He quoted me, in other words, "haha", he was talking about you. >.>

I was talking about you...
I don't do referenced work, I just do references.
Therefore then you don't do papers as they rely on references....

His reference was from an about.com atheist section. Not remotely credible. 

I apologize for failing to realize who you were quoting. 

I offered a source, you didn't. If you have a better one, by all means supply.

It's semantics and not pertinent to the OP and does not support your point that you did not use strawman. You did, but you correctly stated that his logic was flawed. 

but happy, am i correct in understanding that your reasoning for saying humans are different is because, for example, fish cannot walk?
homosexuality is present in every single species. Animals are alike in many ways. It is extremely rare, and never been duplicated, that one species is different from every other animal by a single metric. For example, there is not just one species that flies.

While that does not logically convlude that you are wrong, it would be the first time we have ever distinguished an animal based on a single behavioral difference. ie; there are no unique behaviors in the animal kingdom. Being that as the case, I would find it very hard to believe to be true.

The issue with that is that you don't seem to have any concrete rules for what is a creditable source. You seem to switch with the wind. No references = not valid. Yet you also pass the bizarro ruling that if something is referenced it's not valid....Until you adopt the accepted method for validating work, as well as realising that not being referenced doesn't instantly discredit an idea, you are just going to be barking "computer says noooo". 

@bold. Then you need to add that to your list of predicates.

It's my belief that humans are capable of things that many other species are not. I won't get into that debate, but you asked an honest question and there's my answer.

Regardless, you logic was missing a predicate, and I'm glad we finally came to that conclusion.

Perhaps you missed it, but his point was to find an atheist source to prove his point. Logic has nothing to do with atheism. He might as well have sought research on apples from a corn farmer. 

That's why I said the source is suspect. I would never allow wikipedia unless both parties agreed that the material is sound.

Source: http://logic.stanford.edu/classes/cs204/lectures/lecture04.pdf   

And I've already stated that it's not pertinent to the OP or to his notion that he didn't use strongman. Multiple premises? Fine, allow it. 

1) All animals, except humans, exhibit homosexuality.

2) Humans are animals.

1 & 2 are the premises.

His (flawed) logic concluded Humans exhibit homosexuality. 

Then 'happy' said No, it is completely based off of an uncertified and undescribed premise, which is that all species are alike.

For some reason he either 1) Claimed that the premises were uncertified. 2) Manifested an additional premise - "all species are alike"

Understand the problem here?

Edit: I now realize his intention was to simply show flawed logic, but he unintentionally used strawman in order to do so, when he could have simply done as I did.

You would never allow wiki even if it is correctly sourced. That shows you do not understand referencing.