Some of the people who commit suicide over it or try and fail to turn strait provide some pretty compelling evidence that they are unstable and/or mentally ill.
FIFY
Allow me to point out that I am not David Horsey, the award-winning editorial cartoonist who drew the cartoon that I posted. Perhaps you and Fistful should point out the logical fallacies, as you perceive them, to him.
You are playing his proxy, as you point out in later posts. It is still category error.
A homosexual is defined in every dictionary as a person whose sexual orientation is directed solely or almost solely towards others of his own sex. A person who has had, for whatever reason, a sex act with a person of his own sex and then proceeded to (say) have an exclusively-heterosexual sex life is not a homosexual. A man who has a sexual desire for both men and women is not a homosexual, but a bisexual, even if he proceeds to engage in a monogamous relationship with a woman.
Err, wrong. Not every dictionary. "Sexual orientation" is a relatively recent horse manure political/psychological concept with grounding in objective science only so far as observed behavior. Show me some hard data besides, "But this is how I
feeeeel!" If the claim that this is genetic, bring on some data grounded in our understanding of DNA, too.
As for defining "bisexual," observed behavior is the gold standard, again. It doesn't matter if the man in your example desires both men & women to the rest of us. If the man is an accountant, does his job diligently, but has desires to fly jet planes for a living, he is not "bi-employed." He is an accountant with a whimsy for flight. We ought to weight that whimsy accordingly.
Also, aren't you happy to know I am royalty and own the richest canine in the world? Or, maybe I am making a serious logical error in making such claims?
Except that, under DADT, it is not the homosexual act that is prohibited. Revealing your homosexual orientation in any way is prohibited.
[You might want to notice the modifier, "mostly" in my text you quoted. ]
And that is significant how? So, the person lied to get in the service, but the service is taking them at their word when they come clean and admit they lied? Honor
and discipline-challenged. Give 'em the boot.
The .mil also bars folks who say they may be inclined toward murder or treason without having acted on it.
To put a finer point on it, urges/impulses/feelings that flit through one's mind are mostly insignificant to others.
Mostly. If one acts on those impulses or insists on flapping one's gums about how they are so inclined, folks will take notice. Really, how many arrests have been made solely on
thoughts about beating on someone? OTOH, actually beating someone is a crime*, as is making believable threats* to do so.
Which gets to the sub-point:
speech is an action. It is not THE act speech might describe, but it is an act, nonetheless.
Shouting "I am something-or-other" from the rooftops isn't being "something-or-other," but it is a sign one might be so inclined. Changing our own actions with regard to the shouter is reasonable based on his acts (generating newly-obtained data).
If that person is saying they are homosexual, I am likely to take them at their word and leave it at that, unless my circumstances are such that I am required by law/prudence/etc. to do something about it.
* In many circumstances.