Homosexuals Don't Exist

[Trebaxian Vir]

Note: Before you respond to the incendiary thread title, I entreat you to understand what it is I am actually asserting. Peruse the ensuing exposition of my perspectives, & perh. you may discover a consonance with these sentiments within the recesses of your own cogitations.​

Why Homosexuality Does Not Exist​

It is incontrovertible that the attraction in question cannot be attributed to sexual desire, for it emerges prior to the development of such yearnings, often manifesting as early as the tender age of three. Thus I discern a fourfold nature underlying this phenomenon:

1.) A heightened sensitivity to æsthetic beauty, encompassing a superior awareness of beauty in forms other than the feminine.
 This accounts for the disproportionate interest in the arts often exhibited by so-called homosexualists, who, on avg., possess a keener perception of beauty than the common observer. Experience with these individuals reinforces this notion, as ea. conforms to the stereotype witho. exception. In our hypersexualised society, it’ all too easy to categorise these sensations as sexual, when, in truth, they are sensual, æsthetic, & erotic in nature, but they are not sexual—as a matter of definition.†

2.) A potent longing for masculine love, frequently stemming from its paucity during the crucial years of psychological development.
 This explains the intense love that these individuals feel for members of their own sex, as well as the desire to be loved in return. Owing to the intensity of the sentiment, & its intermixion with æsthetic perspicacity, it is frequently conflated with the equally intense feelings associated with ‘heterosexual’ love (—or rather, sexual love, for the term ‘heterosexual’ is pleonastic: as far as human beings are concerned, to say ‘sexual’ is to say ‘heterosexual.’ If it is not ‘hetero-,’ it is not biological sexuality.)

3.) Masturbatory conditioning, particularly during adolescence, engenders an association between sexually arousing stimuli, OTOH, & the dual desires for masculine love & the perception of objective beauty in the male figure, OTO.
 It is evident how these factors may coalesce, culminating in a powerful impetus for conditioning in adolescence as well as mutual conditioning among young men. Hormonal influences unique to this period of life serve as additional motivators.

4.) The societally contrived nature of homosexualist identity as an artificial social construct that never existed until its pathologisation in the Victorian era.
 The historical prerequisite for the formation of this identity was the Victorian era's denunciation of the condition as a psychosexual disease & its pathologisation as a psychological disorder by pseudoscientific charlatans. This very pathologisation laid the foundation for the emergence of this identity.

In lieu of engaging forthwith in the refutation of the anticipated counterarguments, a course to which my predisposition generally inclines, I shall, in consideration of the protracted nature of the present exposition, defer to the forthcoming responses of others to present the forementioned arguments, as I am sure they will.​

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Note on the morality of homosexualism:

This thread is not an attack on people who identify as homosexuals. In articulating my sentiments, I assure you that I ascribe no superior worth to heterosexuality, nor do I endeavour to advance any moral assertions.
 Though my discourse is blunt & unvarnished, & confessedly bearing the imprint of writers critical of homosexuality—such as the self-hating homosexual Jew Otto Weininger, whose opus Sex & Character I perused in my impressionable years—I remain, as far as morality is concerned, jolly indifferent in relation to the matter of homosexuality itself.
 If anything, I regard the promiscuous heterosexual behaviour as athe greater evil. For it can result in the morally reckless proliferation of potentially unwanted children. Ppromiscuous heterosexualist behaviour, OTOH, is nothing more than a form of mutual masturbation. It's not what we in the biological world refer to as 'sex’. It's about as good or as bad as any other form of masturbation.​

​

† Note on Terminology:

Since my convictions preclude the acknowledgement of homosexuality as a genuine phenomenon, I elect to designate those who identify as such by the appellation ‘homosexualists.’
 In lieu of the term ‘homosexuality,’ I employ ‘homosexualism’ to denote their artificially contrived social identity & the attendant modes of conduct typically ascribed to individuals conforming to this categorisation.
 I maintain that only biological sexuality warrants recognition as a ‘sexuality,’ & thus solely heterosexuality may be deemed as a sexuality, only acts of heterosexual intercourse may be deemed as sexual acts, & only attractions of a heterosexual nature may be classified as sexual in nature.
 Consequently, in my reckoning, the misnomers ‘heterosexuality’ & ‘heterosexual’ are pleonastic expressions, aside from being erroneous, outdated pseudoscientific nomenclature. ​

