Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood

Lets deal with the issues your raised one at a time. I will concede that, "Derrick is a doctor because he chooses to work at a hospital diagnosing illness," should be replaced with Derrick's primary choice in becoming a doctor i.e. choosing to go to medical school, or choosing to do the work required to graduate and have a doctoral degree conferred. However any reader of the argument should have easily understood that the intent was to suggest that Derrick's status as a doctor was not an inborn trait but a description of Derrick based on choices he made. Secondly, the use of my opponent's "super argument" that claims to do away with my argument wholesale and indeed the majority of debates on this site and in the world in general! The argument states: "Applying the definition of fact, logic dictates that agreeing to debate establishes my opponent's inability to accept his premise. The premise is a fact. A fact is indisputable. Indisputable cannot be debated. Asking to debate negates the fact. Thus, either my opponent acknowledges that his premise is false, based on logic or, in the alternative, has made two contradictory statements thereby violating the rule of logic..." Of course this argument could be turned around as easily as not on my opponent since, if he accepted my challenge with intellectual and general honesty, he intends to argue that the opposite (or at least a different) fact describes the nature of homosexuality. The two statements my opponent accuses me of making are, the statement which titles the debate and the implicit statement: "I am willing to debate someone." Of course, he has implicitly made the opposite of my first statement (or some third asserted fact) and the same second statement by accepting the debate. According to my opponents logic we are at a stale mate and can discuss neither this topic nor anything else because facts lose their facthood once you subject them to argumentation. If this argument were taken to its logical conclusion any debate that included a person who was arguing that his assertions were true i.e. fact would be logically bested based simply on the fact that the debaters were willing to debate. If you say "the car is in the garage" and your spouse says "no its not" take care lest you open your mouth a second time to debate the issue and your car suddenly disappears because facts cannot be questioned and still be facts. If one takes a moment to look at the titles of a great number of debates on this site one will see that they assert facts. I suppose the most clever thing to do is to start debates on this site by asserting a fact and taking the con position then ambushing the poor challenger who accepts the debate in the pro position with my opponents argument telling the challenger that they are either incorrect in their argument for the fact statement or, at least intellectually disingenuous because they agreed to the debate at all. Let's move on to the topic at hand. My opponent asks me to argue "that [h]omosexuality is not the opposite of [h]eterosexuality but just a choice of heterosexuals." Here he appears to miss my point. My argument asserts that the word homosexual, in reference to an individual, however any dictionary defines it, should mean one who engages in homosexual acts. My opponent makes the assumption that my argument includes the assertion that all people are born heterosexual. In fact that assertion is not a necessary correlative of my statement. There could quite easily be a scenario where every person was born without any "leaning" toward any particular behavior but even if my assertion suggested that each person was born desiring to engage in heterosexual acts it would not change the fact that homosexuality is a practice, not an inborn leaning. However, I was clear when I began the debate that I do not wish to argue against the temptation argument which is essentially the "fact" my opponent asserts by including his definition of homosexual "…of or being having an attraction to same sex, form Latin HOMO meaning person." The full definition from Oxford Dictionaries is as follows: adjective (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex: homosexual desire noun a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex. http://oxforddictionaries.com... The problem with this definition is it leaves no commonly used word to differentiate between a person who is "attracted," "desires," or is tempted and the person who engages in the object of his desire i.e. performs homosexual acts. To make my point more clear; we don't usually have words for one who is tempted to do x. A thief is one who steals. An athlete is one who engages in athletics and a vegetarian is one who eats only vegetables. Because a person has a desire to do one of these things or an attraction to one of these things or a temptation to engage in one of these things the person does not therefore become a thief, an athlete or a vegetarian. The person must do these things to be referred to as a doer of one of these things. If the person is simply tempted, we simply say, Johnny is tempted to steal. Johnny has not become a thief by his temptation alone. Since sex refers to an action or set of behaviors it should not be used in labels or descriptors that refer only to desires, temptations or attractions unless we use those modifiers. E.g. Johnny has a "desire" to engage in homosexuality but chooses not to do so because he believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Johnny is not a homosexual because of his desire that he shuns any more than a person is a murderer because they were attracted to the idea of killing the man who wronged them in some horrendous way but chose not to do so because they believed it to be morally wrong. Homosexuals are not the opposite of heterosexuals they are simply those who engage in homosexual acts. The definition should not include those who are ONLY attracted to or tempted by those acts.