Are there any guys out there who are really straight that identify as being gay?

Question

.. just like that are guys out there who are really gay, but those guys identify as being straight.

Answer 1

Anything is possible. However, I think the scenario of a bisexual man identifying as gay, in a gay venue (chat room, bar, lambda center,etc.) is far more likely. Bisexuals want to be accepted when in the relative safety of gay men -- and to do this, they can and do take on a gay identity. And of course, bi man can and do play the straight role all of the time around men (especially their friends) who are straight.

Answer 2

You must be straight......because that is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. Gay men fake being straight because people who think they know what is right reject them and don't accept them. Why would a straight guy fake being gay? So he can be talked down on, rejected rights he should be entitled too, told he is an abomination, and possibly get beat up? That is just stupid! Btw.....the bible may say one thing.....but the bible is not god.....i'm sick of people trying to speak for him

Answer 3

I doubt it. If it happens at all, I doubt it would last.
(Except perhaps of cases of entrapment by law enforcement.)

Answer 4

Very much yes--to both questions.

Answer 5

Attitudes to human extinction
Attitudes to human extinction vary widely depending on beliefs concerning spiritual survival (souls, heaven, reincarnation, and so forth), the value of the human race, whether the human race evolves individually or collectively, and many other factors. Many religions prophesy an end time to the universe, so eventual human extinction is necessarily a part of the faith of many humans, to the extent that the end time means the absolute end of their physical humanity (although perhaps not an internal soul (see eschatology).

Many people consider that the extinction of the entire species would be a much worse fate than the death of an individual. Although the mortality of the individual can be accepted as an inevitable part of the human condition, humans can nevertheless expect to attain some measurement of immortality through their progeny, or through contributions or advancement in culture or science. However, the extent to which this "immortality" can be achieved is subject to the continuation of the species as a whole, and human extinction would represent the termination of such expectations.

Fear of human extinction is said to be one of the motivating factors of the environmentalist movements of the 20th and 21st centuries.

The minority view, in favour of human extinction takes two forms:

Deep ecologists like VHEMT say that humanity is inherently destructive to the global ecosystem, the needs of which should outweigh humanity's desire for "immortality".
Some pessimistic observers (such as Schopenhauer) have written that destroying the entire biosphere is a price worth paying to erase human evil.
[edit]
Perception of human extinction risk
The general level of fear about human extinction (in the near term) is very low. It is not an outcome considered by many as a credible risk (excluding religious extinction). Suggested reasons for human extinction's low public visibility:

There have been countless prophesies of extinction throughout history; in most cases the predicted date of doom has passed without much notice, making future warnings less frightening. However, a survivor bias would undercut the credibility of accurate extinction warnings. John von Neumann was probably wrong in having “a certainty”[1] that nuclear war would occur; but our survival is not proof that the chance of a fatal nuclear exchange was low.
To prevent public panics, official reports containing high casualty estimates are sometimes suppressed or changed (such as Admiral Rickover's critical report on nuclear industry safety).
Extinction scenarios (see below) are speculative, and hard to quantify. A frequentist approach to probability cannot be used to assess the danger of an event that has never been observed by humans.
Nick Bostrom suggests that extinction-analysis may be an overlooked field simply because it is too depressing a subject area to attract researchers.
There are thousands of public safety jobs dedicated to analyzing and reducing the risks of individual death. There are no full-time existential safety commissioners partly because there is no way to tell if they are doing a good job, and no way to punish them for failure. The inability to judge performance might also explain the comparative governmental apathy on preventing human extinction (as compared to panda extinction, say).
Some anthropologists believe that risk perception is biased by social structure; in the "Cultural Theory of risk" typography "individualist" societies predispose members to the belief that nature operates as a self-correcting system, which will return to its stable state after a disturbance. People in such cultures feel comfortable with a "trial-and-error" approach to risk, even to unsuitably rare dangers (such as extinction events).
It is possible to do something about dietary or motor-vehicle health threats. Since it is much harder to know how existential threats should be minimized[2], they tend to be ignored. High technology societies tend to become "hierarchist" or "fatalist" in their attitudes to the ever-multiplying risks threatening them. In either case, the average member of society adopts a passive attitude to risk minimization, culturally, and psychologically.
The bias in popular culture is to relate extinction scenario stories with non-extinction outcomes. (None of the 16 'most notable' WW3 scenarios in film are resolved by human extinction, for example.[3])
The threat of nuclear annihilation actually was a daily concern in the lives of many people in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then the principal fear has been of localized terrorist attack, rather than a global war of extinction; contemplating human extinction may be out of fashion.
Some people have philosophical reasons for doubting the possibility of human extinction, for instance the final anthropic principle, plenitude principle or intrinsic finality.
Tversky and Kahneman have produced evidence that humans suffer cognitive biases which would tend to minimize the perception of this unprecented event:
Denial is a negative "availability heuristic" shown to occur when an outcome is so upsetting that the very act of thinking about it leads to an increased refusal to believe it might occur. In this case, imagining human extinction probably makes it seem less likely.
In cultures where human extinction is not expected the proposition must overcome the "disconfirmation bias" against heterodox theories.
Another reliable psychological effect relevant here is the "positive outcome bias".
Behavioural finance has strong evidence that recent evidence is given undue significance in risk analysis. Roughly speaking, "100 year storms" tend to occur every twenty years in the stock market as traders become convinced that the current good times will last forever. Doomsayers who hypothesize rare crisis-scenarios are dismissed even when they have statistical evidence behind them. An extreme form of this bias can diminish the subjective probability of the unprecedented[4].
In general, humanity's sense of self preservation, and intelligence are considered to offer safe-guards against extinction. It is felt that people will find creative ways to overcome potential threats, and will take care of the precautionary principle in attempting dangerous innovations. The arguments against this are; firstly, that the management of destructive technology is becoming difficult, and secondly, that the precautionary principle is often abandoned whenever the reward appears to outweigh the risk. Two examples where the principle has been overruled are:

