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

[basquebromance]

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 that happens in a black man's life is because of racism.

i think you are a homophobe. i think you are a xhenophobe. i think you are a racist. i think you are an Islamophobe. i think you are a religious bigot

like Don himself

 

[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

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.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

 

[The Original Tree]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

 

[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 **** 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

That makes them hide being gay, it doesn't teach them to be straight

 

[Orangecat]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make?

If they admit it is a choice (which it is, in execution), then they cannot establish the gay community as victims. Victimhood lies at the center of their virtue signaling agenda.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

So you think laws should be enacted unless we can prove they aren't needed? Seriously? The burden is not on you to support a law you agree with, it's my job to prove you wrong? Pass, but wow ...

 

[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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

 

[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 **** 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

That makes them hide being gay, it doesn't teach them to be straight

That may well be true but is not the issue at hand

The idea is to prevent others from raising their kids with their own values

 

[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 **** 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

That makes them hide being gay, it doesn't teach them to be straight

That may well be true but is not the issue at hand

The idea is to prevent others from raising their kids with their own values

OK, but my question was to leftists to explain why they claim gay is genetic, not a choice. They claim it's for tolerance, but if they actually believed in tolerance, would it matter?

Of course we both know it's not for tolerance, and they do do, which is why none of them actually answered the question

 

[Dragonlady]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

 

[miketx]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

Mental illness is like that. You have to be mentally ill to choose to be a fudge packer or a pole smoker.

 

[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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

You don't choose to be straight it's normal, like growing up. People decide they want to be faggots.

 

[Meathead]

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 **** 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

There's nothing wrong with being gay or British, but they're both very whinny (whingy).

 

[kaz]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

That doesn't answer the question. My question is why does it matter if they chose or were born that way?

It's doesn't to me. I don't want them to be treated any better or worse than any other American. So if they chose to be gay, you'd be for discriminating against gays?

 

[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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

You don't choose to be straight it's normal, like growing up. People decide they want to be faggots.

I don't see it. When I owned my businesses, my VP of sales for my main business was gay. It was kind of funny because she was a bigoted leftist and was very surprised that I'm not left and yet clearly was fine with gays. Opened her eyes, at least a little. She invited me to social events. Her friends were not all gay, but heavily gay and I fit in fine at their parties and events. I got to talk to a lot of them. It just seemed like who they are. The ones I talked to didn't seem to have a choice that I observed. I couldn't imagine them not being gay.

I do totally oppose anyone trying to turn you gay though, you have every right to be straight.

But I still don't understand the part why leftists consider it insulting to say it's a choice. Why does it matter if it's a choice as long as it's up to them no matter how they became that way?

 

[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 **** 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

There's nothing wrong with being gay or British, but they're both very whinny (whingy).

You made me laugh

 

[justinacolmena]

women are of course all have a little lesbian in em jejejejeje

******* lezbos putting on a pride parade and and a shit show in church.

Well from a Christian perspective, it doesn't make any difference. Most men, when they see a good looking women, want to have sex with her

Right. Some dude looks at your wife he's an adulterer. If he won't look at your wife or compliment her appearance then he's a f****t.

We have a natural aversion to discrimination based on inherent characteristics, but if you believe there is nothing inherent to being gay, it makes it easier to justify it.

If "being gay" or single or whatever else it is in life is a "choice" then the c**t-licking preachers are still depriving other people of that "choice" by promoting and compelling heterosexual prostitution on the street.

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

That's all they care about. It's vanity, one of the seven deadly sins.

 

[Dragonlady]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

That doesn't answer the question. My question is why does it matter if they chose or were born that way?

It's doesn't to me. I don't want them to be treated any better or worse than any other American. So if they chose to be gay, you'd be for discriminating against gays?

No, I wouldn't. But others would use that as an excuse to disciminate as in "They made this choice to be different. Why must we accommodate them?" Or worse, those who promote "gay conversion therapy" or any of the other horrors visited upon gay children by parents who believe they can change their child's sexual orientation, when the child is still underaged and can't stop them from doing it.

If being gay is genetic, all of these horrors are estopped, and can be legally banned. If being gay is a choice, it will encourage the homophobes to continue to try to "save" their children from an "immoral and corrupt" lifestyle.

 

[kaz]

One is Genetically Defective
The other is Mentally Defective

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 **** 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.

If no one would want to chose to be gay, wouldn't that support that they were born that way?

Could you chose to be gay? I couldn't. So why would they be able to chose to be straight?

The whole idea of sexual orientation being a "choice" suggests that at some point in our lives, all of us made a conscious decision to be straight or gay. Shouldn't we all be able to remember when we made this momentous decision, and on what basis we made our "choice"? I have no memory of sitting down and sussing it out.

Being straight - no discrimination, lower rates of AIDS, the ability of have children the "old fashioned way", the whole world is set up to revolve around the straight lifestyle;

Being gay - increased disposable income, no kids to support, reduced housing and work opportunities, potential to be beaten or killed by "gay bashers", increased bullying and harassment, family members may disown you, higher rates of suicide, limits dating opportunities to less than 10% of the single population.

I'm hard pressed to come up with ideas as to why anyone would "choose" to be gay. Maybe those who "chose" to be gay could enlighten the rest of us as to why you made this choice.

That doesn't answer the question. My question is why does it matter if they chose or were born that way?

It's doesn't to me. I don't want them to be treated any better or worse than any other American. So if they chose to be gay, you'd be for discriminating against gays?

No, I wouldn't. But others would use that as an excuse to disciminate as in "They made this choice to be different. Why must we accommodate them?" Or worse, those who promote "gay conversion therapy" or any of the other horrors visited upon gay children by parents who believe they can change their child's sexual orientation, when the child is still underaged and can't stop them from doing it.

If being gay is genetic, all of these horrors are estopped, and can be legally banned. If being gay is a choice, it will encourage the homophobes to continue to try to "save" their children from an "immoral and corrupt" lifestyle.

So you're lying anticipating if you don't someone will do something to someone.

The dishonesty of the left in full bloom.

What if you're wrong? Then you're just a liar

 

[Dragonlady]

There is evidence it is genetic for men

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/29/theres-no-gay-gene-genetics-are-linked-same-sex-behavior-new-study-says/

women are of course all have a little lesbian in em jejejejeje

No we don't. I have never had any interest in a sexual relationship with another woman. I'm not even what the kids call "bi-curious". I have a lot of straight female friends who would say the same thing. I have female friends who are bi or lesbian, but they're a lot fewer in number than than women like me who are straight.