I think what he admitted is that you were too stubborn, ignorant, and illogical to be worth continuing to argue with.
No, he admitted I refuted his premise and defeated him in the argument. He's done this before. If his pattern holds, he'll address me in a couple of weeks and claim he never admitted he lost and he'd like to re-start the debate.
You told me to go back and read the thread. If you had any memory at all you'd know that I've been here the whole time,
If you've been here the whole time, you should have known better than to try to argue from a premise that was already debunked, but you didn't. So either you didn't read what was going on or you conveniently "forgot" about it for the sake of arguing from a debunked premise under the guise it hadn't been debunked. Either way, it's not good for you.
and if you had any sense of self-awareness or logic you'd realize you never made any credible response to my query as to why being homosexual was more like being a lawyer than being an Orioles fan
I gave you a credible response and you ignored it. I even explained the response more than once and repeated material when you didn't seem to understand. Your failure to understand something or ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
But here we go again:
The two aren't that different. A lawyer is someone who practices law, and an Orioles fan is someone who actually cheers for the Orioles.
If you don't practice law, you aren't a lawyer (in a broad sense; you could be retired or not active or whatever). It doesn't matter if you say you're a lawyer if you've never actually practiced law.
If you don't cheer for the Orioles and instead cheer for another team, you aren't an Orioles fan but a fan of the other team. It doesn't matter if you say you're an Orioles fan if you never actually cheer or hope for them to win.
In the same way, you are a homosexual if you are involved in sexual and/or romantic encounters with those of the same gender. It doesn't matter if you say you're homosexual if you never have these encounters.
Really it was more of "because I said it was logical," but without demonstrating any actual logic that's really the same thing...
Except I *DID* demonstrate logical reasoning, as I explained before i.e. people are defined by their actions with regard to virtually every term we give them, and there is no reason why sexuality should be different in that regard unless you buy into BS propaganda. I gave several examples of how we label people based upon actions and how that same reasoning should LOGICALLY apply to sexuality.
That's not me saying it's logical, that's it BEING logical. . Feel free to actually defend your statement that I wasn't logical if you want, because right now YOU are the one who is pulling the "because I say so" bit with that little statement.
Also, when burnsy complains I have to repeat things, people like YOU are the reason why. Do you see this, burnsy? I keep repeating myself for dahs because he can't go back and read the thread.