Fair enough, but remember, there is a big difference between who you are demographically vs what you CHOOSE to support as public policy. Sarah Huckaby Sanders and the rest of Trump's cabinet absolutely deserve to be called out on their complicity in this administration's fascist actions. And make no mistake: they are fascist.

To be fair, her presence in a restaurant is probably pretty disruptive, and it's just as likely that other patrons would have had serious objections to sharing the space with her, given the current situation.

@MikeInBatonRouge you put the Baton Bach in Baton Rouge

@Millerski25 however you meant that, I'm taking it as a compliment. ?

Sadly you’re right as I’m finding this out and have recently reconsidered my association with this site. I’m trying to stay away from morons, racists, ultra right wingers and Trumpettes

@Millerski25 The moment someone here (usually a guy, but some women also) becomes crude, rude, or lewd to either me or anyone else, I don't wait..I go to their profile and hit the "block" button on the right. Then I can't see their posts and they can't see mine..problem solved!

@birdingnut I am loathe to block anyone unless they get way out there I sometimes try and I do mean try hard to see the absurdity and laugh at them

funny however how someone threatens to block you for stating an opinion they didn't like but still sees fit to comment on yours

@whiskywoman Not sure what you mean. I block trolls and anyone who becomes belligerent, or insulting, etc. It's clear why some people here are single.

How often does one need to explain that being gay/ lesbian is not a choice... I’m not going into research but for all you homophobes Freud would call yours a reaction formation

I’m not sure where you get you faulty information but with reading a little modern research such JAMA, Scientific American, etal .... homosexuality I’d NOT a choice but a genetic and or biological precursor

Regarding "We do not know if homosexuality is genetic or social," that is an irrelevant statement, and so it is you whose reasoning appears suspect. You are correct that science has not been able to clearly tease out precisely the various causal factors for sexual orientation, hetero-,homo-, or anywhere on the sexual spectrum. The factors are multi-layered and not even necessarily all the same for each person. But what is overwhelmingly supported by the research evidence (and our own experiences, no less) is that it is NOT experienced as being a matter of conscious choice. We certainly may choose the label or expression of our "identity" but we have no control over our "orientation," and if our self-identity doesn't line up reasonably well with our orientation, we are guaranteed to have negative emotional fallout from that conflict. Just ask any of the thousands who participated in "ex-gay" so-called conversion therapy. Even the few who cling to it after a few years tend to admit it does not eliminate their same-sex attraction; they merely choose to ACT in opposition to those feelings to appease their warped sense of morality.

Oh, that reminds me: Fuck Christianity! There. I feel better, now. ?

please shut up Millerski

We do know it is genetic. 10% are exclusively homosexual. 10 % are exclusively hetero. All the rest are on the continuum.
Been this way in every society and culture forever.

Hell, I didn't think that there was anybody left out there other than a few fringe crazies in the christian and islamic communities who actually believe this.

I've always thought of homosexuality as natures means of population control, considering gay people don't pass along their genetic code to the next generation.

All that arises from DNA is irrefutable

@Jacar, this isn't a criticism, just me feeling the urge to wallow in bit picky details after a long day's work. It is not anywhere near as simple as a chart within 10% bookends, though I agree with your sentiment.
Some is hormonal, which is actualy not genetic. Complicating it further is the disparity between orientation, behavior, and self-identity, three distinct issues that overlap in all kinds of messed up ways. Identity, for example, determines a person's subjective label for self. The 10% categories don't fit. Fewer people "identify" as l, g, or b, currently somewhere around 3.5%. Then, depending on the survey, somewhat more than 10% have had some sort of same-sex sensual experience in their life, and way more who haven't interacted with anyone same sex admit to having felt attracted so someone of the same sex but never acted on it. Hard to nail down concrete percentages that kind of confusion, especially the self-labeling/identity part, which has crept up in surveys a percent or so over the past couple decades of expanding societal tolerance and LGBT visibility.

@MikeInBatonRouge lots of good stuff. Yet the 10% at both ends is a real reference. The 80% in the middle provides variation and fluidity.

@Jacar , yes, I know you didn't make it up. I am just saying the stats are not as concrete or unassailable as often presented. I say this as a proud gay man with a sociology and psychology professional and educational background who for largely personal interest reasons follows the research fairly closely.
Here are just a few of many interesting references, including the first, which references that 10% figure---thanks, Kinsey, for that not-so-random sampling!!
[google.com]
[en.m.wikipedia.org]
[news.gallup.com]
[news.gallup.com]
[news.gallup.com]

@MikeInBatonRouge Thanks for the stats. Including Bi and trans is not good. Though kinsey's number might be wrong on the ends, most people are in the middle. That means most people are "bi" whether they think they are or not. And because of culture,... most people self identify as hetero. I think they are doing so based upon how they behave, and are expected to. Not on where their fantasies take them, or what they would do if all the stigma did not exist.

Samantha was making a comment about Ivanka's total lack of awareness of the trauma of the immigrant children while twitting a picture of her and her son, in luxury.

@Jacar Right, absolutely. Certainly the "feckless" part. But her calling her a "Cunt," intentionally harsh, I have to think has to do a lot with Ivanka's overall track record of tacitly supporting her monstrous father.