Identity

[Masada]

Being gay is a choice. Being homosexual is not. In simple terms, while most, if not all, gays are homosexuals, not all homosexuals identify as being gay. The homosexual I know best emphatically rejects being labelled as gay because he feels it comes with unwanted baggage e.g. what he perceives to be endemic promiscuity in the gay community.

So your prior post make no sense, then. You differentiated between physical attraction to males and some kind of cultural stigma/life-style choice associated. As we just established that when it comes to quesiton identites we aren't talking about the former, but the latter, the correct defamatory response of yours should have been for instance "Are you really sucking anyones dick? Really? I mean do really do that to any other men? Seriously. Are you reeeaaaalllly sure you don't want a stable classic relationsip?" Which of ocurse is still an offensive way to frame it, but concerns a legitimate question nevertheless.

You agree that the one is a sexual preference, and the other is a identity albeit one that's common to a large proportion of the people with that sexual preference? If so, fine. We can move on to your other concerns.

The big question in this for me is how do we tell a homosexual? In most cases the answer will be linked to cues we associate with gayness. With that comes a whole range of assumptions about sexual practices, leisure activities, assumed skills and so forth. It's those assumptions that make the questions I raised 'appropriate' and informed the questions you just asked. Buuut assume you meet a homosexual who doesn't give off the 'gay vibe', would you ask them whether or not they engaged in anal sex with other men? You might if you knew they were homosexual, but you wouldn't if you didn't.

There's all kinds of other considerations to the question too. For instance, a fair number of homosexuals limit their sexual experiences to things like mutual masturbation. But we assume that gay men engage in the full range of sexual practices available to them. The evidence suggests otherwise but it's a good narrative that most people believe. Having said that, most people believe that the inevitable result of a heterosexual relationship is vaginal intercourse... which might not also be the case. The point being that humans as a general rule like to impute lots of supposed behaviors to people with little-to-no evidence because their identity is suggestive of it.

 

[Bakspatel]

I don't really see an opening post but a response, is it an accident or do you intent to start a discussion about homosexuality?
And I never knew that there's apparently a difference between a gay and homosexual... isn't it just practically the same, but the word gay having a more of a negative meaning?

 

[Traitorfish]

the word gay having a more of a negative meaning?

Wait, what?

 

[dusters]

So the point is that someone who sometimes practices actions which would be qualified as gay, doesn't want to be labeled as a member of gay community, right?

Why not call them bi or bi-curious? And whats wrong with asking somebody' s sexual orientation? who takes offense of that these days?

 

[innonimatu]

Why not call them bi or bi-curious?

Because it's not the same thing?

And, regarding the OP, gay means different things to different people in different places. Having said that...

The big question in this for me is how do we tell a homosexual? In most cases the answer will be linked to cues we associate with gayness. With that comes a whole range of assumptions about sexual practices, leisure activities, assumed skills and so forth.

Which is, I guess, why many people dislike the label. And also the reason many people like the label.

Buuut assume you meet a homosexual who doesn't give off the 'gay vibe', would you ask them whether or not they engaged in anal sex with other men? You might if you knew they were homosexual, but you wouldn't if you didn't.

What's the context anyway? Do you usually approach people and just ask sex-related questions? Unless you had a reason to ask about that (looking for anal sex? the person's doctor?) that kind of question would seem very out of place... with men or woman, homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[AlpsStranger]

This strikes me as a subdivision tactic designed to make it easier to deny people's legitimate rights.

I don't care if gays just swordfight or if they 'eat da poo poo.' It's their business.

 

[anandus]

I'm not quite sure what the discussion point is.

All the points can be applied to both hetero- and homosexuals, eg. gayness (which I assume is effeminateness?), anal sex, etc.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm not quite sure what the discussion point is.

All the points can be applied to both hetero- and homosexuals, eg. gayness (which I assume is effeminateness?), anal sex, etc.

It's a subculture with all kinds of properties. It would be like defining "geeky" or "redneck." It's possible, but sometimes hard to summarize quickly.

Homosexuality proper is merely wanting to do it with the same gender. Much simpler.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So "gay" is a public expression of homosexuality instead of merely being a synonym? It seems completely absurd to me. What is the corresponding word or phrase for heterosexuals? Acting human?

 

[Cato the Elder]

So "gay" is a public expression of homosexuality instead of merely being a synonym? It seems completely absurd to me. What is the corresponding word or phrase for heterosexuals? Acting human?

How I interpret it is kind of like the analogy of how machismo and excessive girlyness correspond to being a heterosexual male or female. There's people who are of a certain sexual orientation, and there are those that flaunt it, and they exist on all sides of the sexual spectrum. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing, just an apparent thing.

Personally I think I understand what the OP means, although I'm not sure to what extent the names are clear or universally accepted in society. Personally I have no issue with any of these lifestyles as long as they don't go out of their way to bother me (this issue is one I mostly have with machos moreso than anyone else) and consider it a question of personal expression. But this is, indeed, a choice.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So "gay" is a public expression of homosexuality instead of merely being a synonym? It seems completely absurd to me. What is the corresponding word or phrase for heterosexuals? Acting human?

I would say it's more like "geek" versus "computer programmer."

 

[warpus]

Buuut assume you meet a homosexual who doesn't give off the 'gay vibe', would you ask them whether or not they engaged in anal sex with other men?

No, because I have manners. I don't generally ask people about their butts or what they put in them.

As for the distinction between men who are attracted to other men (homosexuals) and men who are open about it (.. open homosexuals?), I don't see why it really matters.

Yes, there are lots of people in the closet.. so what? It doesn't affect the definition of who a homosexual is. If you need a term for people living in the closet, we already have one - A closet homosexual.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, one of those wonderful threads where somebody's clearly using a very strange dictionary.

 

[Traitorfish]

Or a first-year sociology textbook.

 

[GoodGame]

The first post of the OP makes little sense to me other than to say that there are some people who know they are different then another population and like to differentiate themselves from people like themselves through vague, general terminology as if to imply a specific behavioral difference within their population group.

A thesaurus exists to group like terms together. That's my answer. If you want to create an even more unique identity with your population, then create a neologism to define it, or a least some kind of "party" with a new acronym. No need to butcher the English language to help differentiate your uniqueness. (and lol, what FP said).

 

[Souron]

Words mean different things in different contexts. Usually it's sufficent to understand how another person is using a particular word, instead of insisting on a single universal definition for every word. it is possible to define gay as being destinct from being homosexual, and it's possible to define them to be identical. Neither definition is wrong.