What difference does it make if being gay is genetic or if it's a choice?

[Moonglow]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else. Life for yous is never an easy day of flower smelling and appreciation of existence?
No time to smell the flowers and gratuities for existence?

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

The government can do nothing without the cooperation of society and citizens helping to enforce the law or abide to its terms.

The reason the racists went to government was to force people to do what they wouldn't do on their own. Think about it, else there was no reason to pass a law.

Then when the FBI started coming in and going after the KKK, they were inundated with tips from within the KKK. They were turning down people offering to help.

Turns out that while there was a lot of racism, most of the people didn't want to be lynching and burning crosses and terrorizing black families. But they were afraid the mobs would be turned on them if they spoke up

And yet it was the KKK who destroyed themselves during a rally in which shots were fired, all done in the court system by being sued.

I like how you started with "and yet" then didn't say anything that contradicted anything in my post.

Here's a ball, Bart. Go play in the yard for a while. Look, it's bouncy ...

Is that always important to you to have contradiction in personal interactions? No time for yous to smell the flowers and enjoy existence?

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else. Life for yous is never an easy day of flower smelling and appreciation of existence?
No time to smell the flowers and gratuities for existence?

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

The government can do nothing without the cooperation of society and citizens helping to enforce the law or abide to its terms.

The reason the racists went to government was to force people to do what they wouldn't do on their own. Think about it, else there was no reason to pass a law.

Then when the FBI started coming in and going after the KKK, they were inundated with tips from within the KKK. They were turning down people offering to help.

Turns out that while there was a lot of racism, most of the people didn't want to be lynching and burning crosses and terrorizing black families. But they were afraid the mobs would be turned on them if they spoke up

And yet it was the KKK who destroyed themselves during a rally in which shots were fired, all done in the court system by being sued.

I like how you started with "and yet" then didn't say anything that contradicted anything in my post.

Here's a ball, Bart. Go play in the yard for a while. Look, it's bouncy ...

Is that always important to you to have contradiction in personal interactions?

I know you're stupid, so I'll explain it again.

You used the term "and yet."

What is your first language? Bull shit, double speak or vacuous droning? It's sure not English

 

[Dragonlady]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

You stumbled over the answer in the quesrio.

If it is limited to consenting adults then it is irrelevant whether it is a preference or genetic

But these days it is clear that minors and children are involved. If it is considered genetic then they can force people including parents to accept their kids being gay or even taught to embrace their sexuality at a young age. The justification will be that it causes psychological harm for parents to teach a kid to be straight if the kid has the gay gene.

its all about control

It does cause great psychological harm for parents to try to "teach a kid to be straight". An overwhelming number of teenagers who commit suicide are gay. They'd rather be dead than gay.

I was on swim team with a boy I knew was gay when we were 10. He was so obviously never going to be dating women. I didn't even know what being gay meant at the time, but I knew Johnny "squats to pee", as my mother used to say it. As an adult, he was a total flamer, and worked in a drag revue.

When you talk to gay adults, their success as an adult, is often directly tied to whether or not their parents accepted and supported them in their sexual orientation. Those whose parents loved and accepted them always, do better and are more stable and financially successful in life.

As for children, just as straight parents can and frequently do successfully raise gay children, gay parents successfully raise straight children. Gay does not equal pedophile. Pedophilia is most overwhelmingly committed against young girls by straight men, and little is done to stop the incest and molestation of little girls. Girls are nearly four times more likely to be sexually abused, but SIS genedered males are bat shit crazy over the idea of gays being around little boys, while poo pooing the complaints that girls are more vulnerable and not well protected.

 

[kaz]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

You stumbled over the answer in the quesrio.

If it is limited to consenting adults then it is irrelevant whether it is a preference or genetic

But these days it is clear that minors and children are involved. If it is considered genetic then they can force people including parents to accept their kids being gay or even taught to embrace their sexuality at a young age. The justification will be that it causes psychological harm for parents to teach a kid to be straight if the kid has the gay gene.

its all about control

It does cause great psychological harm for parents to try to "teach a kid to be straight". An overwhelming number of teenagers who commit suicide are gay. They'd rather be dead than gay.

I was on swim team with a boy I knew was gay when we were 10. He was so obviously never going to be dating women. I didn't even know what being gay meant at the time, but I knew Johnny "squats to pee", as my mother used to say it. As an adult, he was a total flamer, and worked in a drag revue.

When you talk to gay adults, their success as an adult, is often directly tied to whether or not their parents accepted and supported them in their sexual orientation. Those whose parents loved and accepted them always, do better and are more stable and financially successful in life.

As for children, just as straight parents can and frequently do successfully raise gay children, gay parents successfully raise straight children. Gay does not equal pedophile. Pedophilia is most overwhelmingly committed against young girls by straight men, and little is done to stop the incest and molestation of little girls. Girls are nearly four times more likely to be sexually abused, but SIS genedered males are bat shit crazy over the idea of gays being around little boys, while poo pooing the complaints that girls are more vulnerable and not well protected.

Totally irrelevant. Bad parents are going to be bad parents. Government isn't going to fix that. And government is certainly not going to be a better parent than parents are.

Just an emotional and pointless story

 

[Ken Mac]

Thought experiment:

Suppose being gay is truly genetic:

What about the people that don't have that genetic makeup but prefer to have a same sex partner for life. Does stating "It's not a choice" mean they are excluded?

That would be fucked up.

 

[kaz]

Thought experiment:

Suppose being gay is truly genetic:

What about the people that don't have that genetic makeup but prefer to have a same sex partner for life. Does stating "It's not a choice" mean they are excluded?