---

[Why I placed this in the philosophy subforum: This subj. of inquiry encompasses not only the realms of psych., bio., sociol., & diverse scientific fields, but also extends to æsth., lang., epistem., & the domain of philosophy. It’s my intention to steer the discourse in the latter direction. Conseq., the pres. thread is most fittingly situated within the context of philos. inq., ’spite the initial presumption that it may be classif. under social sciences or psych. matters. While it is undeniable that these aspects are indeed pertinent, a philosophical approach is of utmost relevance in this partic. inst., which has led me to situate this discourse in the corresp. subforum. I have ventured into the exploration of this notion on many past occasions, & am confident that the relevancy of philosophy shall become increasingly evident as the conversation unfolds. Furthermore, tho’ my academic pursuits have encompassed biochem. & genetics, my primary interest lies in philosophy, & I’m chiefly compelled to examine other subjects thro’ the lens of philosophical inquiry.]​

 

[Politesse]

Er, and yet, I do exist. Which is an interesting problem for you, as you have not presented any evidence in support of your views, yet I carry evidence of the inaccuracy of your views everywhere I go.

It is true that "homosexuality" as a word is an artifact of Victorian pathologization, but so is "heterosexuality" and I don't see you starting any threads trying to prove that heterosexuals do not exist...

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

Er, and yet, I do exist.

See, this is what I warned against—responding to the thread title without grasping what it is I am actually asserting. If you read the whole post you would not have made this statement. It looks to me like you read only the title and skimmed through the rest.

as you have not presented any evidence in support of your views

See points 1 to 4 above, as well as my note on terminology above. I explain what it is and why it cannot exist.

 

[Politesse]

See points 1 to 4 above, as well as my note on terminology above. I explain what it is and why it cannot exist.

Explanations are not evidence. You present no information in support of your ridiculous assertions.

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

"Explanations are not evidence. You present no information in support of your ridiculous assertions."

An assertion devoid of any supporting evidence. Such a gambit is within anyone's purview, but it fails to advance the discussion in any disirable direction. It doesn't bring us any closer to resolving the issues to which I have called attention.

I harbour grave doubts as to the sincerity underpinning your engagement in this exchange. Experience tells me that the manner of disputation in which you are engaged, which I have encountered many times before, is almost invariably disingenuous.

I perceive no indications that you have duly engaged with the content to which you are responding.

I decline to be encumbered by superficial rejoinders such as the foregoing.

In the future, my attention shall be reserved for those who elect to address my arguments in a direct and substantive manner.

As to what constitutes evidence, it is evident that our opinions diverge. Not all evidences are empirical in nature: a sound argument of an unsound idea is evidence; a demonstration of the self-contradictory nature of a proposition is evidence that the proposition is false. My original post is replete with all manner of evidences.

The evidence in support of my case is the soundness of my argument, which by the way is largely a matter of nomenclature and identity. A philosophical matter.​

 

[Politesse]

In the future, my attention shall be reserved for those who elect to address my arguments in a direct and substantive manner.

So, make a substantive argument. My existence is not an exclusively "philosophical matter" to me, in the sense that you seem to mean it.

 

[Jarhyn]

In the same way as men and women do not exist as such, and for the same reasons, homosexuals do not exist.

The category is made up and meaningless. There are humans who fuck humans and seek romance with humans.

Not all humans seek romance or sex with all other humans.

Still, there are some major trends that exist as an image.projected from the population.

Human attraction is largely a keying of the brain on observable morphology just-so.

It could be a human that looks like a busty human with a voluptuous ass that makes another human's body engorge it's genitals. It could be a grapefruit. It could be a piece of paper with stains on it.

There's a machine somewhere in the human brain that takes some suggestion of body shape and decides "oooh, fucky time now?"

