[Kahonek]

Well, Lucky Dog, it seems that our discussion has come full circle. If you are not willing to admit that “homosexual” and “polygamist” are not parallel terms, you are welcome to go ahead and use your own private definition of each word, and the rest of the world will use another. Problem solved...

[Lucky Dog]

It appears that we have reached an impasse. However, let me be very clear with our difference.

It is not that I disagree with your citation of the definition of homosexuality as including a "feeling" of attraction to members of the same sex. Rather, my difference with you is that (back to our original discussion start point of taking the action of prohibiting homosexuals in the military) unless one classes homosexuality in the same category as psychoses, including "feelings" in its definition is a meaningless distinction.

“Feelings” are phenomena completely internal to their possessor(s). No human can know any other human's "feelings" without that other human engaging in some behavior from which those "feelings" can be inferred. Therefore, outside of mental health terms, defining a classification identifier, i.e., homosexual, based exclusively on a human's "feelings," from which other humans must take action, e.g., exclusion from military service, apart from any action is an exercise in futility.

Consequently, my position remains that classifying another human being as a homosexual (or not) is completely dependent upon that individual’s behavior. In other words, the identity is established, or is completely dependent, if you will, based exclusively upon the individual’s behavior.

Again, unless one has engaged in behavior from which an observer can classify him or her as a homosexual, he or she is not a homosexual from the perspective of required action. Stated another way, from a practical standpoint, ie. beyond a psychosis, homosexuality is defined by behavior.