Same sex attraction and celebate Christians

To be blunt, I don't care.  I don't particularly care what your sinful desires happen to be.  We all have them.  We all have temptations.  We all struggle with temptations.  On our better days, we overcome them.  Some heroic believers actually find ways to live a life without succumbing to their greater temptations, and more power to them.  If that's the case here, then hats off.  

What many believers don't do, however, is jump up on a table, proclaim our temptations to the world, and then seem to expect ... something?  What?  Kudos?  Praise and adoration?  Treatment as if we're the only people in history to overcome sin?  I don't know.

I do reject the post-Freudian basis of the entire Sexual Revolution, as well as its chief offspring the LGBTQ movement. That is, the idea that beyond all other things we are first and foremost defined by our sexuality.  I feel that would probably seem strange to even the most sexually broad cultures in history up until the 19th Century.  Nor do I see how embracing that view has benefited humanity over the last century or so.

Likewise, I reject the idea common in the Sexual Revolution/AIDS Era that, unlike food, water and oxygen, we must have sex at all times or we'll end up like Belloq at the end of Raiders of he Lost Ark. 

I also don't imagine the entire LGBTQ community is a giant monolith of clones.  I actually believe the reasons why people have various desires and attractions and identities might just be varied and complex, and sometimes different for different people.  As much as I risk offending the sensitivities of the progressive prophet Lady Gaga, I mean I don't think everyone with various non-heterosexual desires and identities are necessarily 'born that way.' 

Furthermore, I reject the idea that history is defined by Group A oppressing Group B, and in this case no Jew in Auschwitz ever experienced true terrors of hate and evil like a wealthy celebrity in Hollywood who has same sex attraction.  Or at least this template is true for now when convenient; subject to change at a moment's notice when no longer convenient. 

Oh, and I also believe gender exists and sexuality and childbirth are somehow related. Call me a radical. 

As for the young woman above, I couldn't care less what her inner temptations are.  Nor upon hearing of them, since she apparently insists we all hear of them, do I define her by those temptations.  May God not treat us as we increasingly treat ourselves in order to justify aligning with the catastrophes of modern progressive agendas and ideologies. 

Whatever her struggles or anyone's struggles are, that's for them.  If she seeks help and openness about her struggles with others, then there are times and places for that.  If she didn't run about declaring her desires and attractions, however, people would have no reason to think anything about her.  After all, if she's celibate it's not as if she's out sexually involved with women or marrying them or anything.  

Yet this is, and has been, a common tactic among progressives for years.  Jump up, kick down our doors, declare something new to be true, insist we all think about that something the way they insist we think about it, and then accuse us of somehow imposing our values on them or judging them if we don't.  It's stupid and false, and yet I've seen it used for decades to devastating effect.