I'll play devil's advocate with you here.

The rainbow can't be cool or everyone wants to be a fag, and that's not cool.

I agree, it shouldn't be cool, neither should it be 'wrong'. In fact I would say the insistence of the community on making it cool is an act of appropriation in response to us making it 'wrong'. I.E. They turn it into a badge of pride, only because we focused on this so strongly as being central to ones identity.

I would say if nobody gave a fuck (the gays didnt act queer, and nobody hated them), it wouldn't be an issue. If I thought one of you guy's wives was unattractive and wouldn't fuck her, I really wouldn't care about this, just like I don't care if one of you guys is fucking a man. No different to me.

What does makes this different, is that gays think they have to act a certain way, like its the central aspect of their being rather than a sexual preference, but this behavior is a symptom of the identity problem I am pointing to rather than an innate quality of being gay.

It was social conditioning, teaching the children homosexuality is not desirable.

In a purely biological sense, I'd argue this isn't that undesirable when our population is 8 billion, and we don't have enough lithium to build everyone electric cars, and we talk about eating crickets. We know there are more gays the denser the population becomes. Calhouns rats got pretty gay too, and I don't think it was from advocate propaganda or because the rats didnt discourage homosexuality enough