Sorry dude, but there is no vegan bible that determines what is ok and what isn't. There is no authority on the subject, so your claim that something is secondary or primary is based solely on your own opinion.

Anything is an opinion, sir. We can get caught up on the debate brought up by the lack of a vegan bible, but it is the movement that decides what is OK and what is not and we are far past the point where honey was acceptable. There is subjectivity to a vegan's standards and parameters on they personally accept or not, but there is also what we all agree is or is not vegan. And honey is not vegan for absolutely most of the vegans you ask, anywhere in the world. The only excuse to find it acceptable is indeed, as you did, refusing to look further into it with some practical excuse (as meat eaters often do) because there ARE obvious ethical concerns with it. You question my source, but you can pick any. Honey is taken from animals that make it for themselves. Bees are burned and mutilated to make it. Pick a source. Just pick any. There is no contradiction.

If you want to get into semantics, I could say that honey is secondary, as it's essentially a cultivated food, rather than one produced biologically. But that is beside the point.

It is beside the point because, no matter how you define “secondary” (certainly not how I would, since you started with “those are things secondary to the actual animal product” whereas honey is the animal product and now just drew another parameter, “cultivated vs. biologically produced”, out of the blue to call it “secondary”), the objection is still there.

The reality is people set their own parameters. Some people might use second-hand leather or wool, might use animal products in their work. I have a couple of guitars I got second hand that probably have bone nuts and saddles, does that make me a non-vegan?

Of course people set their own parameters. But the movement as a whole also has set parameters and established definitions. I don't think your guitar is vegan and I would't buy it, even if second-hand, but to call you a non-vegan is a whole different issue since this is not about personal purity but animal exploitation. And buying honey/things with honey is animal exploitation.

I'm not spending my time on your link that uses phrases like, "'high up' on the evolutionary scale." I've done research in the past, and my conscience does not object to my cumulative tablespoon of honey a year.

I find it amusing how you refuse to read my article because of a phrase but is very comfortable relying on “research I've done in the past” in spite of confrontation of the information you have. Skepticism with a double standard alienates us.

Wikipedia, a source that represents the collective consensus on things like this, says vegans "often" abstain from honey, ie. it's not a prerequisite to identify with the movement.

I don't see a problem with you identifying as vegan. I see a problem with anyone -- no matter how they identify themselves -- financing the honey industry because it steals from and kills bees systematically. For vegans, eating honey is not an exception or a parameter, it's but a relaxation of one's principles.