The process which causes this machine to grow, develop, and process information in this way is wired in part to the same system that converts hormonal shifts into neural patterns, to mediate this behavior. In HTM parlance, your brain contains a "grammar" to which the reaction reflex of triggering it is "blood to genitals".

For some people, "homosexuals", this systems grammar is triggered specifically by similarity to some ideal of a pair of ideals, specifically the one that informs their own self-image, over the one formed by "the other gender".

For bisexuals, it can be triggered by proximity to either ideal.

For straights, it is the ideal not-their-own which triggers it.

As to what those ideals actually look like... Well, the variance is why there is no "real" homosexual, or "real" man or "real" woman.

Further, there are a set of behavioral cues to romance dug like ticks into the human genome, and they drive elements which incorporate romantic principles toward tightening sexual and domestic bonds such as romantic love, or strictly domestic nonsexual bonds as in parental love.

Still, those who are wired to trigger those feelings towards some particular ideal that matches their own image for self are "homoromantic". Most people usually refer to these as simply "homosexual" since romantic inclination follows sexual inclination most times, but not always.

The existence of people whose grammar of sexual interest is built to identify on those who mirror their own gender identity structure is without question real.

Why does this happen? For much the same reason that some folks are born with a uterus and a vagina, and testicles in their abdomen instead of ovaries. Some parts may shift during assembly. This is especially true when assembly is accomplished as a function of such shifting and squirting chemicals in vague distributions in the first place

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Odd, all of that and not a definition of sexuality. You built a house with no foundation.

 

[Elixir]

Argumentation as a substitute for demonstration is another facet of the ascendance of belief.
Another vacuous thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Argumentation as a substitute for demonstration is another facet of the ascendance of belief.
Another vacuous thread.

If I know something to be true because it is demonstrable and I am able to cite evidence, belief is redundant and unnecessary. It's another of those words that has communicative value but doesn't add any information to the conversation. Humans have lots of such words that are basically cognitive short circuits.

 

[pood]

Verily, our voluble interlocutor’s prolix lucubrations are not wholly void of merit; indeed, the word “homosexual” was a 19th-century contrivance, invented, I believe, by the estimable Victorians; whilst prior to that, sexual behavior in all its variegation was simply styled sexuality, with its manifold attendant appurtenances, from fornication to fellatio to buggery and beyond. Where his graceship runs afoul of reality — or, in the crude vernacular, screws the pooch, so to say — is in propounding the odious non sequitur that any act of erotic athleticism which does not partake of vaginally penetrative heterosexual congress is not sex; aye, ‘tis the very claim propounded by the priapic Bill Clinton in asserting that he did not “have sex with that woman,” the damsel Lewinski, for the fair maiden had merely slobbed his knob whilst he — the Leader of Freedom’s Land and Bravery’s Home — had refrained from parking his pink Cadillac in, as it were, the true garage of love.

 

[jab]

Note: Before you respond to the incendiary thread title, I entreat you to understand what it is I am actually asserting. Peruse the ensuing exposition of my perspectives, & perh. you may discover a consonance with these sentiments within the recesses of your own cogitations.​

Why Homosexuality Does Not Exist​

It is incontrovertible that the attraction in question cannot be attributed to sexual desire, for it emerges prior to the development of such yearnings, often manifesting as early as the tender age of three. Thus I discern a fourfold nature underlying this phenomenon:

1.) A heightened sensitivity to æsthetic beauty, encompassing a superior awareness of beauty in forms other than the feminine.
 This accounts for the disproportionate interest in the arts often exhibited by so-called homosexualists, who, on avg., possess a keener perception of beauty than the common observer. Experience with these individuals reinforces this notion, as ea. conforms to the stereotype witho. exception. In our hypersexualised society, it’ all too easy to categorise these sensations as sexual, when, in truth, they are sensual, æsthetic, & erotic in nature, but they are not sexual—as a matter of definition.†

2.) A potent longing for masculine love, frequently stemming from its paucity during the crucial years of psychological development.
 This explains the intense love that these individuals feel for members of their own sex, as well as the desire to be loved in return. Owing to the intensity of the sentiment, & its intermixion with æsthetic perspicacity, it is frequently conflated with the equally intense feelings associated with ‘heterosexual’ love (—or rather, sexual love, for the term ‘heterosexual’ is pleonastic: as far as human beings are concerned, to say ‘sexual’ is to say ‘heterosexual.’ If it is not ‘hetero-,’ it is not biological sexuality.)

