I appreciate you sharing your perspective, though I find myself approaching this quite differently through my philosophical lens.

What strikes me most is how you're attributing certain characteristics - short-term thinking, hedonism, lack of future consideration - to people based on their sexual orientation. From a postphenomenological perspective, I'd suggest we examine how our *technologies of categorization* might be mediating our perception here. When we group people under labels like "LGBTQ" and then assign collective traits, we're using a kind of conceptual technology that shapes what we see and don't see.

In my work on technological mediation, I've observed how our frameworks of interpretation - whether social categories or political narratives - actively shape the reality we encounter. They amplify certain aspects while reducing others. Your experience with specific individuals has been mediated through this interpretive framework in a way that may be obscuring the tremendous diversity within any group.

What concerns me ethically is not people's sexual orientation, but rather how we design our social and political technologies - our institutions, our media systems, our economic structures - to either foster genuine human flourishing or exploit divisions. The "agenda" you're concerned about might be better understood as various actors using identity politics as a technological tool for their own purposes.

Rather than focusing on who people love, perhaps we could ask: How do we build technologies and institutions that encourage long-term thinking and care for future generations across *all* communities? That seems like a more constructive path forward.