Rather than arguing semantics about whether this man is homosexual or heterosexual, can we just agree that this man is probably less happy than he could be because he's forcing himself to have "romantic and sexual encounters" with the gender to whom he is less attracted?
Maybe he's not less happy. I'm sure he has his reasons for choosing to be with the people he is with, which could be for happiness. We don't know. The point is there are more factors than simple attraction which can affect people's decision of romantic and/or sexual partners.
I know that if for some reason I was prompted to have relationships with men instead of women I would be substantially less happy.
That's fine for you. The problem comes when you try to say it would be that way for everyone, which isn't true.
And to extend the thought experiment, let's consider WHY this man is having romantic and sexual encounters with people of the gender to which he is less attracted.
You don't know why he's choosing the partners he is. Why is there this need to justify his decisions?
You can and have argued that you, personally, treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, but if you're really honest with yourself the only reason you bother to come up with this grandiose justification for an alternative definition of homosexuality is to provide some sort of groundwork to continue to reduce the rights of homosexuals relative to heterosexuals.
The logical way of defining sexuality actually provides for EQUAL treatment, while the commonly accepted propaganda-based definition seeks to justify the choices we as humans make in our sexuality by claiming attraction reduces it to something less than a choice.
If anyone looks to reduce rights through their definition of sexuality, it is those who feel the need to justify people's choices in sexuality. I say no choices need justification, and they certainly don't need to be justified by claiming it's somehow not a choice at all.
Somewhere inside you are clearly homophobic, and any argument to the contrary is going to ring hollow.
Your name calling doesn't phase me. I get that I can't challenge your commonly accepted but illogical term without being insulted in equally illogical ways.
What you are saying might actually mean something without the insults, but with them, it is your argument that is ringing hollow, for the insults scream out "I disagree with you but can't find a better way to articulate myself than to call you names".