from what i know (and i even checked right now) homosexuality=sexual attraction towards the same gender so i see no reason in adding the second part to it.

but i do understand what he meant now. still, its kind of like saying that german=being german+ perceiving yourself as one.

No, its not the same. You are either German or you are not. There is no other possibility. Society gives you the label "German" and you have no other choice but to accept it.

Sexual attraction towards the same gender is obviously an important element, but its not the sole criterion. Homosexual orientation is really complex and multi-dimensional psychologically and sociologically. You know, the concept of homosexuality nowadays has come to define an integral part of an individual's identity. For a homosexual person being homosexual is a quite crucial part of his character.
And, we as outsiders can hardly objectively label a person as "homosexual". There are literally dozens of possible sexual orientations. A person that is attracted towards individuals of the same gender is not obligatory "homosexual". For example, he/she could be heteroflexible.
Homosexuality is more cultural than scientific. That's why one's self-identity is relevant.

Plus, the concept of homosexuality generally assumes a life-long predisposition. But there is simply not much empirical evidence that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes.

No, its not the same. You are either German or you are not. There is no other possibility. Society gives you the label "German" and you have no other choice but to accept it.

how is it not the same? if you like only those who are the same gender as you you are gay. if society knows you are gay/german they will lable you as gay/german. both can hide it, both dont have to accept it but it doesnt change the fact that both are like that.

For a homosexual person being homosexual is a quite crucial part of his character.

most homosexuals i met disagree (if i actually understood this sentence.) the fact they are homosexual has nothing to do with their personality. what about the time before we develop any sexual need?

A person that is attracted towards individuals of the same gender is not obligatory "homosexual". For example, he/she could be heteroflexible.

true but he will still be treated as a homosexual/bisexual. he will have to fight for his right to marry his love (if the same gender) and face all the things a "normal" homosexual would have to face. the self-identity isnt that important. if you are attracted to this then you are labled as that. there might be exceptions (bi-curious, heteroflexible and probably many more i never heard of). the bottom line is that if your not heterosexual then your not "normal" and that is whats important. also, one does not call himself gay simply for choosing. youd usually check and make sure what you feel before labeling yourself (unless your an attention seeker who likes drama :/). they will only lable themselves when they think they know what they are.

But there is simply not much empirical evidence that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes.

i doubt that one day a person can wake up and like muscles instead of curves and breasts XD (really sorry if i said something stupid for not understanding this sentence) XD

refer to marginally increase your groups survival, or do you save as much humans as possible and by that marginally decrease the chances of the species to survive?

please explain. how would either way increase or decrease a species survival chance.

You make nature sound sentient. It's not.

your opinion. not a fact.

Just because something else does things differently doesn't mean we should as well.

k, but what did that have to do with what i said. and if nature isn't sentient, then it itself isn't doing anything.

This whole argument is just stupid though.

good. why interject??

i doubt that one day a person can wake up and like muscles instead of curves and breasts XD (really sorry if i said something stupid for not understanding this sentence) XD

[url=http://femalemuscle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Isabell_sample2.jpg]

bbbb best of bothworlds!!!!!!

your opinion. not a fact.

No, it's a fact. Nature isn't a person.

k, but what did that have to do with what i said.

You said that we shouldn't do something because nature did.

and if nature isn't sentient, then it itself isn't doing anything.

He was just saying why your logic is flawed. You can have a correct argument with incorrect facts, but have neither.

your opinion. not a fact

Going by the meaning of the word "sentient" and what we broadly term as "nature" it's a fact.

and if nature isn't sentient, then it itself isn't doing anything.

A rock falls and crushes a deer which was walking by underneath it. The rock didn't intend for this to happen. Does this mean we should crush all deer the walk near rocks? No.

Basically that was what you were arguing with that "Nature doesn't show mercy" and so it's "their own fault."

good. why interject??

Because it's an issue and bigoted, homophobic morons impose on the rights of other human beings for simply having different tastes.

See, in my "opinion" on homosexuality, I don't really mind if homosexuality is allowed. Some people say it's bad. Why? Well, maybe they were taught on that homosexuality is bad. Maybe, people have some sort of opinion saying it's gross or it's righteous. Some people say it's bad because of their religion or worship. It's all opinions on what different people say, and what makes this question hard is that the people has many unique opinions and reasons on this.

Here's my view on those who are anti-homosexual...

Being against homosexuality because you're a heterosexual is like being against milk because you're lactose intolerant...

homosexuality, oh thats what you guys are talking about......