re: See, the animals are gay too

The problem here is that neither of you replied to my original post. You replied to two definitions, creating a separate discussion. The pivot was injected after I asserted that I was providing definitions for clarity, with at least two of you retreating to the classics like ignoratio elenchi and secundum quid.

Then, you fell into the trap of invoking Shackel to mask your retreat. Your problem, as is often the case, is that you don't understand motte-and-bailey well enough to properly attribute it to anything here.

You're way out of your depth, sport.