"We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are." *
They claim that there is some distinct, inborn identity that makes one a homosexual ("who we are"). This is a ruse by the homosexual activists to squelch any objection to granting them the "rights" they demand. After all, if they are "born that way", how can we deny them anything they "need" in order to be self-actualized and confirmed? This "sexual identity" claim is important, because it's the basis of their portrayal of homosexual "marriage" as a "civil rights" issue.
Dr. John Diggs points out that we are all born either male or female, period. He employs the analogy of a hockey player who is not born a hockey player, but becomes one through inclination, which in turn leads him to learn and practice hockey-playing behaviors. Note that this analogy does not deny the inclination some may possess to engage in homosexual behavior.
"Homosexuals" are not a separate class of human beings, but are just men and women who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors. They claim their identity is homosexual, but what they are really talking about is a chosen behavior.
Take another example: an adult heterosexual male who likes sex with as many young teenage girls as he can get his hands on. That's his inclination. What is his "sexual identity"? Serial statutory rapist? Is this a chosen behavior, or an inborn identity? If he claims it as his "sexual identity", should we then allow him free reign to engage in it, because it's "who he is"?
Or an adult heterosexual male who has sex only within the confines of a monogamous marriage to a woman. This may or may not be his inclination. (How often do we hear, from men especially, how difficult it is to be faithful?) What is his "sexual identity"? Faithful husband? Is this a chosen behavior, or an inborn identity?
Other questions arise from within the "GLBTQI family":
"Bi-sexuals" include sex with both same-sex and opposite-sex partners in their repertoire. To say that "bi-sexuality" is an "identity", an inborn trait, is therefore laughable, since it includes almost any sexual behavior imaginable. This is a contradiction, since identity as a concept is limiting, not all-inclusive.
The "trans" community themselves say their "identities" are "fluid". If an identity is fluid, isn't it meaningless?
One last example: Ex-gays, or former homosexuals, will tell you that for a period in their lives they engaged in homosexual sex and other "gay" behaviors. That is what they did. But they changed their behaviors. Their homosexuality was not an unchangeable, inborn "identity". This is why practicing homosexuals want to deny the very existence of ex-gays: They give the lie to the concept of inborn "sexual identity".[*Let's leave aside their silly accusation that people are advocating arresting homosexuals on sidewalks. Their story below doesn't ring true; something seems to be missing. Here's an excerpt from the MassEquality email:]
At the Boston Marathon, we had a canvasser holding a small MassEquality sign and a clipboard to gather supporters' names. A woman came up and asked if the sign was about "gay marriage." Our canvasser politely explained our role in opposing the antigay amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.
"That's disgusting!" the woman said. "I have children here. I'm calling the police."
And she did.
A policeman came, and said there was nothing he could do. Why? Because right now, the law is on our side. But it may not be for long.
We have to face facts. Today, there are people who want to arrest us not because of what we do, but simply because of who we are....