Replies

Sorry for the absence. Back now...

Welcome back.

… polygamist… prostitute… etc.

I would definitely agree with you. However, these are different words than the word we were discussing [homosexual]. 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… [homosexual]

OK… here is the question you have failed to answer now directly addressed to you:

If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?

In both cases previously cited, a desired action not indulged is a component. In both cases there is no way to know what the individual feels and/or desires unless he engages in an action (speech, probably, at the minimum). Therefore, please define your difference without referring to an action.

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.

Please look up the dictionary definition for the word witch (which would probably be agreed upon by culture and law, and the infallible word of your grandmother) and tell me how you would determine that an individual fit said definition(s) absent some action on the part of the labeled individual. Similarly, please look up the dictionary definition for the word manic and tell me how you would determine that an individual fit said definition absent some action. Dictionary definitions exist for both of these descriptors (again, probably be agreed upon by culture and law, and the infallible word of your grandmother). However, it is impossible to knowledgably and validly apply to the terms to any person without the labeled individual, first, having engaged in some action (and, perhaps, not even, then).

… I am afraid that you cannot change the meaning of a word through analogical argument.

“The glass is half empty.” “The glass is half full.” “The container is at fifty percent capacity.” These are potentially true statements that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation. However, correctly calling an individual a “homosexual” is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.

Try convincing a Chicago car mechanic that the compartment at the rear of his car is really a “boot,” and not a “trunk.”

Determining what is either an automobile “boot” or a car “trunk” will require nothing but direct observation. To wit, simply looking at two, motionless, silent and potentially identical sedans will determine that either term is the compartment at the rear of either car. However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?

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.

Either you chose to ignore, or have completely missed, my point. Therefore, let’s try it once more: In the absence of, either individual actions or telepathy, semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.

In summary, your arguments and citations notwithstanding, you have failed to meet my challenge: You have, as of this juncture, not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. Therefore, you are, once again, herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities. (By the way, a dictionary is nothing more than an authority.)

To save time for the remainder of our discussion, I will concede the following: homo means same, hetero means different and sex means the property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs.

“If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?”

Because, as I have already pointed out, these are two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings. The first behaviorally anchored. The second is not. It is defined by an attraction.

You are arguing by analogies that don’t work. It is entirely possible for a noun to be valid in the absence of behavioral corroboration. It is fully possible (though certainly not fully optimal) for a “leg man” to be married to a double amputee.

“However, correctly calling an individual a ‘homosexual’ is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.”

To some extent, you are correct here. However, I am not talking about the proper application of the word to a specific target, I am talking about the definition of the word. I have absolutely no idea how to diagnose a medulloblastoma, but I can define it. The latter does not necessarily require the former. By conflating the two, you are painting yourself into a corner. After all, people can lie about their orientation. If you must actually observe someone having sex with another person of the same sex before that person is a homosexual, then I doubt there are very many homosexuals out there, and the military shouldn’t have to turn many people down.

“However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?”

I can’t. Are you suggesting that means that they aren’t homosexual until someone SEES them having sex with another man? Your argument is getting pretty weird at this point.

“semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.”

I wholeheartedly agree that one can potentially misuse words. However, that’s not the same as saying they are meaningless or insisting that they must have behavioral anchors. We use PLENTY of subjective terms — words like love, funny, pervert, or attractive.