Whatever reason I may or may not provide is irrelevant,
No, it's the ONLY thing that IS relevant.
I asked you for a reason, and as yet you haven't provided one and only seem interested in attempting to distract from the fact that you haven't provided one.
So once again: Provide a real reason for why you think sexuality should defy the logical pattern we use to define people in any number of other ways.
as the APA's research and conclusions were performed without my input.
So other people agreed with your conclusion independent
from you. That's still not a REASON, smart guy.
No, I'm saying the definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex.
Great. So what's your REASON for saying this?
So far all you've offered "because I say so" (as you're doing again now) and "because other people agree with me", and neither of these can be defended using logical reasoning.
That's what the definition is.
That's what I want to know - WHY is that "what the definition is"?
Is this really that difficult of a question for you to answer? You seem so set in your opinion and convinced its correct, but you can't even give a reason WHY?
I don't know why you're so focused on this tiny irrelevant aspect of the debate.
This isn't a "tiny irrelevant aspect of the debate" - it IS the debate.
If one is allergic to dairy, they did not choose to be allergic to dairy. They were born that way.
So you are arguing that biology determines who you are attracted to.
Even if I agreed with that premise (and I don't) you've still got the same problem you've always had: People can (and sometimes do) choose to be with those they find as less than ideally attractive mates. For example, a man might be most attracted to women, but may have a sexual encounter or even a romantic partnership with another man. Now you need to define his sexuality.
So for this case:
I would say logical reasoning supports that his choice of partners indicates his sexuality, since in almost all cases we define people by their actions, and a choice of a partner is an action.
You would say his attraction defines his sexuality, but what is that based upon? We've already debunked the idea that he can claim to be whatever he wants and that makes it true, so what are you basing this on?