See, to me that sounds like the very definition of heterosexuality. Rejecting your own gender for a straight person of a different gender. And yet they call it gay.
Because, while the other countries mentioned are all very nice, the Vatican City is simply divine?
Seconded.
Exactly - just like prison. Is an otherwise heterosexual person “gay” because they engage in sexual activities with the same gender when that is all that’s available to them, but then once they are released from prison (or get married, in the case of Afghanistan) they go back to having sex with the opposite gender?
Certainly, we can - I was just highlighting that fact while responding to an unfounded assertion. But because of how complicated the definition of “gay” is, and because of the fact that there are no dependable statistics for every country in the world, a definitive answer to the OP is pretty much impossible.
I’m kind of surprised this thread is still in GQ… think I’ll report my own post and see if a mod agrees that this belongs elsewhere.
You may be able to find those calculations some groups ran using the last Spanish Census Report, where they treated any household with two same-gender ‘not-directly related’ people as being “a gay couple”. The definition of ‘not directly related’ being, in this case, “further away that parent/child”, they’d included not only students but also siblings, grandparent/grandchild, uncle/nephew… the joke I’ve heard most often re. that debacle was “by that definition, you usual 3-4 students flat is an orgy and student dorms are porn studios”.
The answer is whatever country the Flintstones live in. After all, they’re always having a “gay old time”.
Because sexual orientation is more analogous to left- or right-handedness than to hair color, or to congenital disorders. And lefties occur at a pretty consistent rate across racial and geographic borders, a rate very comparable with same-sex attraction.
LOL, that is one grotesque abuse of statistics. If it had been designed by agents provocateurs to discredit the gay rights movement, it would look just like that.
At least, you only see one transvestite who does such a poor job of dressing that he/she is obviously a transvestite.
My ex-husband is a transvestite. I didn’t know until he came out to me 20 years after we were married. (I didn’t divorce him because he was a transvestite, but let me tell you, adjusting to that revelation was hell. You have no idea of the levels on which it affects you, and I’m a pretty accepting gal.) He connected with a lot of other transvestites online, and eventually I met some of his TV friends. I realize this is anecdotal, but one anecdote can shatter a stereotype.
Most transvestites are not gay.
Most transvestites are not and do not become transgendered.
My own theory is that there is a very wide spectrum on gender and normalcy, but that’s another post for another SDMB.
You will if them a lot more frequently if you spend a lot of time in large American cities.
They could be an otherwise homosexual person ‘straight’ because they have given into the social pressure to be straight, prison is an escape form that pressure where they are given the leeway they need to pursue relationships they might not otherwise be able to.
Why so?
Particularly West Hollywood. 
Are transvestites and transgenders necessarily cissexuals, then? Obviously, a transsexual is going to want to dress and act like their preferred gender and sexual identity, so assigning all three labels to the same person seems a bit overkill.
Also: If a Western woman decided to occasionally dress like a Western man, I don’t know how many people would be able to tell the difference.
And from the confused contradistinction file: “You mean she’s a lesbian and a bisexual?”
Hetero- v. homosexuality is really not that useful a term if your society has three genders.
The word transgender is so poorly defined, nobody knows exactly what anyone else means by it. The word may be applicable as an umbrella name for various disparate groups to form a political coalition for perceived common goals. But as a designation for an individual, it really tells you nothing about who they are. That’s why I avoid using the word. It rarely brings clarity and more often causes obfuscation.
There are individual women who are able to experience sexual arousal with respect to both men and women, but nevertheless feel they’re only able to form strong relationships with women, and consequently never date men. Such women are bisexual in theory and de facto lesbian. This is one possible way of falling under both headings at once.
OK, but would a transsexual ever be called a transvestite by someone who knew the difference? (I kind of suspected throwing ‘transgender’ in there might muddy things a bit.)
For context, the person responsible for that quote wouldn’t understand a blessed word of that lucid explanation. For my own part, I like the terms hetero-, bi-, and homoromantic as distinguished from hetero-, bi-, and homosexual, where the ‘romantic’ part means a relationship that extends beyond the bedroom.
It’s not quite as simple as that Homer.
Transsexuals are people who feel they have been born in the wrong body. For example a boy may feel like he should have been be a girl and vice-versa. They are transsexuals whether they have had surgery or not. Usually they have felt this way as long as they can remember (3 or 4 years old in some cases).
Transvestites are those who dress in the clothing of the opposite sex but who do not want to be the other sex. Many transvestites obtain sexual gratification through cross-dressing.
This is actually quite a very simplistic overview - it’s a lot more complicated in real life.
I’m afraid that happens all the time, out of ignorance and hatred. Or else it’s just “faggot,” because all LGBT people are lumped into the same category by ignorant haters.
Hi, I’ve created a flip thread