Tragically, a US soldier murdered a young Iraqi male after sex. WorldNutDaily recklessly labels the perpetrator-soldier "homosexual" (their lead in to this link is titled "Homosexual soldier killed Iraqi after sex").
But in reading the story further, the story notes:
Friends and family members wrote the Army asking for a reduction in Merida's sentence, citing the fact that his son, a toddler, needs him and that his wife speaks little English and relies on him. Merida was born in Veracruz, Mexico, and moved to the United States as a child.
Now the fact that this male was married and had a child doesn't "prove" that he is straight (we all know of plenty of gay guys who get married and have children); yet the fact that he had consensual sex with another male doesn't prove he was "homosexual" or, I'd argue, even "bisexual."
(Note: the reports are that this sex was "consensual," of which I am skeptical. It could be that this American soldier coerced this 17-year-old Iraqi into this).
A homosexual is someone who is predominately or exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. Until WND produces evidence of this, it is wrong to label this soldier as such. And the fact that he is married casts doubt that this soldier is authentically homosexual.
What about the fact that he had consensual sex with another man? Many would automatically place someone like this in the "bisexual" or "homosexual" box because he engaged in homosexual contact. As I've argued before, I think this is wrong. If this soldier had strong sexual and/or romantic feelings towards members of the same and the opposite sex, then, I'd argue that he was bisexual. If he could flourish in relationships with members of both sexes, then he is a bisexual. In all likelihood, this soldier is primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex, and hence is heterosexual. If this soldier were using the Iraqi boy as a substitute for a woman, then I think it's improper to label him as "bisexual"; it's certainly wrong to label him as "homosexual."
It could be argued that anyone who can derive pleasure from homosexual experiences must have *some* kind of "bisexual" orientation. But if that's the standard we use, then a huge chunk of the human population, way beyond that 2-5% that have a primary homosexual or authentic bisexual orientation, are "bisexual," or at least, have a bisexual potential (meaning that there might be a lot of guys who have never tried it, but could enjoy it, but not as much as the "real" thing -- heterosexual sex). We are talking about at least 1/3, perhaps over 50% of the human population.
Even Harvey Mansfield gets this. While giving his lecture on "manliness" at Princeton, he was asked if he thought it ironic that many of the Spartans who typify manliness for the Straussians were "gay." Mansfield answered, (and prefaced his answer with something along the lines of "excuse me if I sound a little vulgar") that, although more than a few of them commonly had such experiences, they didn't understand themselves to be "homosexual" as an identity. And re: their "manliness," it depended on what "role" (bottom or top) the actor played. If a man plays the "masculine" role in a homosexual act, in many cultures (and this certainly was the historical case with the Ancient Greeks), this isn't considered "gay" or "feminine" at all, especially if that man is primarily attracted to women, has relations with them, and gets married and sires a family, which is what virtually all of those Ancient Greeks did.
In fact, in Latino cultures (presently and customarily) one is not considered "homosexual" OR "bisexual" if one a) is primarily attracted to women and has lots of sex with them, and b) occasionally uses other men -- preferably younger or "girly" men -- as substitutes for women. The "straight" guy, of course, plays the role of the "man." This soldier in question comes from such a Latino Culture, where it is extremely common for heterosexual men, especially the "macho," heterosexually promiscuous types, to use males as substitutes for women, on occasion.
And this Iraqi was 17 years old, probably not a big scrapping hairy chested "man," but more likely "boyish" with smooth features, hence a closer substitute to a female.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that this soldier was a straight guy who abused (used as a woman) and then killed an innocent guy. He should be strung up for this. But likely, he is no more homosexual than those thugs in prison who sexually abuse the younger and weaker inmates (and just call one of those guys "gay" to their faces and see how they react).