On Page 90
, BL agrees "you are whatever the hell you say you are, no matter what you do", and I counter by pointing out how illogical that is by declaring I'm a billionaire and waiting for money to fall on my head. This uses logical reasoning to show that you can't simply claim to be something - including a sexual status - and have it be true because you say so.
On Page 94,
burnsy insists attraction dictates sexuality, and I explain how virtually every term we assign to people does NOT function in this manner. I even give several examples, including words such as criminal and billionaire, and state that a criminal is not innocent if they say so and I'm not a billionaire because I say so.
On Page 95, burnsy tries to sidetrack the debate into an argument over how the dictionary defines the word "homosexual", leading me to explain to him (eventually on multiple occasions) how a dictionary works and why that doesn't necessary mean a word is "correct" for the circumstance. I also explain how this means arguing from the dictionary only shows a word is commonly accepted and doesn't otherwise support an argument.
On Page 96
, I ask for reasons as to WHY sexuality should be defined by attraction rather than action, and neither burnsy nor anyone else offers a single one. burnsy continues to argue over dictionary definitions instead. No one has EVER offered any REAL reason why sexuality should be defined by attraction rather than action, even to this point RIGHT NOW, which is why I'm challenging you or anyone to attempt to do it.
On Page 100
, dahs rejoins the debate after a significant absence (but he later insists he was there all along) and tries to argue that some sexual attractions are physiological (based on biology) while others are psychological (based on the mind), and he tells what he thinks of several types of sexual attraction but offers no evidence to support any of his statements. I quickly point out how it is illogical to say some attractions are biology and some are in the mind based on whatever you say.
On Page 102
I address people who insist I'm a troll (as you do now) and explain how that is NOT true, even providing a link to a definition of a troll and showing how I don't fit with it. We've moved way past that point in this or any discussion, yet you're still harping about me supposedly being a troll 63 pages later because you have no real argument of your own and so you feel a need to attack me instead.
On Page 104
, I offer a very specific argument as to why we define people by actions rather than choices and give MANY examples, including a lawyer, a pilot, an athlete, a criminal, and a homosexual, and explain how several of you want to define homosexual differently than you'd define virtually any other term we give to people. TO THIS POINT RIGHT NOW no one has offered a real reason as to why homosexual or any other sexual status should be defined against this logic.
Tec, you yourself - in the post immediately following mine - ignored it altogether and instead questioned me on how I made my own decisions regarding sexuality. Neither you nor anyone else has responded.
So I'm giving you the chance.
Give me one shred of REAL evidence - just one - that sexuality is somehow not based upon your choices, which is the way we define virtually everything else about people.
Anyone can try this, including you. But you won't, and neither will they, because it doesn't ****ing exist.