Conversion can also mean to change, and Volokh seems to me more talking about a desire to change society in such a fashion that will cause (allow?) homosexual behavior to be more common.

He pretty explicity stated that he is talking about a shift in societal views on sexuality being the goal rather than a one on one conversion. Whether this is the right word or not, could probably be argued, but if we say we have converted from a agriculteral economy to an industrial economy (and I have certainly seen the term used this way) then I don't think it wrong to claim that many Homosexuals (as a group) are trying to convert us from a closeted society to an accepting and tolerant one, with one of the goals being to allow people to make choices about homosexual behavior that they would not chose in a closeted society.

What it boils down to, in my view at least, is that Volokhs thoughts are both extremely accurate and relatively trivial.

Hmmm.... Golf. Always makes me think of Mr. Aykermeyer. This whole "conversion" thing reminds me of some scenario my brother and I once talked about: a dentist who, while you are under his drill, tries to convert you to his religion. I remember my father talking about a dentist who argued poitics (about the Viet Nam War) with him under those circumstances. Kind of hard to answer back. A funny idea. I can picture with ease a dentist, a man's man, trying to convert a good-looking male Tribadentine Catholic worshipper of the Queen of Heaven to the worship of the Son on Man instead. That might be an example of the kind of conversion which Eugene Volokh may be speaking of.

Angry Arthur Silber and Julian Sanchez replied to Volokh that the "myth" or Big Lie of the anti-homosexual moral collectivists such as Paul Cameron is that homosexual men or women regularly try to convert or "recruit" 12-year-old boys or girls, which is, of course, demonstrably false.

Homosexuals as a whole are trying to convert Western society as a whole from the idea that homosexuality is morally wrong and even should be illegal to the idea that homosexuality is morally right and should be honored as heterosexuality is honored. That much is obvious and, from my point of view, is right. I argue that this can only be accomplished through a deeper religious conversion to the idea that sexuality as such is morally, spiritually, of the highest value, which proceeds from the idea of the self as the highest value, as the image of the Divine.

On an individual basis, as you have pointed out numerous times, such classifications as "homosexual", "heterosexual", "bisexual", or even "gynosexual" and "androsexual" are of somewhat limited epistemological value, since no one is attracted to an entire sex but to specific men or women, to a specific (and often very hard to define) type of man or woman. Obviously, a man who "hits on" a woman he sees as attractive is not trying to convert her to anything so general as "heterosexuality", but rather specifically to "heterosexuality" with himself. He most certainly does not want to see her being heterosexual with another man! -- which is why he would far prefer her to be homosexual (gynosexual, Lesbian), preferably with a woman as attractive as herself, than any such a thing. What he wants above all is that she should fall in love with him, which, being a type of religious experience, might well in that sense be called a "conversion".

If we are to use the more abstract categories of sexual orientation, then I must mention that I have often thought of it in terms of 4 basic types of men (I will use men here) and what they see:

A totally androsexual man:
1) looks at two men making love. He thinks: "What HE-MEN! THIS is the ideal!"
2) looks at a man and a woman making love. He thinks: "What a MAN! But I sure wish that was another man instead a -- ugh! a girrrrl! Kissing a girrrrl! What a QUEER perversion! He should be STRAIGHT -- a MAN'S MAN like me!"
3) looks at two women making love. He thinks: "Ugh! Two girrrrls! Disgusting!"

A completely bisexual man:
1) looks at two men making love. He thinks: "What MEN! And I wouldn't mind it if there was a woman there, too."
2) looks at a man and a woman making love. He thinks: "A man AND a woman! -- that is ideal!"
3) looks at two women making love. He thinks: "What WOMEN! And I wouldn't mind it if there was a man there, too."

A totally gynosexual man:
1) looks at two men making love. He thinks: "Ugh! MEN! How vile! Male-on-male anal fecal intercourse! Disgusting! Makes me want to vomit!"
2) looks at a man and a woman making love. He thinks: "What a WOMAN! But -- what could she possibly see in THAT -- jerk?? My blood boils with jealous rage! I must control my urge to kill him!"
3) looks at two women making love. He thinks: "What WOMEN! What HEAVENLY, LOVELY LADIES! What GODDESSES! So DIVINE! THIS is the ideal!"

