RE: Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance
May 17, 2012 at 3:19 am
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2012 at 3:31 am by Jinkies.)
(May 17, 2012 at 3:01 am)Hovik Wrote: Then you're an idiot, and I have nothing further to discuss with you.
If you're not going to be mature or scientifically relevant, then your input is worthless.
"GRAAR! Hulk feelings hurt bad! Smash harder! CALL BAD MAN NAMES!!"
(May 17, 2012 at 3:01 am)Hovik Wrote: Edit: Actually, I lied. A final point:
Annik Wrote:The problem is that you can't lump them together like that. They're separate things.Jinkies Wrote:Actually, according to dictionaries, you totes can.
Here is the root of the issue. Annik is talking about sexual preference as a psychological phenomenon that is rooted in more than just choice wherein the layman's definition of homosexuality is irrelevant, yet you equivocate the definitions and have stated that, according to dictionaries (which report usage, not dictate it), one can lump the definitions together in a scientific context. This is patently false. If you wish to ignore reason, go right ahead, but at least take a moment to pull your head out of your ass long enough to actually understand what's being said to you instead of acting like a child.
Actually, I see no indication that Annik is using anything more than the common dictionary definition of "sexual feelings toward a person of the same sex." She may not be, but reading what she wrote using that definition offers absolutely no contradictions. Anything else you add to that definition such as scientific context is baggage you brought along with you.
Edit: Could you also post the scientific definition of homosexuality you're using? It's obviously not common usage (as you've explicitly stated), and it's not found in dictionaries, so I'm interested in knowing what you in particular mean when you say "homosexuality." I understand that you'll be speaking for yourself, though, and not necessarily a single other person.