Some Anti-GM food campaigners are very concerned by "Frankenstein genes", which cross the species barrier and raise the spectre of a 'superbug' doomsday. They invoke the precautionary principle against the use of this technology, but its benefits are considered to be so significant that trials and distribution are permitted in many parts of the world.
Before the Trinity nuclear test, one of the project's scientists (Teller) speculated that the fission explosion might destroy New Mexico and possibly the world, by causing a reaction in the nitrogen of the atmosphere. A calculation from another scientist on the project proved such a possibility theoretically impossible, but the fear of the possibility remained among some until the test took place. (See Ignition of the atmosphere with nuclear bombs, LA-602, online and Manhattan Project).
[edit]
Observations in support of eventual human extinction
As about 99.9% of species that have ever existed on Earth have become extinct, it is often suggested that all species have a finite lifespan. If this were the case, human extinction would be inevitable. Humans are unique in their adaptive and technological capabilities, so it is not possible to draw reliable inferences about the probability of human extinction based on the past extinctions of other species (this fact is also used as an argument that extinctions in humans may occur faster than in other successful species). It is also widely believed that the human species is the only species with a conscious prior knowledge of their own demise, and well in advance.

Another characteristic of the human animal believed to be unique is its religious belief (see "Attitudes to human extinction", above). Some commentators (such as John F. Schumaker) claim that paranormal beliefs are the "excess evolutionary baggage" underlying the "seemingly suicidal qualities that are features of the human animal". Other socioecological observers maintain that hunter-gatherer evolution has simply produced a mind biased against considering the common good of more than a hundred people; this was Albert Einstein's belief, and he concluded:

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
Humans are very similar to other primates in their genetic propensity towards intra-species violence; Jared Diamond's The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee estimates that 64% of hunter-gather societies engage in warfare every two years. Although it has been argued (e.g. in the UNESCO Seville Statement) that warfare is a cultural artifact, many anthropologists dispute this, noting that small human tribes exhibit similar patterns of violence to chimpanzee groups, the most murderous of the primates, and our nearest genetic relatives. The 'higher' functions of reason and speech may be more evolved in the brain of Homo sapiens than its cousins, but the relative size of the limbic system is a constant in apes, monkeys and humans; as human rational faculties have expanded, so has the wetware of emotion. The combination of inventiveness and urge to violence in the human animal has been cited as evidence against its long term survival[5].

History is replete with cases of over-exploitation of publicly available resources ("Tragedy of the commons"). If humanity's survival relies upon self-restraint, few examples are available. (See also: "Spaceship Earth".)

Another concern is extreme climate change, especially as a result of human activity. For example, pollution of the environment causes damage to ecosystems. If severely damaged the global ecosystem could collapse, leading to an extinction event which could include humanity. A phenomenon of this nature is already believed to be underway, with the widespread, ongoing extinction of species during the modern Holocene epoch, which may have some causal association with human activity (see Holocene extinction event).

Some terrorist cults, such as Chizuo Matsumoto's Aum Supreme Truth had a specific agenda[6] of intentionally bringing about Armageddon, such as through bioterrorism.

The Doomsday argument cites the relatively brief lifespan of the species as probabilistic evidence for its relatively imminent extinction.