How to define homosexuality

What about a person's thoughts or actions makes them gay or not. Is it just having sexual relations with the same sex? What about bisexuals? What about "experimentation"? If someone only has had sex with the same sex once but has had sex with the opposite sex a hundred times, is that person gay? What about the other way around? Is someone who has had sexual relations with the opposite sex straight no matter how many times that person has had sexual relations with the same sex? Are thoughts as important or more important than actions?

These are important questions as they may help fight stereotypes and give people a better understanding of what being gay is.

Here is my take...

First of all, sexuallity is not an all or nothing proposition. People are not just gay or straight. Even adding bisexuals into the mix really doesn't account for all the variety of human sexuallity. The closest I've seen is the Kinsey Scale, and I think even that is too rigid.

Secondly, we have to take thoughts as well as deeds into the equation. Someone who has only had sex with the opposite sex but constantly fantasizes about the same sex could be considered gay.

So what does everyone think? What is the definition of gay?

 

"Gay" is a more broad thing in my mind than "homosexual". The term 'gay' covers homosexuality and more.

 

I hold the exact opposite opinion; I view 'homosexual' as the broad term covering anything the implicates two people of the same sex, and I view 'gay' as the narrower term that refers to an identity developing from a person's experience of attraction and affection being enduringly and primarily directed toward others of the same sex.

Not all things observably homosexual are necessarily gay, but all things gay would fit under the broad umbrella of homosexuality.

 

Hmmm... I'm rethinking my view, due to your response.

 

The question is too broad, as thoughts or actions alone are not gay.

No. Sexual experience isn't even necessary for a person to identify as gay.

Bisexuals aren't gay. A bisexual in a same-sex relationship remains a bisexual in terms of their identity. (Although that's perhaps putting it in overly simplistic terms.)

Doesn't determine identity/orientation.

Since behavior isn't the measure of gayness, the answer is that we don't know.

Same answer as previous question.

Yes, but I would say there is more to it than just thoughts. We notice another person as an outcome of attraction before we consciously think about finding them attractive. If it were thought alone, that would suggest we can control attraction through force of will, cutting off any thought that runs counter to a desired outcome. This simply is not the case. Discipline of thought doesn't make a person stop noticing the attractiveness of others. It merely means refusing to pursue the thought once it bubbles up to the surface. The attraction is still there. Such discipline is exhausting and ultimately futile for most people. Basic attraction > the ability to constantly exercise discipline of thought. Such mental suppression of thought in the futile attempt to suppress the attraction will find an outlet somewhere else, notably in a person's dreams.

That understanding requires a first important step: Having an openness and willingness to develop an understanding. Something many people seem to lack.

I concur.

Gay is an aspect of identity, developed from a persons' experience of enduring, primary attraction to the same sex. It should be noted that it is not an attraction to sexual behavior, but to the traits typically associated with expressions of gender, which are further closely associated with a person's sex. This is why the focus on sexual behavior in understanding 'gayness' is the wrong approach. A gay person can experience same-sex attraction long before they reach a level of sexual maturation associated with the development of an interest in sexual behavior. People can find their interest raised by all manner of things that aren't directly associated with sexual organs or sexual behavior; it can be the qualities of a person's voice, particular facial features, a person's bearing, etc. etc. 17 x etc.

 

it comes down to whether or not you are willing to apply the logic used the same way to everything else.Let's use a logic which is called common-sense-logic.

For example, I like to identify myself as a brain surgeon. I think about it day and night. I read medical magazines and web sites. I never went to medical school nor have I ever performed surgery but I identify myself as a brain surgeon.

Now, of course most would say that I'm not a brain surgeon because I've never actually engaged in the act.

Now, perhaps I am in pre-med, or in grad school but still haven't performed surgery; am I a brain surgeon? Again the answer is unequivocally no.

So, despite my trying to represent myself as something, unless I've actually done the act then I'm not what I claim to be.

 

So if you are a virgin who has never had heterosexual sex you aren't a heterosexual?

 

Or, if one ceases engaging in all sexual behavior, does that mean one isn't a heterosexual anymore?

Sexuality isn't brain surgery. It's far more complex.

 

I was under the impression that gay was just a synonym for homosexual, but I see now that may not be the case. I've always said that a good day is a day you learn something you didn't know the day before, so today is a good day. Thanks Johnny-C and Periquine.

 

Thank you for your insights, I appreciate them.

 

you might think you are. Maybe once you finally "get lucky" you find that you don't like it, try a male and find that pleasures you more. You don't know for sure until the act has been performed.

If we can't use the same logic then obviously something has been skewed in order to pander to a group or individual.

I am not really a brain surgeon despite insisting that I am.

 

Interesting viewpoint. So you believe that it is actions that define someone's sexuallity?

 

Too bad you begin from a false premise and bring no logic. Sexual orientation is not based on action it is based on sexual attraction. Being gay, straight or bi doesn't come into being when you first have a sexual encounter, it exists long before then. Or when did you become straight? What taught you how to be that way? Do you ever wonder what could have happened differently?

 

I rest my case. As all can see by the above post, common-sense-logic will not be used by gays because it would defeat the message they are trying to put forth. Call me a brain surgeon then. You know what, I think I'm gay so from now on, I'm gay.

 

I will try one more time. You have no case to rest.

so let me ask

When did you become a heterosexual? If you can't answer that question your entire premise is lost.

 

I can't see any reason it's even necessary to define the term.

 

it was confirmed at 14 years of age when i found that after engaging in sexual intercourse with a girl that i liked it a lot.

But, I think I'm gay so now I'm gay. Since all one must do is think about it to be one, I'm now gay.

At some point you hopefully will see how silly it is to have common sense logic work for everything else in your life but now for how you define being gay.

 

So you weren't sexual before you had sex? How did you know you liked the girl?

 

Liberace.

 

who said I liked her? She was drunk, I was drunk, and she grabbed my junk and the rest is history.

If i didn't like it, who knows, maybe I would have given it another try or given gay sex a try. You see, when I looked between my legs i saw a thing which naturally needs to be inserted into what is between the legs of a female. I was born with plumbing which is meant to be installed within female plumbing.

I needed to verify that was correct before I would have considered going gay. But, since I enjoyed doing what nature intended, why switch?

 

As you can see goal posts come with wheels.

Your logic is non-existent, your story made me throw up in my mouth a little bit and your lack of understanding the difference be sexuality and sexual intercourse is stunning.

 

Action is the symptom that reveals the disease, in my opinion; however, I believe that both the thought and the action are merely symptoms of a distaste for that which is natural.

 

That's nice.

But your post is just a long-winded way of saying "you're wrong" without backing up your assertion.

Now, actually point out what is wrong with the post of sec and why you believe it is wrong. That's how debate works.

 

So to be clear, you are saying that virgins are what exactly? Nothing? No sexuality?

You don't have to have sex to know you are attracted to women or attracted to men. Say I decided to start performing brain surgeries for the hell of it. Would that make me a brain surgeon? No.

 

Your post is truthful. You are making a lot of sense.