Replies

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.

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.

It is a fairly common debate procedure to define terms in a specific way just for the purposes of that particular debate. However, it is obvious that your are struggling with this artifice. Consequently, I submit that you may substitute the term “homosexual practitioner” everywhere in past posts of mine for the simple term “homosexual.” Additionally, in the future I shall endeavor to use the term “homosexual practitioner” to refer to one who engages in homosexual activity. Will that resolve your confusion?

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.

Again, unless you are going define homosexuality as a psychosis, who cares? As I have pointed out many times on this thread: The parallel is, as I noted earlier, just because some one is angry enough to kill another, and even thinks, or fantasizes, about it, but does not act on those thoughts and emotions, that person is not classed as a murderer. The person who is angry “knows,” as well. However, if he, or she, controls his, or her, behavior, society does not care one whet.

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.

Again, unless you are going define homosexuality as a psychosis, who cares? Behavior is the key issue. Again, as I noted before:

It is a critical distinction as to whether “homosexual attraction” is a psychosis. By definition, a psychosis is potentially treatable and the search for a cure is a legitimate activity. Consequently, I must insist that you take a position. Is homosexual attraction a psychosis?

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.

Now, you are talking behavior again. As you have insisted, there is a distinction. If there is no homosexual behavior, there is no problem unless you are going to classify homosexuality as a psychosis. If you so classify the activity, then homosexual practitioners should seek, or be forcibly referred to, psychiatric treatment. However, based upon my readings, most homosexual practitioners do not wished to be classified as psychotic. Furthermore, these homosexual practitioners have convinced the APA to revoke the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

… 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.

Again, who cares? If those with “homosexual orientation” are not “homosexual practitioners,” then neither they nor society are the worse for it. (Of course, if you are going to classify the “homosexual practitioner” as a psychotic, that is a different story.)

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…

My point was that just “thinking” or “feeling” something about music did not make you a musician. You must have taken some action to be classed as a musician, i.e., learned to play and perform. If you no longer perform, then you can be properly classed as a former musician. In like fashion, if you only “thought” or “felt” homosexual orientation, but did not act on it, then you were no more a homosexual practitioner than some one who had never “thought” or “felt” in such a way. If you were, at one time, a homosexual practitioner, but no longer engage, and no longer plan to engage, in such activity, then your are properly classed as a former homosexual practitioner.”

If you have never been a homosexual practitioner or have renounced being a homosexual practitioner and honestly never intend to engage in that activity, again, the net result is the same as far as society is concerned. Nobody, but you, knows what you think and/or feel unless you take some action. Consequently, to use the term agreed upon in this thread, being homosexually oriented is meaningless.