1. Does not the real means we talk claim that the label “gay” does indeed carry implications for identification? “I’m homosexual” isn’t the only method of placing it.
There’re more perspicuous claims of identity (“i’m a homosexual”, “Gay–it’s exactly just just what we am”), which carry specific implications of permanence or immutability (“I happened to be created this way”, I feel toward other men”, “I’ll always be (a) homosexual”)“ I can’t change the way. That isn’t just language befitting acute cases of intercourse addiction or condition (like John Paulk’s). One’s homosexuality is, no doubt, never ever any matter that is small and certainly will constantly influence the span of one’s life. However it is not at all times the principal element around which anything else revolves. A child might find out their own feelings of attraction with other males from early age, but we question lots of people would–even retrospectively–describe this once the theme that is dominant of youth. Labels like “gay” are meant to be broad groups, deciding on anyone, at all ages or stage of life, drawn to the sex that is same. Nor will they be simple self-labels (“I’m a homosexual guy, and you’re too”).
2. Everything you among others at SF find objectionable about such identification talk, we take it, could be the normative import numerous other people go on it to own. Ex-gays believe that any so-called identity that is gay fundamentally at chances with one’s “identity in Christ”. (más…)