While We're Discussing LGBTs

[IGetItAlready]

Perhaps someone can answer a question for me.

For years now we've had the gay agenda, gay lifestyle, general gayness or whatever you'd like to call it (please don't get hung up on the word AGENDA for the love of all things over played) rationalized with the belief of some that being gay is a genetic condition.

We can discuss the relevance of those claims in another thread.
My question is, where do the Bs and Ts come into play in that whole line of reasoning?
Am I truly to believe that people who like to swing both ways are genetically disposed to doing so? Or that someone who feels their life would be better had they been born the opposite sex was in fact genetically inclined to actually BE the opposite sex despite no physical indications to support that belief?

And if bisexuals and transgenders have no claim to the genetics being responsible for their "condition", why is it that they are included in the push for special recognition and the bending of social norms with those we're led to believe have no control over the way they were born?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because the Constitution protects one’s right to privacy and self-determination. One is not required to ‘justify’ his personal life choices; whether a given condition is the consequence of genetics or free will is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – the state is prohibited from enacting measures designed to make a class of persons a stranger to its laws, and such measures are considered offensive to the Constitution.

See: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Romer v. Evans, (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

 

[IGetItAlready]

That's a fair response.
But why aren't women, blacks, Muslims and everyone else who believe they're being disenfranchised included?

It just seems disingenuous to me for those who are clearly making a lifestyle choice to hitch up to an activist group who rationalizes their movement's existence on genetics.