards balancing the vast unfairness in society today against the gay community. That said, do you understand why people are ticked off that this is even being discussed? Gay couples finally get a break and all someone can do is point out that it’s slightly overbalanced in the other direction? I still maintain that heterosexuals have the advantage in all cases by having the ability to marry, and that in the end DP benefits will balance out and provide a _new_ option that heterosexuals previously did not enjoy. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/336 "2000-09-13T15:42:13Z")
Hey, **beaker** - the place where you got that DP info, does it also have more detailed info to answer our questions about requirements to obtain them? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/337 "2000-09-13T16:04:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **vanilla** _ > > A question for the gay guy: what is gay? Define it please. > I know someone who doesn’t like the idea of ever having anal sex with another male. To me, this means they are not gay. > > Please elaborate with your extensive gay knowledge. Who needs extensive “gay knowledge” when you’ve got [Webster’s online](http://www.merriam-webster.com)? 🙂 > [@](#): > > Main Entry: **gay** > Pronunciation: 'gA > Function: adjective > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French gai > Date: 14th century > 1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits \ > 2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY \ b : brilliant in color > 3 : given to social pleasures; also : LICENTIOUS > 4 a : HOMOSEXUAL b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals \ \ > synonym see LIVELY > > - gay adverb > - gay·ness noun That said, let’s look further at 4a: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: **ho·mo·sex·u·al** > Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l > Function: adjective > Date: 1892 > 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex > 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex > > - ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb > > Main Entry: **homosexual** > Function: noun > Date: 1902 > : a homosexual person and especially a male So if one has sexual desire towards someone of the same sex, that makes one homosexual, and therefore gay. But let’s also ask the [American Psychologial Association](http://www.apa.org): > [@](#): > > _What Is Sexual Orientation?_ > > Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). > > Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only). > > Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors. So not only does being gay involve sexual intercourse and sexual attraction, but it also involves “enduring emotional, romantic… or affectional attraction to another person.” There is also a difference between orientation and behavior. But since you specifically asked about anal sex, does “sexual intercourse” automatically mean “anal sex?” Let’s check back with Webster’s: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: in·ter·course > Pronunciation: 'in-t&r-"kOrs, -"kors > Function: noun > Etymology: Middle English intercurse, probably from Middle French entrecours, from Medieval Latin intercursus, from Latin, act of running between, from intercurrere to run between, from inter- + currere to run – more at CAR > Date: 15th century > 1 : connection or dealings between persons or groups > 2 : exchange especially of thoughts or feelings : COMMUNION > 3 : physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person \ \; especially : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 1 \ > > Main Entry: sexual intercourse > Function: noun > Date: 1799 > 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS > 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis Since homosexuality distinctly does not involve penis and vagina contact, it therefore falls under “other,” and intercourse does not specifically involve penetration. So, if this person has emotional, romantic or affectional attraction to the same sex, and/or has had or desires to have sexual intercourse with the same sex, regardless of their desire to perform one specific sexual act, then, yes, they’re gay. Besides, lots of gay guys think anal sex is icky. As I’ve often said, if you think the only way to have sex is to penetrate your partner, you are missing out on a **world** of fun. 😉 Esprix ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/338 "2000-09-13T16:19:06Z")
> [@](#): > > A question for the gay guy: what is gay? Define it please. > I know someone who doesn’t like the idea of ever having anal sex with another male. To me, this means they are not gay. > Please elaborate with your extensive gay knowledge As merely a gay guy, not THE Gay Guy, i’ll do my best. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual acts, but toward the gendertoward which one is attracted. Let’s take a Catholic priest, for example. He is attracted to women emotionally and sexually, but he has taken a vow of celibacy. He has not, and will not have sex, but he is still heterosexually oriented. One can have a love relationship with someone of the same genser without ever having sex, yet it would be a gay relationship. Etymology note–the word "gay " does not come the synonym of “happy”. It comes from the Middle French word “gai”, which in its origianl sense meant naught or wicked. the word became associated with prostitutes and demimondaines. In the 1600s the word became Anglicized as “gay”. In the early 20th century, the word became associated by extension to homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/339 "2000-09-13T16:36:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*[_snip_ a brilliant response that’s too complete to require further elucidation or even response] > > . . . Besides, lots of gay guys think anal sex is icky. As I’ve often said, if you think the only way to have sex is to penetrate your partner, you are missing out on a **world** of fun. ;)\*\* Hear, hear. I am one of those rare (I think) gay men who find anal sex icky. And I am _so_ gay. Vanilla, what’s your friend’s number? Sounds like he could use some, um, hands-on guidance. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028/340 "2000-09-13T16:41:56Z")
What’s her friend’s number? {smirk} To quote John Cleese in “Cheese Shop,” “No, no - I’m inclined to guess…” Esprix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-gay-guy-ii/19028.md?page=18)