I think change is possible, but only for individuals who were never truly gay in the first place and who have a strong personal motivation to recover their heterosexuality.

Maybe [Sodom and Gomorrah] isn’t really about homosexuality, but about rape. If the angels had been female, and the men of Sodom said they wanted to ‘know‘ them against their will, would people claim that the story shows heterosexuality is a sin?

It would have been convenient to be gay. Just because of the grooming, the narcissism, stuff like that. But I have this kind of roaring heterosexuality. Traditional, uncomplicated heterosexuality, an almost cliched Robin Askwith thing.

I’m exposing faultlines, dealing especially with rhetoric. Showing that heterosexuality is a disease, or at least its inheritance.

The absence of any consideration of lesbian consciousness or the consciousness of third world women leaves a serious gap within this conference. . . .

My tact is that you don’t change the definition of marriage for one group, homosexuals, because you have to change it for all the groups. So you don’t do it, particularly if people in California vote on it, don’t want it, they think that the heterosexuality is a societal stabilizer.

I believe that the fact and the reality of homosexuality and heterosexuality and of opposite and same-gender unions should be taught in our public schools without a value judgement system also being offered.

The models we have, and the standards we are expected to maintain, come to us via heterosexuality as a normative state. Heterosexuality–whatever the current version of that concept happens to be–is unremarkable because it is the standard by which everything else is measured. That is heterosexual privilege.

In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation.

Heterosexuality is dangerous. It tempts you to aim at a perfect duality of desire.

I think heterosexuality and homosexuality are a kind of psychosis, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I agreed to take part in a New York University Institute for Humanities conference a year ago. . . .

Heterosexuality is the opiate of the masses

It is an old stereotype, that homosexuality has to do only with sex while heterosexuality is multifaceted and embraces love and romance.

I realize that homosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is – but then, of course, heterosexuality is a serious problem for anyone who is, too. And being a man is a serious problem and being a woman is, too. Lots of things are problems.

We’re supposed to procreate and society, god knows, is ferocious on the subject. Heterosexuality is considered such a great and natural good that you have to execute people and put them in prison if they don’t practice this glorious act.

Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common.

Heterosexuality is not a thing.

I think the Russian government is right to be concerned with propaganda on teenagers who are at the age of struggling through sexual identity issue and we should help to channel these urges in productive behavior. Heterosexuality is God’s design. Policies that encourage young people to think this are good ideas.

There is object proof that homosexuality is more interesting than heterosexuality. It’s that one knows a considerable number of heterosexuals who would wish to become homosexuals, whereas one knows very few homosexuals who would really like to become heterosexuals.

Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.

The heterosexuality or homosexuality of many individuals is not an all-or-none proposition.