In Sexual matters I only see one way to clarify the air, I know it may sound utopic but first of all one thing has to be established: sex has no moral weight, it is an activity of the vegetative life, such as eating and sleeping. The differences in sexual taste are as banal as the differences in taste for food or in ways of sleeping. You sleep with a pillow or without a pillow, that is an act of total banality that does not modify your identity. You eat spicy or not, who cares? Sex is an act of total insignificance, all fun and games, as long as the parties consent. Sex shouldn’t define anything. But! many centuries ago the concept of sexual sin was invented and that ruined everything. It seems it was the idea of a man, some perverse, vicious patriarch that created the roles of sainted wife and sinful street woman, so to have the exciting contrast between the woman at home and the one outside. But humanity is paying for that vicious idea ever since. The moment you give sex a moral dimension it is adulterated, since it’s nature is innocence itself, pure instinct for pleasure. Now, you may say how can sex be consider banal when it is at the very origin of life. Well, I think the very origin of a new human being should be in the wish of their parents to the child, and not in an accident. The moment that sexuality is given significance, moral weight, etc., the sexual roles are created, magnified, and people are put under pressure at an early age to assume a certain sexual behavior for which they are not always suited, they are asked to define their taste when it is still vague and should stay vague if it was the case. I think sexual roles are in general a product of social pressures and not the product of real human needs. If sex was not considered transcendental and morally significant, it would be taken lightly and the real sexual needs would come into the surface of each one. The result of the actual state of things is one of repression and adulteration of the real sexual drives. That’s why I don’t think the formation of a “gay” identity is right. Identity shouldn’t be defined by a sexual activity, because sexual activities should be considered of no significance. There shouldn’t be such a thing as a heterosexual, or a homosexual. Homosexuals don’t exist, there are persons who practice homosexual acts, but that banal aspect of their lives shouldn’t establish their identity. Homosexuality does not exist, it is a figment of the reactionary mind.