Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance

[Annik]

No, it's quite clear to me that you meant what I said you meant, especially since you responded to my point of us talking past each other by agreeing that was your view. I'm not sure why the other guy was claiming you used some heretofore unknown scientific definition of homosexuality.

(I actually do know why, and it's because his outrage forced him to respond even though he was wrong and had no actual arguments.)

I completely disagree with the way you're handling the word itself. They need to be separate, as I mentioned in that post and the only later on. You might have agreed with my basic view, but that does not mean I agree with the way you are using the word. For the purposes for discussion, the blanket term you keep using is not appropriate.

Just to note, I'm fairly confident that you also checked the first site, which only has one definition, which just so happens to be the definition I use. It's disingenuous to completely ignore that and write what you've written here anyway. Cherry picking is not a tactic that leads toward honesty and intelligent discussion.

Yes, I did see the first definition. I thought to use the second one since it was displayed in a way that would get my point across a little easier. However, the first definition is not exempt from my point at all. Just because the definition lumps them together in the same sentence does not mean you're able to lump them together as an idea. We're picking apart homosexuality as a choice, so thought and action need to become separate. In fact, action isn't even relevant to the discussion for the most part. Sexual orientation does not change with action, so why include action at all? (<- Just an aside)

Regardless, I have no issue with using homosexuality to refer to either aspect even when the definitions have different numbers. There's a definite connection there, and I see no need to ignore one definition (using M-W's) and focus solely on the other, or to at various points in a conversation say, "and guys, to clarify, now I'm talking about physical acts, not feelings," or the reverse. It's not like the word "tire," where different definitions are not related in any way. With homosexuality, the two definitions have a relationship that is deeply intertwined.

There are different kinds of tires, though. You can say, "I need a new tire." You could be referring to either needing it for your bike or for your car. This is more similar to the differences between homosexual acts and homosexual feeling. In the context of the conversation, distinction needs to be made.

I know, right? I have no idea why that guy keeps insulting me and calling me names. It really does seems a bit childish. All I did was parody his righteous outrage using a stereotypical Hulk comment. Why would anyone ever post that they got so upset by a comment that they will no longer admit they were wrong, but instead start arguing? In addition to being incredibly stupid, that's just not an attitude that leads to intelligent conversations (as seen by the junk that followed).

Yes, yes, because you were being so cordial. Hovik is a linguist. He's a bit more qualified to comment on this dictionary thing than either of us. He's right in the fact that dictionaries just report how we use words and are not accurate portrayals to how words should be used. He brought this up and you presented yourself as an ass. He didn't even insult you after that, but just used a strongly worded argument. And then you mocked him like a 5-year-old.

You're the one who won't admit to being wrong.