Those who declare sexuality as absolute are the real homophobes.

 "It is the ultimate rejection of the phallic symbol."

"It is a stand against the patriarchy and male dominance."

The above was told to me in praise of lesbianism.

But is sexuality was absolute, why the need to praise it?

If homosexuality was really just an inherent and unchangeable feeling, then there would not be these philosophical overtones to it. There would not be a sense that lesbianism was in any way defiant. 

To the extent that lesbianism is defiant of the (so-called) patriarchy, or if it is somehow an affront to men, then it really is not just a feeling.

When I was liberal, I witnessed lesbianism get mixed with politics and social activism.

I also witnessed people experimenting with homosexuality, then living straight lives, and the opposite.

A friend told me that a lesbian tried to see if she would be interested in her, she did not ask my friend, "are you straight?' Michael propositioned John, after John had asserted he was straight.

 If people can experiment, that means that sexuality is flexible.

We see an inconsistency in liberal rhetoric concerning sexuality - on the one hand, it is genetic or constitutional, absolute and etched in stone.

On the other hand, lesbianism is defiant of the patriarchy.

To declare sexuality as absolute is in fact to ignore all those people whom you know full well to have lived one lifestyle and then turned to another. 

To declare sexuality as absolute is really a form of pushing gays away into another category altogether and for the straight person to declare, "this has nothing to do with me" - homophobe after all. And this is an opening to rounding up the gays with their so-called genetic tendency which can quickly morph into being seen as genetic defect and hauling them away, they did that in the Holocaust, other-izing and finally throwing them into concentration camps.

Your liberal rhetoric may lead to terrible consequences.

The majority of people could have been gay or straight, depending on what had influenced them. That is clear from all those who come out of the closet after decades of a straight marriage, or who experiment with homosexuality and then get into a straight relationship.

We should related to homosexuality as any variance of human nature, regard it as a black box in which you have no idea why that person became gay and it is really not your business. They can marry. They can adopt. They can rent and purchase a home. They can work.

Sexuality does not affect one's civil rights. 

Trump should have been appreciated for his defense of homosexuality but liberals were so busy loathing him they could not give credit where credit is due.

But back to the false and dangerous claim that sexuality is constitutional or genetic - should a woman find herself angry at men, and liberals like you to be angry, she may latch on to this "defiance of the patriarchy/rejection of the phallic symbol" philosophy, entering lesbian relationships when in fact with a bit of guidance she could have channeled her energies into correct activism for women, and been in a healthy straight relationship that may have been closer to her nature.