It’s never been an objective fact that they’re arguing.

They’re implying more than they’re willing to say directly. Over the decades we have seen indicators of their plan: conversion therapy, calling it “same sex attraction disorder,” etc. Their base supposition is that there is no such thing as homosexuality, and that anyone engaging in homosexual behavior either lacked adequate parenting, was abused, or some other way was “broken” from the default of heterosexuality.

This is dangerous because you can’t prove it isn’t true, and as with most of their specious arguments, one or two examples is all they need to feel justified in whatever means they choose to employ in combating the problem they made up.

At its core, any disagreement with regressives boils down to definitions. Most of us live in a world where we accept other people’s opinions in some way, even if we disagree. These folks will make up a new reality, and then phrase everything around their interpretation to try to force people to think of it through the frame they created.

Don’t call him Shirley. ;)