3.) Masturbatory conditioning, particularly during adolescence, engenders an association between sexually arousing stimuli, OTOH, & the dual desires for masculine love & the perception of objective beauty in the male figure, OTO.
 It is evident how these factors may coalesce, culminating in a powerful impetus for conditioning in adolescence as well as mutual conditioning among young men. Hormonal influences unique to this period of life serve as additional motivators.

4.) The societally contrived nature of homosexualist identity as an artificial social construct that never existed until its pathologisation in the Victorian era.
 The historical prerequisite for the formation of this identity was the Victorian era's denunciation of the condition as a psychosexual disease & its pathologisation as a psychological disorder by pseudoscientific charlatans. This very pathologisation laid the foundation for the emergence of this identity.

In lieu of engaging forthwith in the refutation of the anticipated counterarguments, a course to which my predisposition generally inclines, I shall, in consideration of the protracted nature of the present exposition, defer to the forthcoming responses of others to present the forementioned arguments, as I am sure they will.​

By the same line of argumentation, scientists/ science don't exist.
By the way, arguing that homosexuality doesn't exist, the title of your screed, and arguing that the homosexuals don't exist, the title of your thread, are not quite the same thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Note: Before you respond to the incendiary thread title, I entreat you to understand what it is I am actually asserting. Peruse the ensuing exposition of my perspectives, & perh. you may discover a consonance with these sentiments within the recesses of your own cogitations.​

Why Homosexuality Does Not Exist​

It is incontrovertible that the attraction in question cannot be attributed to sexual desire, for it emerges prior to the development of such yearnings, often manifesting as early as the tender age of three. Thus I discern a fourfold nature underlying this phenomenon:

1.) A heightened sensitivity to æsthetic beauty, encompassing a superior awareness of beauty in forms other than the feminine.
 This accounts for the disproportionate interest in the arts often exhibited by so-called homosexualists, who, on avg., possess a keener perception of beauty than the common observer. Experience with these individuals reinforces this notion, as ea. conforms to the stereotype witho. exception. In our hypersexualised society, it’ all too easy to categorise these sensations as sexual, when, in truth, they are sensual, æsthetic, & erotic in nature, but they are not sexual—as a matter of definition.†

2.) A potent longing for masculine love, frequently stemming from its paucity during the crucial years of psychological development.
 This explains the intense love that these individuals feel for members of their own sex, as well as the desire to be loved in return. Owing to the intensity of the sentiment, & its intermixion with æsthetic perspicacity, it is frequently conflated with the equally intense feelings associated with ‘heterosexual’ love (—or rather, sexual love, for the term ‘heterosexual’ is pleonastic: as far as human beings are concerned, to say ‘sexual’ is to say ‘heterosexual.’ If it is not ‘hetero-,’ it is not biological sexuality.)

3.) Masturbatory conditioning, particularly during adolescence, engenders an association between sexually arousing stimuli, OTOH, & the dual desires for masculine love & the perception of objective beauty in the male figure, OTO.
 It is evident how these factors may coalesce, culminating in a powerful impetus for conditioning in adolescence as well as mutual conditioning among young men. Hormonal influences unique to this period of life serve as additional motivators.

4.) The societally contrived nature of homosexualist identity as an artificial social construct that never existed until its pathologisation in the Victorian era.
 The historical prerequisite for the formation of this identity was the Victorian era's denunciation of the condition as a psychosexual disease & its pathologisation as a psychological disorder by pseudoscientific charlatans. This very pathologisation laid the foundation for the emergence of this identity.

