Sexuality

[spukrian]

Identifying oneself with another is a conscious decision driven by choice. Potential, that is, "could"; realising just how dynamic, not static, the outcome is; as the case of "born as" is static.

Choosing to label something as something else is not the same as being the label. Or are you arguing that it should be ok to be a homosexual as long as the homosexuals choose to identify themselves as heterosexuals?

"Not their own choice" does not follow from "growing up to be a homosexual." Without any debatable science, your left-handed analogy has no bearing on homosexuality.

It's the other way around, "growing up to be a homosexual" follows from "not their own choice".

Why doesn't my analogy have any bearing?

If it didn't follow from your previous statement, you would not have modified your statement to include private property owned only by the consensual, homosexual couples. After all, your previous statement allowed homosexuality so long as three conditions were met: consensus, (and therefore) choice, and not damaging to anyone. Of course, even your current statement is limited to sex, for if we were to include, say, kissing, such an act could potentially be committed within the public domain, therefore becoming other people's business.

Oh, I understand, you like to nitpick. I haven't actually modified my arguments at all, I've just tried to clarify them. You, however, seem to get hung up on details. The reason I mentioned "people having sex in public" and "people trespassing on private property" is because those are two acts that are illegal, even when heterosexual people do them.

So, do you think that two homosexuals kissing in public are hurting people? Please explain.

You have since then modified your previous statement. This tells me you already know of the implications of your previous statement if being born a homosexual were to be the premise of your previous statement. Must i really state what i previously said against your previous statement and modify the few words required to get across what i have already gotten across?

Like I said, I haven't modified anything. But hey, why do you think homosexuality should be forbidden? I'd honestly like to know.

Nevertheless, my point exactly: To what degree is homosexuality allowed? You changed your position to consensual, non-damaging sex within the couple's private homes. Do you now promote homosexuality without exceptions?

Oh, I see, do you want me to give you a list of what activities of homosexuals that I condone of? What I'm trying to get across to you is that homosexuality should be judged by the same criteria as heterosexuality. I'm sorry that I didn't spell this out from the start.