> Sorry, but what's the problem with sexual identity being a form of self expression? Really struggling with this...

Look, we are not going to agree on that. What we can agree on, however, is that God (or the pre-natal endocrine environment, if you prefer) makes certain people different, and that those people should be able to participate in social institutions like marriage consistent with their biology. That premise is the lynchpin for 71% of the American populace supporting same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, if you want to force a debate on whether sexuality should be private or public, or whether individuals have social roles and be subject to social norms dictated by their biology, that is an entirely different fight, and it's one you don't want to have.

> What we can agree on, however, is that God (or the pre-natal endocrine environment, if you prefer) makes certain people different, and that those people should be able to participate in social institutions like marriage consistent with their biology.

I mean, no, we can't agree on that restrictive phrasing.

Even to the extent we might agree that biological differences might sometimes be socially relevant, there is no special biological privilege to pre-natal effects.

(But mostly this seems to be appealing to the flawed “born different” premise for legal rights.)

“Born different” is the central premise of Obergefell. It states: “Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.” The Human Rights Campaign, for its part, defines “sexual orientation” as: “An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people.”

What I hear you saying, however, is that DeSantis is correct. Liberals really are using “accept people how God made them” as a pretext to teach kids “you can choose to be who you want to be.” If that is the case, we really do have an ideological war on our hands against the malign forces of secular humanism coming for our kids.

> Look, we are not going to agree on that.

Agree on what? I didn't ask you to agree. I asked you to express what the problem with sexual identity being a form of self expression? I literally do not understand what your problem with this is, and knowing what the words mean, how it was not already inherently the case.

> What we can agree on, however, is that God (or the pre-natal endocrine environment, if you prefer) makes certain people different, and that those people should be able to participate in social institutions like marriage consistent with their biology.

Lol okay?

>On the other hand, if you want to force a debate on whether sexuality should be private or public, or whether individuals have social roles and be subject to social norms dictated by their biology, that is an entirely different fight, and it's one you don't want to have.

I don't want to force a debate on anything? I'm not sure why you seem to be incapable of having a conversation with me as opposed to some sort of globally disagreeable boogeyman you've invented on my behalf... I litereally asked you a simple question and rather than answer it, you came back telling me that I'm trying to force something? You put like 10 carts before your horse there...

>...people should be able to participate in social institutions like marriage consistent with their biology...

"Consistent with their biology" is not a precondition that you could find broad agreement on - I don't think you could even find a broad agreement on what it means.