From what you've posted I believe that Singer's interpretation of the story is what you say, but you have remember that Singer's interpretation isn't THE interpretation.
This is true. However, being in my fifties, I read the early X-men comics when they came out the first time. In my post 123, I address your point. In the late 60s early 70s, Green Lantern and Green Arrow were redefined from stock characters (Green Lantern had been around for years, and Green Arrow was a Batman knockoff) into liberal dogooders. Green Arrow's sidekick, Speedy, got hooked on (guess what)? So, the characters were redefined according to the vision of the new artist interpreting them. Frank Miller redefined Batman from the 60's pop-culture mod joke to a dark, brooding psychopath in "The Dark Knight Returns." Except for the godawful Batman and Robin, every Batman movie since then has used this template (and they still haven't gotten it right).
So, my point was, that McKellan and Singer redefined the Xmen as a parable of homosexuality, maintaining the original premise, but modifying it to suit their needs.
From what you've posted I believe that Singer's interpretation of the story is what you say, but you have remember that Singer's interpretation isn't THE interpretation.
I don't believe I ever said the Xmen comics were gay, just that the movies, particularly as interpreted by Singer, were. I also thought they were well done movies, and I enjoyed them, other than the "coming out" scene, where I thought Singer became very ham handed.
BTW, though. Thanks for your thoughtful response. It's good to debate with people, where even though we may not agree, we stay on point and topic.
If they ever make a movie of "The Watchmen", it's going to be REALLY weird. Rorschach was the best character in that one.