"I know it sounds rather silly. But consider that the facebook discussion I had ended when the friend of mine said that homosexual practice defines who a person is. So if I love the homosexual person but reject his lifestyle, I can still hate the person because he is defined by what he does."And again, in the comments, this exchange:
Bill: "when I see someone that I “acts like” a homosexual, my first thought is something like, “He is gay.” So I am as guilty as they are in defining them first by their ‘orientation.’ Its human nature, I guess."I left a comment of my own:
Jared: "Bill, I remember a professor mine in college. He always corrected us when we said “That is just human nature.” when we actually mean that is “Fallen nature.” I would speculate that your first thought is when observing that situation is not “He is gay.” rather, you first make an unconscious observation of “He is male.” Male and female is part of human nature. This kind of makes my point regarding a person is a who before he does a what."
And this observation is found, moreover, in the statement “He is gay.” That statement contains the implicit observation that “He is,” that is, the person exists (is) and is a male (he), which moreover presupposes the class “person.” He must “be” before he can “be gay,” and in this case the pronoun “he” is referencing some person, that is, it is shorthand for “That male person.” Does he cease to be a person if he ceases to be a gay person?
By which I mean that a person is a person first, and gay a distant second (at best). Maleness or femaleness is a part of being a person, though not necessarily the whole of it. "Gay" or "straight" is not, though the complementarity of the two sexes does suggest which one is disordered (hint: complementarity means that each sex lacks something which only the other sex can naturally make up, and that each sex has something to give to the other sex). Incidentally, I have noted before, in the 6th footnote of my post concerning Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception, that our fallen and sinful nature is ultimately an accident to our nature as human beings , since it can be said that a) a person can enter into heaven and yet remain himself, and b) anything which enters heaven is purified of sin, which means that I must be able to remain myself and you must be able to remain yourself when purified of all sins.
Our fallen nature (and, for that matter, our baptisms into the Church) represent ontological changes, but not changes of our very essences per se. That my soul may be tainted with the stain of sin, or that it my be washed in the waters of baptism, does not change that it is still my soul, it is still me, and that at the end of the day, I am a person first, therefore male. I may be ontologically Catholic, but it is also something I can do (or not do, if I were to stop practicing my Faith); the same is true about being ontologically straight, which is ultimately also something I can do (I feel an attraction for the person of the opposite sex, and I can act on or react to this attraction). It is not what I am or even necessarily who I am (since I do not cease to be myself if I become an apostate, nor would a gay man cease to be himself if he suddenly becomes straight), though it may change how I interact with the world.
That my outlook, worldview, or destination may change retains implicitly that it is I who have this outlook, holds this worldview, or am traveling to this destination.
 History may repeat itself, or it may rhyme. The same thing is ultimately true of theology.