Posted by bistiza on 5/8/2013 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Another case of your opinion not being the final say. If Barack Obama does not want to be called "black", I'm pretty sure you can't just say "Sorry, BO, you're black. Deal with it."
Oh, I get it. Now skin color is also determined the way burnsy and BL say sexuality is determined: You are whatever you say you are.
I'm still waiting to become the billionaire batpope, because that would be sweet, and I know it will happen because I said I'm the billionaire batpope and I am what I say I am according to burnsy and BL.
You're the one that effectively said "you are what you say you are" in terms of sexuality. You're the one that makes it an option. It would really help to advance the discussion if you would go the hell away, because everyone else can basically agree to the rest of the world's definition of homosexuality. Obviously you're born with a particular skin color. You're also born with a biological sexual preference, based, as I mentioned weeks ago, on the pheromone receptors you happen to possess. You can argue your alternative definition all you want, but it comes down to your word against everyone else's, and your opinions on many things have clearly demonstrated far too little critical thinking skills and discernment to give me any reason to consider your continual assertion that sexuality should be defined by choices instead of preferences.
You're the only one who says you're defined exclusively by choices. One could argue that based on his choices, Obama has decided to live a more "white" lifestyle - certainly a large number of blacks seem to think that. So your definition of what defines a human being might call him white, right? Or is that yet another trait that we can't define exclusively by choices?
And if being black is something biologically determined and you can't really get away from it, why is sexual preference - also biologically determined - different?