Pomo Homo Hypo

Breaking news from the I-should-be-sleeping-instead-of-reading-these-blogs front:

Check out comment #35 on F44's post about inter-racial (i.e.: white-asian heterosexual) partnerings. I quote:

Finally, let me clarify the “gay” analogy. I said:
“Finally, choosing a mate/spouse is a fundamental human rights issue. Let’s say that gay people are not born gay, but choose homosexuality. That still doesn’t mean we should tell them to stop. Doing that would be oppressive, wouldn’t it?”

And you said:
“Your example would be relevant if I was not born gay, and I advocate for how awesome straightness is, and then I chose homosexuality in my private life. What does that do to my message?”

If someone was not born gay, and was an advocate of how awesome straightness is, and then ends up choosing homosexuality, then yes, that would be hypocritical. That’s because homosexual identity is an identity of action as well as sexual preference (assuming being gay is a choice). In other words, the gender of one’s partner is the defining action of a gay activist, and therefore, it should be a factor when gays choose an activist.

Now you know FiF ain't a hater, and I mean to cast no aspersions on Mr. lycheng's worth as a person, but OMG can you spot the We Are Living In Two Different Worlds nature of this comment?

Please analyze the So-Not-Down-With-The-Queers
(Yet-More-Than-Happy-To-Use-Us-To-Make-A-Point) characteristics of the following words/phrases in the above comment.

1) "gays" (the noun)
2) "the gender of one's partner is the defining action of a gay activist"
3) "when gays choose an activist"
4) "homosexual identity is an identity of action as well as sexual preference"
5) "homosexual identity"