[Lucky Dog]

Please allow me to reprise part of my original comment:

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 polygamist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

If you agree that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based), you are, in essence, agreeing with me that homosexuality is "defined" by behavior unless it is a psychosis. If there is no homosexual behavior (which includes speech claiming to be a homosexual), no one is objectively a homosexual.

[Kahonek]

hehe. I said that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based) before imposing sanctions or restrictions. I did not say that behavioral evidence is needed for someone to BE a homosexual, which is what you were suggesting in your original comment. Not all homosexuals are kicked out of the military.

I agree that without evidence you cannot PROVE that anyone is a homosexual. That does not make them any less gay. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen the term “objectively homosexual” before. Does one only “become” homosexual when you can prove it?