Having thought about it overnight, I think I owe Track and even better explanation. Here goes:
I am fully capable of writing long tomes, as you are about to see, but most of the time shorthand is the way of the board. We know each other pretty well, and my underlying viewpoints are well enough known in general that I do not always have to make them explicit. That said, you are new enough that a real answer might be called for, and it is even more exacting that my previous (only lightly considered) reply.
I was, exactly as you sensed and were pissed off by, trying to disrupt the thread from the very start. I did, indeed, hope to short circuit the string of replies that would naturally ensue that said stuff like: I know I am straight because I have always been good at football, or because I am no good at decorating, or because I can’t even match my socks without help, or because I hate expressing my emotions.
Explicit in the OP’s question is a very dangerous cultural assumption: That gay men are not just different in their attractions, but actually different in “kind.” They are somehow a different type, so in addition to their choice of sexual objects there are other attendant differences that they will display outside of their sex lives. (Peace to Proud Italian. He is fine guy with whom I have no quarrel. Always liked him, but I do notice that he so strongly identifies with the str8 orientation that he is not always aware of when he is repeating stereotypes about gays.)
Implicit in his examples is the most virulent form of that assumption: That the way gay men are different is that they are actually “inverts.” That is, they have male genitalia but their outlook and instincts are female. I am a strong opponent of those who think being gay is a “choice,” but I am not sure the usual excuse these days, that they have a biological “birth defect” which made them develop as female in all ways except that they have dicks, is any better, and though it has won public sympathy, or pity rather, for gay tolerance it is scientifically unsound and potentially damaging to gay rights.
There was a lot of unspoken cultural baggage packed into the OP’s first message, and an equal amount of submerged opposition in my terse first reply, but I think I actually did do some people a favor by not just answering the question and endorsing the unexpressed and unexamined view that gay men are basically women in men’s bodies. I was completely serious in my assertion that your orientation has nothing to do with whom you want to converse, or compete, or offer you a different viewpoint. It has to do with your sexual desires and those do not correlate to anything else. I know gay men who are masculine, who are athletic, who are not artistic, who are extroverted, who are friendly with women, who are competitive, who are bad at home decoration and don’t manage to keep their homes or their clothes all that clean. Stereotypes have nothing to do with one’s deep orientation.
Sorry that this time I irritated you, but having been at this a lot longer than you, I hope you forgive me for thinking that sometimes I just don’t have the energy to fight the whole battle all over again when a smart-ass comment might just head the whole thing off. Such long replies rarely stir up a real exchange, but usually just kill the thread dead, as I predict is about to happen to this one.
As for love and monogamy, if that is what you want, I hope you find it. I think that is neither a gay nor straight issue myself, but I would not for a second wish for you anything less than that you find your happiness.