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

Let me see if I understand: I was claiming my opponent violated his rule re logic, though he did misstate. My opponent wishes to debate the AMA, US LAW, and Oxford dictionaries. I find this odd, at best. First, I was using applied logic as delineated by Aristotle and accepted and used by Western Legal systems. Thus, my opponent claims to make fact that which must be inferred. This may constitute a “fact” but only after determination by the impartial determiner. Also, a degree is irrelevant to what one does except to the extent that the Law requires a particular accedemic degree prior to performance. O know many Doctors who do not practice medicine, and I was supprised when the large ethics firms were not hiring. My opponent state the rules at the beginning, inasmuch as he does not dispute my stated definition of Logic my initial rebuttal of his intention stands. Space and time constraints dictate that I should address his arguments ad seriatim but shall attempt to address them in their entirety by the use of Logic and accepted arguments of Law and Reason. Had my opponent left out the term fact I should not have made the argument. His choosing the term, and its inclusion in his description and/or parameters of his position made me a fool to let it pass. The further examples he lists, including the spousal example, are fallacious as to form and substance. A statement is insufficient to make a fact but for the fact of said statement having been made. Logic, your rule. EG…I believe in God. I do not claim it a fact, nor do I claim ability to prove, by any standard, that is why I believe. Were God a fact, she should not require belief and denial would establish me a fool. “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.” I do not accept your authority to change the English language. Should you wish to establish you authority to redefine English, Latin, Greek, and all other Romance Languages, I shall review your bona fides. Do you reject the definition of heterosexual as well? My reading indicates you do, and I also reject that as not even a tertiary source. Seems you do accept asexual as a legitimate term, but that seems inapplicable as they have no sexual desire or instinct. My opponent writes, “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” Essentially a fact is illogical, a violation of your rules. I have revued my post and found not the word temptation nor any reference to a supernatural being or natural occasion influencing a person to act in a way contrary to a personally held belief system or set of moral principles. Perhaps ad absurdum fallacy? My opponent goes on to claim (after his fallacious reasoning making all that follows equally fallacious) temptation is the source of a behavior not an accepted sui generis determiner. Again fails based on Logic, fallacy of the universal. We call one who steals a thief, it is not sui generis. We call those who commit crimes criminal, it is not sui generis. We call those who drink alcoholics, it is not sui generis it is behavior. Are you arguing it is behavior and not sui generis, making those who enjoy sex ALL heterosexual as reproduction desires are sui generis? “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.” You lack the authority to make up definitions; I shall accept those you cited on the matter. Sexual orientation is protected as sui generis by Law in the US, UK, Germany, etc. Ergo, when brought before an impartial determiner of fact it was determined in all western nations, that sexual orientation IS SUI GENERIS. I shall cite only one US Supreme Court, a Primary Source. Romer v. Evans 1996