Replies

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. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, ‘lust’ defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)”

That was really what I was taking issue with.

Not to be trite, but I take issue with those who would take issue with my statement.

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.

I think you will agree with me that a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to be married to more than one simultaneously, but does not do so, is not called a polygamist. Similarly, I think you will agree the same conditions are true concerning an individual and the term prostitute.

Despite your citation of authorities and learned sources, you have not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. You are herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities.

Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.

Your position seems … that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly.

You have misconstrued my position. I do not maintain that no psychological construct exists if cannot be observed directly. In general, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, psychological constructs are irrelevant to the status of individual rights. In particular, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, only the US Constitution, statutes and judicial pronouncements that do not violate same and individual behavior are relevant to the status of individual rights.

Sorry for the absence. Back now...

“I think you will agree with me that a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to be married to more than one simultaneously, but does not do so, is not called a polygamist. Similarly, I think you will agree the same conditions are true concerning an individual and the term prostitute.”

I would definitely agree with you. However, these are different words than the word we were discussing. They are behaviorally defined terms. I don’t see why the fact that they are behaviorally defined has any bearing on the meaning of a completely different word. It’s like trying to argue that “Hispanic” denotes a race, just because it’s commonly used together with words like “Black.” The terms are not parallel — one is an ethnicity and the other a race.

“Despite your citation of authorities and learned sources, you have not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. You are herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities.”

In our discussion so far, I have used dictionary definitions, citations from both culture and law, and the infallible word of my grandmother. The lexicon of a society is derived from cultural consensus. Thus, the sources I have used seem to me to be the most relevant. You are the outlier here, and I am afraid that you cannot change the meaning of a word through analogical argument. Try convincing a Chicago car mechanic that the compartment at the rear of his car is really a “boot,” and not a “trunk.” Try convincing a hoodlum in a London pub that his favorite sport is not “football,” but “soccer.” For that matter, it makes no logical sense to place the period in that last sentence inside the quotation marks. It has nothing to do with the word I’m referring to, and it would be much more logical to place it outside the quotes, as the Brits do. Does that mean that my fifth grade grammar teacher (and all the other authorities on the subject in the U.S.) are wrong?

“Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.”

Again, the analogy breaks down. The issues you raise above are empirical questions of science, not semantic and lexical questions. The former require empirical and logical evidence. The latter are culturally defined.