Nobody is arguing that who you choose to be with isn't a choice.
You're arguing that sexuality isn't a choice, which is the agenda-based attempt to make the above moot when it in fact it is all that matters.
Have you? When? What are they? Because I call bullshit.
Sure I have.
People can and DO lead full, productive and happy lives when they don't choose their preferences in life. In fact, most people choose a significant other who only matches some of their preferences because trying to find them all in one person can prove difficult (and in some cases, impossible). So unless your significant other is every preference you've ever had, then you did the same thing. Does that mean you're unhappy since you didn't get all your preferences? Probably not unless something else is happening to make that the case. Most times gender is an important preference; sometimes its not as important. It depends on the person.
Also, someone who chooses a gender other than their preference may go on to lead a happy life because they discover they value other things more importantly than their preferred gender, the same way you might find value in someone who isn't as (insert attribute here) as much as you might prefer.
I said things that weren't criminal. Please pay attention.
You asked for things that are looked down on in society and I provided a list. You don't get to dictate what parts of that list suit you.
People who enjoy S&M have equal rights.
This wasn't about rights but about a list of people who are looked down upon by society.
What "many factors" are at work aside from attraction, society, and the government? Possibly desire to copulate. That's about all I can think of that's likely to be even remotely significant relative to those things.
People choose who they want to be with based upon more factors than I could even think of to list here, so I'm not going to bother trying. The point is that it's not always about attraction - people can make choices based upon whatever they want, and they do.
You're now being deliberately obtuse, because the point nearly everyone aside from you is trying to make is that homosexuality is NOT a term that should given based upon actions but rather upon preferences.
I realize what "nearly everyone" is trying to do, and they are failing to do so.
There is absolutely ZERO logical reasoning why sexuality (including homosexuality) should violate all the methods we use to define what people are by the actions they take while all the other terms continue to function in the normal (and logical) way.
And you still have done absolutely nothing to convince me that homosexuality SHOULD be a term based upon actions rather than preferences.
You must be skipping a lot in this long thread. Understandable, but you're asking me to repeat the argument I already made pages ago. Nutshell: Almost all terms we assign to people are based upon actions. There is no reason sexuality should be any different.
Why is being gay or straight more like being a lawyer than being an Orioles fan?
I've answered the question (the underlying one) many times throughout this thread, including twice directly above in this response.