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

When it comes to the term sui generis, I must quote the well loved character Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Sui generis is a term that means unique. It is used in the legal field when referring to things that are unique and therefore particular analysis that might be used for other things is not applicable to the thing which is sui generis. For instance in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) the court found that the sniff of a dog (in this case attempting to detect the presence of drugs) is sui generis because the sniff could only detect the presence or absence of drugs which are contraband. In other words it was a type of search that was unique because the search could not have discovered anything in which a person would have a legitimate privacy interest. (e.g. a frisk [and other known methods of searching] could discover drugs and weapons, however, a toothbrush or a set of keys could also be discovered i.e. things in which an individual has a privacy interest.) You have defined the term in your first comment as follows: Sui Generis….indigenous, of its essence; of its essence. However the Oxford dictionaries define the word simply as "unique." See http://oxforddictionaries.com...Having said that I will use my opponents definition to attempt to address his argument. Please have the kindness to overlook the sloppy use of the word fact. Of course I meant to use the term as interchangeable with the word truth i.e. "the truth is that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals and not an innate or inborn personality trait."If the use of the word fact is a distraction from the essence of the argument I apologize.My opponent has appealed to authority in his most recent argument. namely the authority of the American Medical Association, U.S. Law and the Oxford Dictionaries. His argument is essentially these people say it, therefore it is true. Unfortunately the only way the conclusion follows from the premise is if you prove a second premise i.e. what these people say is always true.Since we know that what these people say is certainly not always true (see the history of US Law, the history of beliefs and reversals in medical knowledge and the changing nature of the use of the English language [take a dictionary from the 1800s and look up words from then and now].) My opponents argument:"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"There are several problems with this argument:The primary problem is that even if the statement were true it would not prove that "all western nations" were correct. In other words my conclusion could be correct whether anyone else believed it or not and even if my opponent produced a list of the signatures of every human being on earth, all of whom believed that I was incorrect, we would be no further in determining whether my argument is in fact correct. E.g. if the Supreme court and the AMA and the Oxford Dictionaries all believed that blood letting cured disease (as their intellectual predecessors likely believed) it would not make it true.Another problem with this argument is that all western nations do NOT protect sexual orientation as sui generis (remember my opponents definition -- indigenous, of its essence; of its essence) I will at this point assume, perhaps incorrectly, (my opponent will surely correct my error if I misstate) that my opponent means by sui generis the opposite of my contention in this debate i.e. sui generis means (to my opponent) the essence of a person. Ergo a homosexual is born a homosexual (wired to be attracted only to persons of his or her own gender). Of course I believe I have been clear that my argument is with the definition of the term homosexual, but I will address that issue shortly.The most notable nation in the west that does not recognize sexual orientation as protected is...you guessed it...The United States of America. My opponent has cited a US supreme Court case that does not recognize any federal protection for homosexuals. The case centered on whether the legislature in Colorado could make a law that said that no laws could be passed giving "special rights" to homosexuals. The court found that such a law was intended to discriminate specifically against a group of people and had no other purpose, the law was only passed because of "animus" toward the group singled out. Let me repeat that no legal protections were recognized for homosexuals at the federal level as a result of this decision. Assumedly the group identified could have been the rotary club and, assuming the facts were the same, the Court would have ruled the same way. There are states who have legislated or ruled for protections for homosexuals, however the United States government has not done so and has certainly not recognized that homosexuality is an inborn trait akin to being born into a certain ethnic group.My opponent also says that I claim..."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?" (for all places where the term sui generis is used I am assuming we can substitute the word "inborn") My opponent suggests that homosexual acts are determined by inborn traits therefore they are not temptations like stealing, drinking to excess, and committing crimes. I propose that my opponent has provided no evidence (short of his incorrect argument from authority) that this is the case.If the thief is tempted to steal and does so what is my opponents evidence that this is not a "sui generis" (inborn) determiner. There are certainly seemingly intelligent people who have argued that such traits are inborn. If this is true, according to my opponent, such actions are not temptations but actions that are determined by inborn traits. Based on the evidence he has provided my opponent has no warrant to make a distinction concerning what is inborn and what derives from temptation regarding any of the actions of any individual. If one accepts that homosexuality is inborn, short of proving that claim scientifically, which has definitely not been done (See the results of the human genome project), one must accept the claim of any group who claims the same about a behavior they share. If all thieves claim they were born thieves who can disprove them. Homosexuals are those who engage in homosexual behavior. Whether or not any individual is born with the desire to engage in those behaviors or has an attraction to those behaviors is irrelevant. We do not, generally speaking, allow for such distinctions with other voluntary behaviors and my opponent has provided no reason to allow for such distinctions in this instance.A thief is a thief when he steals. He is not a thief because he is attracted to stealing. A man is a homosexual when he commits homosexual acts. He is not a homosexual because he is attracted to commit those acts.I do not claim authority to change definitions in the English language. I do however claim the God given right to express my dissatisfaction with the definition of the word homosexual and to argue for a change in that definition which is reasonable and consistent with the rest of the English language.