It’s error was not the idea behind it, but rather the fact that they saw “Gay Christian” as the same category as “Christian Gay”.

I think that may well be. And that's a symptom of the problem: church leadership making callous decisions which signal just how closely they have been paying attention – which is to say, not closely at all.

Now, I have met plenty who not only accept being ‘nouned’, but wholeheartedly embrace it.

Sure, but I'm going to guess that these people weren't self-avowed celibates pursuing ordination in a conservative denomination. That's who is being targeted by the PCA and Catholic policies, and it is who was slapped down when the ACNA leadership spoke out against that response letter.

Their sexuality shares duel custody with their general humanity of the essence, in their eyes, and for it not to be front and center is in their eyes erasure.