In lieu of engaging forthwith in the refutation of the anticipated counterarguments, a course to which my predisposition generally inclines, I shall, in consideration of the protracted nature of the present exposition, defer to the forthcoming responses of others to present the forementioned arguments, as I am sure they will.​

By the same line of argumentation, scientists/ science don't exist.
By the way, arguing that homosexuality doesn't exist, the title of your screed, and arguing that the homosexuals don't exist, the title of your thread, are not quite the same thing.

This is what I was trying to explain in a very exact way.

Many things exist as instantiations of scientific process, but scientific process is an ideal.

As a classifier, scientist is rather fuzzy. It's not a firm mover of reality. There's no one thing that makes a scientist of a human.

They can be "being scientific" in some moment or series of moments, however, and those who frequently do that, for the sake of earning money or food, and only infrequently or very rarely operate in other manners in a set of contexts are often referred to as "scientists", but it is naught more than a label, no different from the software concept of a 'typedef', an arbitrary naming that doesn't actually mean anything but is there to help you organize your thoughts.

But unarguably, there is some fundamental mechanism of the universe by which the scientific method bears function, and applications of that process have borne out significant function.

We refer to that as the general idea of "science". But that's more work product than what science actually is metaphysically.

Science is an imaginary ideal projected by the circumstances of reality rather than an extant object.

Of course this is using extremely precise definitions of existence, image, idea, and so on.

When most people say "scientists exist" they are trying to say, without all that guff, "people who seek to apply scientific principles in their pursuit of knowledge exist", not "people who satisfy inclusion into this set 'scientists' by their physical properties, exist".

It is important not to confuse the two, because confusion between the two core processes of thought, when applied to the concept of homosexuality and homosexuals, homosexuals and scientists differ.

While "being a scientist" is about an effort at application, homosexuality is about a fundamental mechanical pressure, the shape of a keyway to the mysterious and highly complicated lock of horniness and desire. There's actually a physical property being discussed!

So while you can use that logic to disregard scientists, and science, and even homosexuality...

Homosexuals still stand as an observable, objective fact of the universe.

 

[SIB]

lmao, anybody that doesn't see how a human male/female can seek another male/female really doesn't know all that much about us. Also, hormone theory can work for some. Not all, but a significant population size. If I need to explain that, that may be tell us something.

 

[SIB]

Note: Before you respond to the incendiary thread title, I entreat you to understand what it is I am actually asserting. Peruse the ensuing exposition of my perspectives, & perh. you may discover a consonance with these sentiments within the recesses of your own cogitations.​

Why Homosexuality Does Not Exist​

It is incontrovertible that the attraction in question cannot be attributed to sexual desire, for it emerges prior to the development of such yearnings, often manifesting as early as the tender age of three. Thus I discern a fourfold nature underlying this phenomenon:

1.) A heightened sensitivity to æsthetic beauty, encompassing a superior awareness of beauty in forms other than the feminine.
 This accounts for the disproportionate interest in the arts often exhibited by so-called homosexualists, who, on avg., possess a keener perception of beauty than the common observer. Experience with these individuals reinforces this notion, as ea. conforms to the stereotype witho. exception. In our hypersexualised society, it’ all too easy to categorise these sensations as sexual, when, in truth, they are sensual, æsthetic, & erotic in nature, but they are not sexual—as a matter of definition.†

2.) A potent longing for masculine love, frequently stemming from its paucity during the crucial years of psychological development.
 This explains the intense love that these individuals feel for members of their own sex, as well as the desire to be loved in return. Owing to the intensity of the sentiment, & its intermixion with æsthetic perspicacity, it is frequently conflated with the equally intense feelings associated with ‘heterosexual’ love (—or rather, sexual love, for the term ‘heterosexual’ is pleonastic: as far as human beings are concerned, to say ‘sexual’ is to say ‘heterosexual.’ If it is not ‘hetero-,’ it is not biological sexuality.)

3.) Masturbatory conditioning, particularly during adolescence, engenders an association between sexually arousing stimuli, OTOH, & the dual desires for masculine love & the perception of objective beauty in the male figure, OTO.
 It is evident how these factors may coalesce, culminating in a powerful impetus for conditioning in adolescence as well as mutual conditioning among young men. Hormonal influences unique to this period of life serve as additional motivators.

