Dream on. Keep making up "facts" and calling them "logic". I proved that a person who is a latent homosexual is not yet an actual homosexual and pointed to the citations.
Jim the question was if homosexuality was defined by the act. According to the definition it isn't. A person who is exclusively attracted to the same sex is homosexual and a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex is heterosexual. No sex act required in either case.
You brought up latent homosexuality which is an entirely different subject covering
"a hidden inclination or potential for interest in homosexual relationships, which is either suppressed or not recognised". You can see how that's a different topic right? Or are you completely blind?
What facts did I make up here? These are definitions from your own sources.
You counter with things you make up in your head and call them common sense and logic; but you cannot point to a single citation to back up your "contention".
Jim, the citations were the definitions which have proven you wrong repeatedly.
If "latent heterosexual" exists you should be able to find that citation with a few keystrokes; but you cannot. You made the term up and called it reality.
Where did I call it reality? Go back and look again. I simply pointed out that a homosexual who had not yet experienced sex was no more a "latent homosexual" than a heterosexual who hadn't experienced sex was a "latent heterosexual". It's a direct correlation of logic.
The point being you can be a homosexual without having had sex yet and still not be a "latent homosexual". To explain further an example would be someone who is fully aware and comfortable with their attraction to the same sex but has not found a suitable partner yet. There is nothing "latent" about that.
I, on the other hand, can present numerous citations for the term "latent homosexual" -- a term which has been in existence since the late nineteenth century. You, on the other hand cannot cite the term "latent heterosexual" at all without my help in pointing it out as a humorous juxtaposition in the title of a Broadway play.
Did I say somewhere that latent homosexuality doesn't exist? Go back and look, I'll wait.
The point was that you brought up another condition that does not apply to our conversation. A homosexual who has not had sex yet is not "latent" therefore your argument has no merit.
Are you able to follow logical sequence at all?
Why should I continue a dead end dialogue with someone like that?
You should be able to back up your points. You say homosexuality is defined by some sex act. By definition you are wrong. So you brought up the definition for some other term that does not support your argument.
The only reason this is dead end is you won't admit your mistakes and are squirming around making excuses and trying to sidetrack things.
All you do is come here to play Devil's Advocate because you simply like to argue.
No, I do get some enjoyment out of pointing out all the flaws in your thinking though.
You have become boring, trite, and tedious. "Play[ing] with [my] "soul"" would be a great step up from having to deal with the likes of you on a daily basis. At least that would be one asshole I could tolerate; and I couldn't get more shit out of it than I do out of you.
Sure you can't stand someone pointing out your bigotry, stupidity, and illogical thinking. I'm sure you would prefer to play with your soul then be forced to admit your mistakes.
You cannot even recognize that what you call "running away" is actually me pushing you away.
Call it what you want. Push or run, just don't you dare admit when your wrong. That would be too honest.
You certainly are.