Replies

Does this mean that someone can be neither homosexual nor heterosexual?

...or are you saying that even though my private fantasies and sexual attraction is exclusively towards the same sex, I am actually heterosexual?

Except for a few unfortunate individuals who suffer from hermaphroditism, every human being is heterosexual as defined by the presence of genitalia of one, or the other, sex. Regardless of behavior, the genitalia of individual human beings do not change (beyond maturing) after their initial appearance in the fetus. Therefore, absent surgical intervention, everyone remains a heterosexual individual. Consequently, your question and the discussion becomes one about behavior versus mental activity.

If one suffers from a mental disorder, it proper to class them accordingly, i.e., a manic-depressive, a schizophrenic, an autistic, etc. On the other hand, absent a psychosis, the mere presence of thought patterns without some sort of action does not classify human beings.

One is not classed as a mathematician for merely thinking about numbers. To be classed as such, one must not only think about numbers, but one must act, e.g., writing treatises on mathematical proofs. To be classed as a musician, one must not only think accordingly but must perform or write music (i.e., act) to make such thoughts publicly known. Similarly, one is not an scientist for merely thinking about science, etc.

In short, outside the diagnosis of a psychosis, it is inappropriate to class a human being on the basis of thought since such can only be known on the basis of some action, even if that action is the mere confession of the thought.

If you choose to class homosexuality as a psychosis, then it would be appropriate to class a human being thus on the basis of having a certain category of thought. On the other hand, if homosexuality is not a psychosis, then like all of the other labels we apply to our fellow humans, this label is appropriate only if the thoughts (or “feelings,” if you prefer) are accompanied by action.

homosexual (noun) a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex --Cambridge Dictionary

My immediate question involving this definition is how does some one know if another human being is a homosexual unless there is some action? Unless, the supposed homosexual self confesses (an action, in itself) or participates in a homosexual activity, there is no way to know what attractions exist in the homosexual brain or heterosexual brain, for that matter. The parallel is, as I noted earlier, just because some one is angry enough to kill another, and even thinks, or fantasizes, about it, that person is not classed as a murderer. Consequently, if there is no action (including the action of self confession), there is no way for any other person to know who is a homosexual, is there?

Now to the question you posed directly, let me answer with a question: Unless they are psychotic symptoms, whatever feelings or attractions you may have, or lack, if you never act on them, are you a murderer, a polygamist, a prostitute, a musician, etc.?

As to dueling definitions, I provided you with a bona fide “dictionary definition” that fit my usage. Therefore, it is appropriate for me to establish such as a debate term. If you wish to challenge, then it is merely a case pitting one authority against another with no net gain accomplished. On the other hand, we can agree for the purposes of discussion and debate on a definition and proceed thence. For reasons I have cited above, I maintain my position that unacted-upon “feelings” are irrelevant to the debate/discussion unless you are going class homosexuality as a psychosis.

Except for a few unfortunate individuals who suffer from hermaphroditism, every human being is heterosexual as defined by the presence of genitalia of one, or the other, sex.

I'm sorry to appear rude, but where are you sourcing your information?
Your definition of 'heterosexual' is wrong.

heterosexual
noun (INFORMAL hetero)
a person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex
--Cambridge Dictionary

heterosexual
• adjective 1 sexually attracted to the opposite sex. 2 involving or characterized by such sexual attraction.
• noun a heterosexual person.
Oxford Dictionary

Definition of Heterosexual
Heterosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. Or a person who has sexual relations with the opposite sex. Colloquially known as "straight."
The term "heterosexual" can also be an adjective.
--MedTerms.com Medical Dictionary

As to dueling definitions, I provided you with a bona fide “dictionary definition” that fit my usage.

I'm sorry, but you haven't provided a dictionary definition that fits your usage. You provided an adjective, not a noun, and this is what you provided:

Main Entry: 1ho•mo•sex•u•al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex

Even with you highlighting the part of it that you wish to represent the whole of it (in your post 60), It doesn't begin to support your definition, and yet it fully supports the definition that most people understand.
So far, you haven't provided anything to support what you are saying.

Yes, a homosexual might be "involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex", but as the description states, that is just one part of it.

I began this discussion because I saw that there were two definitions being used to describe homosexuality, and I saw a great deal of potential confusion in this.
If you are being serious here, then there's a great deal more confusion that I thought.
I really don't understand why you (or someone) have created brand new definitions for internationally accepted terms. It appears almost 'cultish' in it's absurdity. I don't want to be rude, but it really does appear that way to me.
Why not create new words to describe this different approach, rather than attempting to redefine established words?

If, for arguments sake, I go along with your new definitions, then I have some more questions in order to clarify what you mean. I am speaking with standard usage of the English language, so I don't see that I need to explain what I mean by the terms... simply look it up in a dictionary or encyclopedia to know what I mean.

From your definition, if I admit to homosexual attraction, then I am a homosexual, but if I don't admit to it, even if it is my condition, then I am not a homosexual?... so by telling a friend or a doctor or you, I become a homosexual by my admittance?

My immediate question involving this definition is how does some one know if another human being is a homosexual unless there is some action? Unless, the supposed homosexual self confesses (an action, in itself) or participates in a homosexual activity, there is no way to know what attractions exist in the homosexual brain or heterosexual brain, for that matter.

Indeed, how would you know?... The answer is that you don't know. But... the homosexual knows. The man with the same sex attraction knows. He can pretend he is heterosexual, and can fool everyone that he never has been a homosexual (or is cured of it), but he is the one who knows.

Homosexuality could be seen as an addiction. Like a chain-smoker, just because you give it up doesn't mean that you don't sometimes have cravings for it... and then on that fateful day when you are offered a cigarette and you take it without thinking, or just can't resist the temptation, and ... wham!... back on 60 a day.
Of course there are those who will never smoke again, as there are homosexuals who recover and those who live with it without any further indulgence... but, to suggest that a homosexual isn't a homosexual as long as he is secretive about it... well, that isn't the universally accepted definition of the word.

To use your own suggested comparison... I am a musician, and I have learned to play the piano very well. Just because I don't play publicly, that doesn't stop me being a musician. I may not play the piano for years, but I will always be identified as being a musician... When I eventually sit down again at the piano, I don't suddenly become a musician again. I have that talent, and I learned my instrument, so I am a musician... even if I don't indulge it.