She was a lesbian from the period of time she had the hook-up until the time she had her next heterosexual sexual encounter. Regardless of what her sexual feelings were before that encounter. Gotcha.
Yes, that's right. It's nice to see you're apparently following logic now.
Her "feelings" don't matter in determining her status any more than someone's "feelings" about committing a crime change their status of being arrested or not arrested for it.
What about dates and stuff? What if she had a date with someone of the opposite sex, but there was no contact between the two. She's still a lesbian then?
It doesn't have to be about physical contact. Two people can show romantic interest in one another without being physical. The question then becomes was mutual romantic interest shown. If yes, then it was a romantic encounter. If not, then it wasn't a romantic encounter and was something else, such as two friends spending time together.
Perfect. No one is born straight or gay and sexuality is a choice just like preferring blondes over brunettes. So there is no difference between straight and gay. Neither is better or right, just like it isn't better or right to prefer blondes.
Exactly. There is also no need to justify being homosexual (or any status for that matter) by running a propaganda campaign to convince everyone the choice is somehow not a choice - yet that's being done so well it has otherwise intelligent people (and a lot of fools) hoodwinked.
We certainly wouldn't restrict marriage to just men marrying blondes, even if Joe Schmo was scared that allowing men who prefer brunettes to marry might cause others to possibly think that he might be married to a brunette.
If the laws already said men can only marry blondes and someone wanted that distinction to remain by establishing a different term for marriage to a brunette, I'd have no problem with it. There should be no problem with making distinctions.
Using the same logic, we shouldn't restrict men from marrying other men just because bis is afraid people will think he's gay.
I broke the logic down already. Beyond that, it's not about being "afraid". It's about making sure things there are necessary distinctions.
Dictionaries are propaganda. Definitions of words are not to be trusted.
The dictionary itself is not propaganda, and I never said it was. The definitions of specific words are sometimes influenced by propaganda, because the dictionary uses commonly accepted definitions, and the common acceptance can be influenced by propaganda.
Either you're stupid and can't follow that or you're deliberately trying to twist things. If it's the former I feel sad for you, if it's the latter then you're just being ignorant.
goodness...what a tool. Pretentious and Pendantic would be my humble assessment.
Why is this your "humble assessment"?
Because I actually use logic to defend an opinion you don't agree with?
Because you can't understand how a dictionary actually defines words?
Because I tell it like it is instead of trying to be politically correct?
Maybe we could have a sensible discussion if you stopped getting angry at me just for disagreeing with you and defending my opinions. Maybe instead of making judgements and hurling insults you might just respect others right to disagree with you.