Biz, when is your dictionary being published? I would like to buy a copy.  You know, the one where your definition of homosexual, logic, whore and evidence are listed.

What other words have different definitions in your dictionary? 

Separate but equal? We know how the Supreme Court feels about that.

Nothing needs to be separated - just a distinction in the terms.

Civil union instead of marriage. Everything else is the same, and all is fine by me.

Biz, when is your dictionary being published? I would like to buy a copy.  You know, the one where your definition of homosexual, logic, whore and evidence are listed.

I don't need to write my own dictionary, because while you may insist otherwise, I don't have my own definitions for words. As to your specific words here:

Homosexual - I explained how dictionaries often use commonly accepted definitions, which can be influenced by propaganda. Because of this, saying "the dictionary says" doesn't logically help your argument, because you are arguing from fallacy: Just because a large group of people agree on something doesn't necessarily make it right. You keep missing that.

For the rest of the words: It is what it is. I try to explain it, and you don't understand. Your lack of understanding doesn't mean I'm making up things up - it just means you don't understand. Yet you assume that your misunderstanding somehow means I must be making things up. Maybe you should try thinking beyond your own narrow scope and you'd be able to see your own misunderstandings.

Biz, I understand that the definition of the words I listed, for you, are different from the commonly understood definitions of words.  They are your definitions.

What other words, in your dictionary, contradict all other common dictionaries? 

Biz, I understand that the definition of the words I listed, for you, are different from the commonly understood definitions of words.  They are your definitions.

No, they aren't my definitions.

With homosexual, it is a logical definition which has nothing to do with me personally. Just because I'm the one presenting you with the logic doesn't mean it is somehow "mine".

With the other words, again, just because I tried to help you when you had problems understanding a word doesn't mean I somehow made up its definition.

Yes, in this explanation, you show you have different definitions for the words "homosexual" and "logic."  I know that already.  You may also have a definition of the word "understanding?"

Here, I have a new one - I'm calling anyone who makes up their own definitions of otherwise commonly understood words a "clown."  You're a clown.  I guess that makes me a clown too.  

Yes, in this explanation, you show you have different definitions for the words "homosexual" and "logic."

No.

In my explanation, I show I used the logical definition of the word "homosexual". As for logic itself, I use the same definition as is commonly accepted.

You may also have a definition of the word "understanding?"

No. Again, I use the commonly accepted definition of the word.

Maybe you should try learning what those are and trying to grasp them. Then you wouldn't think I'm making up the real definitions.

The logical and commonly accepted definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. There is no other definition.

The logical and commonly accepted definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. There is no other definition.

I already explained how logic does not support that definition at all. Whether it is commonly accepted or not has nothing to do with it being logical.

The logical definition of homosexual is someone who takes romantic and/or sexual action with someone of the same gender.

No.

That's YOUR logic and YOUR definition.

My logical definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to those of the same sex.  It's also the definition in major dictionaries.

How much is your dictionary?  I'll spend up to $19.95 for it.  

I disagree. Who you are attracted is what defines your sexuality. That's the logical definition.

No. That's YOUR logic and YOUR definition.

Wrong. Logic is not subjective. That's why it's logic.

As such, there is no such thing as "my" logic, or "your" logic.

Logic dictates the definition, as I've explained many times. Stop getting angry at me because I'm the one that decided to enlighten you that YOUR definition of the word doesn't fit with logic.

My logical definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to those of the same sex.

If your definition was logical, the reasoning behind it would hold up across the board. In case after case, however, we find that it doesn't do any such thing. I gave several examples, but the simplest one I gave was how we do not arrest people for thinking about committing a crime, but we might if they take action to commit a crime. If your definition was logical, we would be arresting people for merely considering a crime.

Calling your definition logical is just showing you don't understand what logic is.

I disagree. Who you are attracted is what defines your sexuality. That's the logical definition.

This shows you also do not understand the concept of logic.

Logic is not what makes sense to you personally, as you seem to think. 

Logic is not subjective. One aspect of logical means you can apply the same reasoning behind the opinion to other situations and have the same result.

As I already stated, that doesn't work with your opinion, because the reasoning behind it doesn't apply to other situations. In fact, your reasoning is so illogical it's essentially a joke.  Here, I'll make fun of it again, just as I already did:

Your logic says people's "feelings" are what matters, while what they do is irrelevant to their status. I'll just go ahead and apply that same line of reasoning elsewhere:

Why should anyone have to commit a crime before we arrest them and charge them with it? Why can't we just arrest people based upon the fact that they thought about doing it?

Why do I need to go to sleep? Why can't I just desire sleep and be done with it?

Why eat either? It's a waste of time. The fact that I'd like to eat is enough that I don't actually have to take the action of eating to be nourished, right?

Also, I'd like to be a billionaire, but maybe I won't do anything to earn any money. I'm attracted to money and that should be enough, because actions don't matter.

Again, don't hate me just because I'm the one who took the time to enlighten you to the fact that your reasoning isn't logical.

Sexuality isn't the same as a crime. You can define your sexuality long before you take any action. You can define your sexuality and never have any romantic encounters with anyone else.

I don't hate you. You're just wrong about this.

If you'd like to be a billionaire, I'd say you're attracted to the idea of being a billionaire.  If you're homosexual, it means you're attracted to people of the same sex.

Nobody hates you.  I'd actually like to buy your dictionary.