4.) The societally contrived nature of homosexualist identity as an artificial social construct that never existed until its pathologisation in the Victorian era.
 The historical prerequisite for the formation of this identity was the Victorian era's denunciation of the condition as a psychosexual disease & its pathologisation as a psychological disorder by pseudoscientific charlatans. This very pathologisation laid the foundation for the emergence of this identity.

In lieu of engaging forthwith in the refutation of the anticipated counterarguments, a course to which my predisposition generally inclines, I shall, in consideration of the protracted nature of the present exposition, defer to the forthcoming responses of others to present the forementioned arguments, as I am sure they will.​

By the same line of argumentation, scientists/ science don't exist.
By the way, arguing that homosexuality doesn't exist, the title of your screed, and arguing that the homosexuals don't exist, the title of your thread, are not quite the same thing.

This is what I was trying to explain in a very exact way.

Many things exist as instantiations of scientific process, but scientific process is an ideal.

As a classifier, scientist is rather fuzzy. It's not a firm mover of reality. There's no one thing that makes a scientist of a human.

They can be "being scientific" in some moment or series of moments, however, and those who frequently do that, for the sake of earning money or food, and only infrequently or very rarely operate in other manners in a set of contexts are often referred to as "scientists", but it is naught more than a label, no different from the software concept of a 'typedef', an arbitrary naming that doesn't actually mean anything but is there to help you organize your thoughts.

But unarguably, there is some fundamental mechanism of the universe by which the scientific method bears function, and applications of that process have borne out significant function.

We refer to that as the general idea of "science". But that's more work product than what science actually is metaphysically.

Science is an imaginary ideal projected by the circumstances of reality rather than an extant object.

Of course this is using extremely precise definitions of existence, image, idea, and so on.

When most people say "scientists exist" they are trying to say, without all that guff, "people who seek to apply scientific principles in their pursuit of knowledge exist", not "people who satisfy inclusion into this set 'scientists' by their physical properties, exist".

It is important not to confuse the two, because confusion between the two core processes of thought, when applied to the concept of homosexuality and homosexuals, homosexuals and scientists differ.

While "being a scientist" is about an effort at application, homosexuality is about a fundamental mechanical pressure, the shape of a keyway to the mysterious and highly complicated lock of horniness and desire. There's actually a physical property being discussed!

So while you can use that logic to disregard scientists, and science, and even homosexuality...

Homosexuals still stand as an observable, objective fact of the universe.

"Science is an imaginary ideal projected by the circumstances of reality rather than an extant object."

I believe that phrase is wrong. Its better stated that "scientist are humans and subjected to all of our human "frailties". Or "Everything we describe, everything, is from a human".

 

[Jarhyn]

Note: Before you respond to the incendiary thread title, I entreat you to understand what it is I am actually asserting. Peruse the ensuing exposition of my perspectives, & perh. you may discover a consonance with these sentiments within the recesses of your own cogitations.​

Why Homosexuality Does Not Exist​

It is incontrovertible that the attraction in question cannot be attributed to sexual desire, for it emerges prior to the development of such yearnings, often manifesting as early as the tender age of three. Thus I discern a fourfold nature underlying this phenomenon:

1.) A heightened sensitivity to æsthetic beauty, encompassing a superior awareness of beauty in forms other than the feminine.
 This accounts for the disproportionate interest in the arts often exhibited by so-called homosexualists, who, on avg., possess a keener perception of beauty than the common observer. Experience with these individuals reinforces this notion, as ea. conforms to the stereotype witho. exception. In our hypersexualised society, it’ all too easy to categorise these sensations as sexual, when, in truth, they are sensual, æsthetic, & erotic in nature, but they are not sexual—as a matter of definition.†

2.) A potent longing for masculine love, frequently stemming from its paucity during the crucial years of psychological development.
 This explains the intense love that these individuals feel for members of their own sex, as well as the desire to be loved in return. Owing to the intensity of the sentiment, & its intermixion with æsthetic perspicacity, it is frequently conflated with the equally intense feelings associated with ‘heterosexual’ love (—or rather, sexual love, for the term ‘heterosexual’ is pleonastic: as far as human beings are concerned, to say ‘sexual’ is to say ‘heterosexual.’ If it is not ‘hetero-,’ it is not biological sexuality.)

