Why is it appropriate to recognize so many nuances (diversity) when we're talking about things like piano technique, composition, or even when evaluating the physical beauty of people but it's not appropriate to acknowledge the diversity that having two sexual orientations entails?
You seem to be struggling to understand. I didn't say don't recognise or acknowledge the diversity. I didn't say that you shouldn't talk about them. I didn't say that the differences don't exist.
But I'm saying that the differences, like so many other differences, don't have relevance to the subjects to which you seem to be applying it to - especially, most especially, when you hope that if you have a characteristic it means something because someone else, in art or any other field does too. So sure, if a pianist was gay it might have affected his art [I said as much already although I didn't limit everything to a single characteristic], but it doesn't follow that it'll affect yours or anyone else who is gay in the same way or even at all.
Some art may have been influenced by the prejudices, pain, horror and misery that a person may have received in their life. Some people just fall off a ladder and go to hospital without making a song and a dance
Bottom line, you listed 4 types of sexuality, two of which are what being gay is - it isn't anything else. If someone describes themselves as gay that is what they mean - they don't mean they can play the piano or paint in a particular way.
You may disagree with that, but this idea you've formed where you seem to think I believe it shouldn't be discussed etc isn't disagreeing with what I said, it's misunderstanding it.
But TBH, from some of the paranoia you posted in an earlier message it doesn't surprise me. You seem to be looking for people to be homophobic and / or prejudiced and somehow, gay pianists are going to make everyone say "Oh yeah, gay people are useful after all" What a crock
I know people who love the music of Jimi Hendrix and Bob Marley who are racist. So it seems a fallacy if only because it's an attempt to use logic and rationality to remove prejudice, but prejudice is anything but logical or rational.
Just look at the words for left-handed and the history. Being left-handed clearly affects art and many have suffered to a greater or lesser extent because of it. But not many get over excited at left-handedness these days. There are a few egos who make a fuss because they think the world has made baked beans difficult to access and they noticed, that made them different.
Then. obviously, there are a few lists. The average list doesn't usually have "George Crinkerton - A thick #$#% who achieved nothing was left handed" as an entry. Why do you suppose that is? Using words like gauche and sinister and talking about things being "right", left-handers having to pretend or act right handed, worse, enduring years of being forced to write with the wrong hand by a misguided tutor. This is because society, dominated by right-handers is prejudiced. The solution isn't to just treat left-handed people as though they are left-handed but "who gives a monkeys?" No, that's not enough. That'd be like classic left-handed ignoring me rhetoric, and I like to give the vegetarians a run for their money when it comes to pointing out the hand I write with.
As for people killing babies with some "gay" gene or whatever - why? Where is the logic in that? Some might, of course, given the choice, but you could say the same about anything - brown eyes, big feet, hairy chests, males, females, dumb buffoons, apple mac users, left or right handedness or whatever else, what's so particular about your differences compared with others? We all have them.
Topic: Liberace