Let's stay with the giraffe question: Yes, those giraffes are homosexual in the physical sense. I don't think they're capable of having romantic affection to one another though. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is described in zoological literature. Nowhere is the "self proclaimed identity of the giraffe" mentioned because it's irrelevant.

I'm not sure why you're so angry, spending half of your text rambling about me - according to you - not being able to understand your reasoning. I perfectly understand it, I just don't agree. I'm heterosexual. I like cooking, I hate sports, and "beer and steak" is not my favorite thing to consume. If I'm perceived as gay in say a southern US culture, that's fine with me. I don't have to identify myself as "heterosexual" if what I eat has to have anything to do with it. I'm just stating that the definition of homosexuality has nothing to do with self identification (I say, the Webster dictionary says, Encyclopedia Brittanica says and Swedish Nationalencyclopedin says) . I agree with those common definitions. Homosexuality is simply about physical and/or romantic attraction in individuals of the same sex. Just like heterosexuality is about the opposite. I don't have to identify myself as anything.

Let's take alcohol for example. I don't drink it. Not because I'm religious nor because of any medical condition I might have. I just don't like the taste nor the effect. In Sweden, where alcohol is a very predominant part of our culture, not drinking alcohol at all is quite uncommon. There's a term for us - "nykterist". Literally "soberist". Now, I don't identify myself as "one of those who don't drink hence should be called nykterist". Yet people believe a lot of other things come with it, that I'm asocial or a former alcoholic or part of an organization. I'm not. I simply do not drink alcohol. Now, if the minimum requirement to define someone as soberist is "one who does not consume alcohol" then by all means, I am that.

Being homosexual doesn't mean you have to be part of any gay community nor identify yourself as anything. I say the dictionaries have a correct definition of the term. So when Ahmadinejad said "there are no homosexuals in Iran" he was rightfully laughed at. And I would still laugh at him had it turned out that no one in the whole country is part of any "gay community" nor has any "homosexual identity". Because as I said I the beginning of this post, it is not relevant (I say and the dictionaries implicitly say).