But -- another gynosexual man:
1) looks at two men making love. He thinks: "This is abnormal and disgusting -- but more important, immoral from a societal point of view. They are not begetting children for the good of Society. This therefore should be illegal."
2) looks at a man and a woman making love. He thinks: "I hate that man, but I must tolerate this as long as they are in the process of breeding children for the good of Society.."
3) looks at two women making love. He thinks: "These women are selfishly refusing to bear children for the good of Society. I must negate my own selfish lusts and advocate instead that this abnormal anti-social love be made illegal -- for the good of Society -- the Collective."

The first three men are motivated by the selfish motive. It is this fourth man, the moral collectivist, who is acting on an unselfish motive or, as Rand would say, on a Kantian premise -- or, as Dawn would say, on an Akhenatonian premise.

Taking this fourth man further, imagine that he is able to gain a position of influence, perhaps as a legislator or as a popular television preacher. I will now take three other men, of whatever sexual orientations, but of decidedly differing moral orientations:

The first man sees and hears him constantly praised in the media for his unselfish service to the collective, and feels it his duty to admire him, even as he secretly loathes him.

The second man wonders how he can survive in a world where such persons can prosper -- and feels fear.

The third man observes how this collectivist has betrayed his own self -- and feels contempt.

That's how I see it.

By the way, I must again praise the styles of the titles of your posts!

Eric,

"Nor would I want to change their minds, because I'd then be guilty of conversion, and I don't want the responsibility.

If you agree with me, it's not my fault."

You might not be aware that you've got an unusually high moral bar, there. Speaking just for myself, I once tried to "convert" a lesbian women for purely and completely selfish reasons. I wanted her, and I was more than willing to accept responsibility if I was successful. Actually, I don't think I even considered the idea of responsibility. I just wanted her, and wanted her, and wanted her, and that was about the entirety of my thought process.

It might be different for gay men, given the difficulties gay men face... But no- I doubt very much that gay 16-25 year-olds are any less relentlessly and stupidly horny than straights are at those ages- most probably don't even worry about the consequences of coversion.

I stopped myself from going after married women- I mean that was immediate and the possible consequences were obvious, but the possible consequences of conversion are too many and too ethereal to halt most youngster's hormones, I think.

Cheers!

We know that up to one third of young men (and about as many young women) will experience strong attraction to a same-sex idol during their teenage years. This "crush" or "puppy love" used to be dismissed for what it is - a stage in normal identity formation - and 99.9 percent of these kids grew up to integrate a normal heterosexual identity.

But that was in a more innocent, less intensely sexualized age.

Through "outreach" and "support" organizations, the gay lobby has actively pursued these vulnerable teens. By incessantly repeating pseudo-scientific "evidence" they have everyone believing that "gays are born that way" - and they use this misinformation to convince these young people that coming out as gay is the way to "be true to themselves".

Many of these organizations press these kids into totally inappropriate and premature sexual experimentation - and in some cases, sexual liasons with the peer or adult supervisor of the group. Sex is a powerful - even addicting - experience for a young kid, especially when coupled with emotional attention and the frisson of being "special".

When these people hit their 20s and are feeling lonely and unsatisfied by the merry-go-round of gay promiscuity, they are up against a brick wall of "scientific facts" that "everybody knows", with no professional or cultural support for their decision to opt out of gayness.

Instead, they are blamed for not making it work, and encouraged to continue in the patterns of self-absorbed victimology that are so rife in our society.

This is happening, today, to young people on our high school and college campuses. You can dither about whether it's "conversion" or "indoctrination" - but it's happening.

The gay lobby has successfully used victimology and other manipulations to shout down opposition by everyone from parents and teachers to the professional associations in the medical and healing professions. These kids are being fed a pack of lies at a very vulnerable time in their lives.