Glad to hear that. Unfortunately, I’m traveling tomorrow too and will be away from the ‘net for awhile, so I may not be able to respond. However, I’m not sure how different our positions really are. I was responding to your initial post, where you stated:
“Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual.”
That was really what I was taking issue with. Every major behavioral science, the Pope, the military, and my grandma agree that people who have a propensity, predisposition, predilection, or deep-seated tendency (call it what you will) to have sex with those of the same sex, i.e., those who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex, are “homosexuals,” whether they’ve had gay sex or not. They have a sexual orientation that is correlated with (but distinct from) their behavior.
Your position seems reminiscent of B.F. Skinner and the radical behavioral psychologists of the middle of the last century, who insisted that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly. That advanced some aspects of the science and made for the development of interesting methodology, but it sure didn’t help the study of personality, sexual orientation, or other such characteristics. Fortunately, scientists since then have realized that they don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are ways to triangulate on individual differences that are not directly observable, whether they be extroversion, homosexuality, or narcissism.