3.) Masturbatory conditioning, particularly during adolescence, engenders an association between sexually arousing stimuli, OTOH, & the dual desires for masculine love & the perception of objective beauty in the male figure, OTO.
 It is evident how these factors may coalesce, culminating in a powerful impetus for conditioning in adolescence as well as mutual conditioning among young men. Hormonal influences unique to this period of life serve as additional motivators.

4.) The societally contrived nature of homosexualist identity as an artificial social construct that never existed until its pathologisation in the Victorian era.
 The historical prerequisite for the formation of this identity was the Victorian era's denunciation of the condition as a psychosexual disease & its pathologisation as a psychological disorder by pseudoscientific charlatans. This very pathologisation laid the foundation for the emergence of this identity.

In lieu of engaging forthwith in the refutation of the anticipated counterarguments, a course to which my predisposition generally inclines, I shall, in consideration of the protracted nature of the present exposition, defer to the forthcoming responses of others to present the forementioned arguments, as I am sure they will.​

By the same line of argumentation, scientists/ science don't exist.
By the way, arguing that homosexuality doesn't exist, the title of your screed, and arguing that the homosexuals don't exist, the title of your thread, are not quite the same thing.

This is what I was trying to explain in a very exact way.

Many things exist as instantiations of scientific process, but scientific process is an ideal.

As a classifier, scientist is rather fuzzy. It's not a firm mover of reality. There's no one thing that makes a scientist of a human.

They can be "being scientific" in some moment or series of moments, however, and those who frequently do that, for the sake of earning money or food, and only infrequently or very rarely operate in other manners in a set of contexts are often referred to as "scientists", but it is naught more than a label, no different from the software concept of a 'typedef', an arbitrary naming that doesn't actually mean anything but is there to help you organize your thoughts.

But unarguably, there is some fundamental mechanism of the universe by which the scientific method bears function, and applications of that process have borne out significant function.

We refer to that as the general idea of "science". But that's more work product than what science actually is metaphysically.

Science is an imaginary ideal projected by the circumstances of reality rather than an extant object.

Of course this is using extremely precise definitions of existence, image, idea, and so on.

When most people say "scientists exist" they are trying to say, without all that guff, "people who seek to apply scientific principles in their pursuit of knowledge exist", not "people who satisfy inclusion into this set 'scientists' by their physical properties, exist".

It is important not to confuse the two, because confusion between the two core processes of thought, when applied to the concept of homosexuality and homosexuals, homosexuals and scientists differ.

While "being a scientist" is about an effort at application, homosexuality is about a fundamental mechanical pressure, the shape of a keyway to the mysterious and highly complicated lock of horniness and desire. There's actually a physical property being discussed!

So while you can use that logic to disregard scientists, and science, and even homosexuality...

Homosexuals still stand as an observable, objective fact of the universe.

"Science is an imaginary ideal projected by the circumstances of reality rather than an extant object."

I believe that phrase is wrong. Its better stated that "scientist are humans and subjected to all of our human "frailties". Or "Everything we describe, everything, is from a human".

But that is incorrect. There is no such thing as a scientist any more than there is such a thing as a "furry".

It has nothing to do with "frailty" and everything to do with semantic completion and the imaginary nature of true platonics.

A homosexual is a homosexual though based on a physical organization of neurons and physical concentrations of chemicals which together physically shape an identification system that is fundamental to it's operation. It is intrinsic to who they are.

Being a scientist is something you can pick up and put down. It is something learned and even forgotten. There's no solidity to it, and it is NOT intrinsic to who someone is. It's a hat they put on and a game people play.

Being gay is about the shape of a very firmly formed machine.

It is the difference between saying an orange "is tasty" and an orange "contains fructose"

Metaphorically speaking, science may be subjectively tasty, but us gays? There's no denying how fruity we are.