That would be fucked up.

That's a good point. A permanent partner who loves football, drinking beer and doesn't get upset over gas would be pretty cool. Not to mention sex not having to be followed up with cuddling and discussing our feelings. We can just get back to the game! Then there's never having to ask, you say nothing is wrong, but ...

 

[iceberg]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

Who cares? They aren't hurting anyone, let them be them.

kinda my attitude. they argue for "their" rights in the same manner we all do. their life, their choice. don't care what got them on that road, that's their road. i'm fine with mutual respect.

 

[kaz]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

Who cares? They aren't hurting anyone, let them be them.

kinda my attitude. they argue for "their" rights in the same manner we all do. their life, their choice. don't care what got them on that road, that's their road. i'm fine with mutual respect.

That was also my position in the OP

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

One bus company in Alabama

Really?

How many other states had Jim Crow-esque laws on the books at the time?

And we have laws for all kinds of things I just don't see how anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws are so egregious compared to many others.

You don't know the significance of the Montgomery Bus Company? Seriously?

I want to the heart of the beast, Alabama in the 50s to make the point that businesses care only about serving one color, green. That we are looking for a reason to not do business with people is moronic. Customers are our target. Think about it.

So you have not demonstrated any significant discrimination from private businesses ever. I pointed out that the most prolific case ever of discrimination, which was even a quasi government company and not free market, needed the riders and opposed driving them away.

So make the case what good the sledge hammer of power you give government does

you haven't demonstrated any significant lack of discrimination.

One example is hardly proof.

And tell me how is it a sledge hammer?

You really think anti-discrimination laws and public access laws are tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to your freedoms?

I'd be far more worried about laws that actually restrict my rights than those.

And don't forget there are still instances where a business owner can refuse service.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

It doesn't matter and yeah, all kinds of reasons people are gay.

Women on women, assuming they're not butch, what's not to like? Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's look at men.

1. You were born gay, that's right born gay. Ever notice how many gay men have pronounced lateral incisor teeth? Coincidence?

2. Environment. Some guys are more likely to suck dick when locked up in prison etc. who might not otherwise

3. Low IQ, lonely, seeking group validation. When the media promoted gayness many of these people assumed the gay role to become fabulously noticed. Additionally, PROGS take a special interest feminizing men cuz "toxic masculinity".

4. Screw loose. The more screws loose the greater chance you're sucking dick.

At the end of the day who gives a shit less #3? Number three is the result of trash marketing. It's also number 26 of the 45 declarations for communist takeover, which reads: "26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

 

[Soupnazi630]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

You stumbled over the answer in the quesrio.

If it is limited to consenting adults then it is irrelevant whether it is a preference or genetic

But these days it is clear that minors and children are involved. If it is considered genetic then they can force people including parents to accept their kids being gay or even taught to embrace their sexuality at a young age. The justification will be that it causes psychological harm for parents to teach a kid to be straight if the kid has the gay gene.

its all about control

How do you even "teach a kid to be straight?"

By shaming them for.being gay

 

[Soupnazi630]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

You stumbled over the answer in the quesrio.

If it is limited to consenting adults then it is irrelevant whether it is a preference or genetic

But these days it is clear that minors and children are involved. If it is considered genetic then they can force people including parents to accept their kids being gay or even taught to embrace their sexuality at a young age. The justification will be that it causes psychological harm for parents to teach a kid to be straight if the kid has the gay gene.

its all about control

It does cause great psychological harm for parents to try to "teach a kid to be straight". An overwhelming number of teenagers who commit suicide are gay. They'd rather be dead than gay.

I was on swim team with a boy I knew was gay when we were 10. He was so obviously never going to be dating women. I didn't even know what being gay meant at the time, but I knew Johnny "squats to pee", as my mother used to say it. As an adult, he was a total flamer, and worked in a drag revue.

When you talk to gay adults, their success as an adult, is often directly tied to whether or not their parents accepted and supported them in their sexual orientation. Those whose parents loved and accepted them always, do better and are more stable and financially successful in life.

As for children, just as straight parents can and frequently do successfully raise gay children, gay parents successfully raise straight children. Gay does not equal pedophile. Pedophilia is most overwhelmingly committed against young girls by straight men, and little is done to stop the incest and molestation of little girls. Girls are nearly four times more likely to be sexually abused, but SIS genedered males are bat shit crazy over the idea of gays being around little boys, while poo pooing the complaints that girls are more vulnerable and not well protected.

kind of proves my point.

Using this as an excuse the state could forbid parents from raising their kids to follow religious values.

It's an excuse to side step the first amendment and assert that kids ( and everyone else ) belong to the state.

 

[basquebromance]

over 70% of LGBTQ students report being verbally harassed and over 48% have been cyberbullied

 

[miketx]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

If you choose to be gay there's gotta be something wrong with you. I think it's a choice. I've never seen any kids talking about how they want to be queers when they grow up.

 

[miketx]

over 70% of LGBTQ students report being verbally harassed and over 48% have been cyberbullied

Stop telling people you're a peter puffer then.

 

[Soupnazi630]

over 70% of LGBTQ students report being verbally harassed and over 48% have been cyberbullied

So have most straight students

 

[basquebromance]

over 70% of LGBTQ students report being verbally harassed and over 48% have been cyberbullied

So have most straight students

yeah those poor straight students

 

[WTH_Progs?]

over 70% of LGBTQ students report being verbally harassed and over 48% have been cyberbullied

Ah poor babies. Let me guess, anytime something negative happens in their lives it's cuz of "homophobes" much like anything negative that happens in a black man's life is because of racism.