Not the case, Term. I can hold my own beliefs and then also utilize common understandings of words and concepts when relaying them to people who don't hold my beliefs. My stating that there is no sexual orientation gene and that homosexuality is not genetic does not have any bearing on my personal views on the subject of sexual orientation.
And also, re-read the many times I referred to heterosexuality and homosexuality as NOT part of sexual orientation but rather that heterosexuality is "sexuality" and homosexuality is a deviation from that norm. So don't try to claim this is the first time I am bringing this up. This has been my point the whole time. You are just now starting to get what my point has been.
But at least now you are starting to understand that my statements are made in the context of my beliefs and therefore it is stupid of you to continue to argue them.
You are wrong Ohio. You can't state that homosexuality is part of sexual orientation, which is what your statement was, and then state that you don't believe homosexuality is part of sexual orientation. That makes your statement invalid. If homosexuality is not part of sexual orientation, which is what you are stating now, then the fact that there is no sexual orientation gene has no bearing on whether or not homosexuality is genetic. That means your statement was incorrect. You can't have it every which way from Sunday Ohio.
Also, this is the first time you are making the statement around sexual orientation and homo- hetero-sexuality. I figured that was where you were heading in the last couple of pages or so in order to try and elude the contradictions and that's why I listed the commonly accepted definition of sexual orientation. Just wanted to draw that out and I was successful. Like I said, that's fine, but you are now just being silly.