it is not scientific at all. It is social. what makes you think it is scientific? Do you know what science is?
Feel free to ask any doctor, or anyone with a biology background and they will tell you, that sexual orientation is the attraction towards a particular sex. For some reason, you feel this is not so.
not to mention that I disagree with a lot of what "science" says. it is sad that you are such a blind sheep that you will consider a topic "not up for debate" simply because a scientific establishment says it is so.
What is there to be debated? If you disagree with sexual orientation ,you believe it's impossible for anyone to be attracted to each other.
Since when is a doctor an expert on lexicon? Further, a doctor is a human that will give their opinion on a subject if asked, that doesn't mean what they say is scientifically proven. If I were to ask a doctor what sexual orientation means, and he were to give me your definition, I can followup requesting his scientific data. At that point, no doubt, he would state that he has none. So what good would asking him be?
And again, as to your second point, I thought you didn't want to debate the substance of sexuality, just logic? Because you would have to subscribe to an argument about the substance to debate this with me. As I have stated, I believe the ONLY sexual desire that is natural in mankind is heterosexuality. So therefore I can easily believe in attraction and still reject the modern concept of sexual orientation as a whole. I believe homosexual attractions are the result of sin and deviance from nature.
So no, rejecting your definition of sexual orientation does not have the result you think it does, because I do not simply ignore the concept of sexuality, simply replace the common perception with what I believe is truth.Right, but you switch back and forth between the definitions when it suits your argument. You just stated that when you talked about sexual orientation before you were using the common definition (you didn't state at the time that it was not your definition). You continued in this manner until you thought it would bail you out of a contradiction. Now that you've been called on it, you resort to name calling again. Wow, that's surprising.
I wonder what other common definitions you don't believe in. What other debates have you been involved in and used common definitions and then switched back and forth between the common one and yours to avoid being detected as a non-expert in the subject.