True also of the demographic of single motherhood, highest among black women. And of course, military families where long absences of the father are significant.

It’s been stated that women are less relevant to the cause of anti gay rhetoric. Because women have less social (and physical) power than men. In other words, they don’t pose the same threat to men, as other men do.

If so (and I don’t believe it for a minute), then one could reasonably argue that our protracted wars, police actions, and adventures in nation-building are all going to cause an ENORMOUS explosion in the numbers of “the gheys” in coming years.

And yes, I’m aware of the deeply sexist aspect of this line of reasoning.

I understand that aspect of the equation, but I have read and heard invective spewed from numerous people about lesbians, too. The great fear of parents is that they might end up having a gay son. Parents know that a gay son will have a much harder time in our society than any straight son. And, most women and men seem to give lesbians a pass.

Sad. I just wish some investigative journalist would expose Evergreen. And I would wish someone would come forward and sue Brigham Young University for its role in the disastrous electro-shock aversion therapy…which was not that long ago.

I would suggest that the Latter Day Saints (big time supporters, promoters, and consumers of questionable RT programs)largely ignore women because only LDS Males can hold the Priesthood and all of its paternal hierarchical authority.

Women are basically an after thought.

Jim Hlavac = “it’s rather clear that they use the wrong term; perhaps “re-heteroized” is better for their plan.”

StraightGrandmother = “re-heteroized” LOL! Too funny.

Because most anti-gay people find anal sex disgusting and men in general sexually disgusting. The thought of two women together isn’t unpleasant to them.