Wrong, on both counts.
I'm just making fun of you.
No, I nailed it straight on.
You already tried hiding your incompetence by claiming you were making fun of me. It didn't work - I called you out for it anyway. Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to change that.
That is more logical than anything bis has ever posted.
Funny, I don't see you running away and hiding from that post and then returning later to re-start the argument like you did with all of mine. I guess its "logic" didn't scare you like mine did.
Now you're arguing that just because everyone else agrees and you don't, there is no clear indication that everyone else is correct. In general you'd be right.
There is no "in general"; I simply AM right.
Also, this isn't "now" I'm arguing this - I've been saying it from the beginning.
But what we're arguing about is a DEFINITION.
Actually, we're not.
Burnsy tried to turn it into that, but the real argument has been about choices versus biology and which matters in determining sexuality, NOT the definition of "homosexual", "heterosexual" or any other given word.
And BY DEFINITION, the DEFINITION of a word is what people believe that word to mean.
We already had this discussion many pages ago, during which I educated everyone on how a commonly accepted definition isn't necessary the "correct" definition for a given circumstance. Specifically in the case we were speaking of in this topic, the commonly accepted definition didn't follow logical reasoning because of a propaganda campaign which had (quite effectively) altered what was commonly accepted.
So to argue that a definition is commonly accepted doesn't necessarily establish anything else about that definition - and certainly not that it is inherently "correct".
In other words, if 99% of the population agree on the definition of a word, that is BY DEFINITION the correct definition.
No, it's not. What is commonly accepted is constantly changing. Beyond that, what is "correct" in any given circumstance isn't always the commonly accepted definition (as I stated above). This isn't a difficult concept - in fact, I can't believe I have to tell you this.
Sexual preference is a biological trait. That is a generally accepted scientific fact at this point.
I don't agree, and you're going to need more than your say so to make any attempt to establish this as "fact".
You can make all the arguments you want about defining people by their choices, but acting straight no more makes a biological homosexual heterosexual than getting a law degree at a top school, expressing himself with impeccable grammar and diction and a massive vocabulary, and becoming the President of the United States makes Obama white.
There is no such thing as "acting straight" or "acting white". You either are straight as defined by your choice of partners, or you are white as defined by your genetics. There is no "acting" involved.