I'm not really sure what you're asking

Is any sexual orientation picked or not? Did someone like Muhammad wake up and decide yeah I'd really like to marry that 6 year old? Can he help who he loves? Would democrats protect him under this bill?

And even as an exclusion, the existing language draws an association between accepted sexual orientations among consenting adults

Accepted by who? Some people consider homosexually unacceptable and immoral. I watched two homosexuals tossed off a building in the middle east on reddit a while ago. Like I said it's death penalty there. They don't find it acceptable at all.

That association is unwelcome and unwanted.

I'm sure it as it calls out the hypocritical position of the argument i must accept sexual orientation x but no not that one. They tell me I must be tolerant of Islam while not being tolerant of Christianity. The main prophet of that religion married a 6 year old. I'm not sure how one reconciles that.

They tell me people can't help who they love and I must tolerant that. If you want argue consenting adults that's fine. Let's just focus on orientation. So a minor attracted person (who doesn't act on it) should get protections or no? If that's a perversion and a choice why isn't everything else a choice? Cause see if it is a choice then it's all a choice.

So if we are arguing moral superiority in the middle east they would execute the homosexuals and have child marriages. They would claim they are moral.

So basically I don't understand the democrats position here.