Crap. Just lost a really long post.
You ask this question once per month, or whenever this topic comes up, and I (and others) have told you: what constitutes being homosexual or heterosexual is the gender you're attracted to. If someone is attracted to the opposite sex, they are heterosexual whether or not they have sex. The same goes for homosexuals.
One of the reasons I keep bringing this up is that it's NOT the definition of the US government (military, in this case). I get that it may be accepted as such by many, but it's erroneous. Here's what the
US Code has to say about it, so that we're not just making stuff up to help our point:
The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).
further:
The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
I bolded the "action" words. It's not illegal to be sexually attracted to anyone, same sex or not. It's illegal to act on it. It's legal for me to think that a female sailor is attractive. It's illegal to commit a sex act with her.
Tangentially,
here's how the government classifies homosexuality (from 2006):
Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions or "circumstances" that range from bed-wetting to fear of flying.
The revision came in response to criticism this year when it was discovered that the guidelines listed homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.
The guidelines outline retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities. The rules include sections that describes other specific conditions, circumstances and defects that also could lead to retirement, but are not physical disabilities.
Among the conditions are stammering or stuttering, dyslexia, sleepwalking, motion sickness, obesity, insect venom allergies and homosexuality
You aren't discharged for a predilection to bed wet, or stutter, or having a fear of flying until you actually act upon it or it affects your performance. If you're afraid of flying but keep getting on the plane, no one cares. If you think it's stupid to parachute out of a perfectly good airplane, but keep doing it anyway, no one cares. If you are attracted to your hot female CO, but do nothing to act on it, no one cares. If you would like to have sex with the same-sex sailor you work next to, but don't act on it, no one cares.
You won't get me to say that these are great definitions, or horrible ones. They are the LAW OF THE LAND. While in your particular corner of society that may not mean much, it does in the military.
Here are two personal examples (though inappropriate for small viewers):
A sailor on the other crew was punished (lost his clearance and was sent to a non-essential duty in the continental US) for being caught receiving oral sex from a transvestite in Honolulu. The arrest was originally for "public indecency" (he was receiving this outside a bar and was caught by civilian police), and the "giver" was very feminine-looking, by accounts of those who had seen the sailor with the giver throughout the night. The sailor stated that he was not homosexual and thought that it was a girl servicing him, but it didn't matter. He wasn't discharged, probably (my speculation here) because he was able to convince someone that having sex with a bisexual/transvestite was a one-time thing for him. But he was punished more severely than, say, a guy who just was caught with a prostitute or who committed adultery.
I've told the story before in here about the sailor from my boat with a wife and two kids who, admittedly very intoxicated, got into another sailor's bed and started giving him oral sex. The receiver then woke up and started beating up the giver. Both were punished and kicked off the ship, but because the admittedly heterosexual first sailor had committed a homosexual act (and had potential to do so again the next time he got intoxicated), he was discharged from the navy. The receiver was dropped to the lowest enlisted rank and lost his clearance, which meant he couldn't serve on submarines anymore.
The two stories are just counterpoints to those thinking that their definition is right. As far as the military and government are concerned, "homosexuality" doesn't have anything to do with thoughts or feelings or attractions. It's based on physical acts.
