It did, except It was Yost in an X-Position. So my bad, I was half-wrong. However as Co-Creator I'm pretty sure he should have equal say in Laura's sexuality.Which X-Men would you like to make a couple?
X-23 and Hellion.
As noted above: CO-creator, and I'm sure Yost's opinion is every bit as valid. And as has been commented on elsewhere, creators say a LOT of things. The fact is Laura was created for Marvel. Kyle never owned the rights to her. So while his commentary can be interesting, the reality is that it doesn't have merit since he's not the one who ultimately controls the character. FYI, while going through tweets trying to find the source to the Helix quote, Kyle flip-flopped a LOT in his opinions, too. In one tweet he might post a pithy image to illustrate how much he doesn't like the character's direction, yet in another he'll talk about how much he's enjoyed what a writer has done with her during the same timeframe.Not currently, no, but he is her creator. That means he created her appearance, her personality and, yes, her sexual orientation. That's why his voice on the matter is more fact than opinion. It's exactly why many feel the recent retcon regarding Laura's genetic origin was disrespectful given that Kyle has commented very clearly on that subject previously.
Except that's not how it works. You can make the same argument that if two hetero parents have a kid, that kid should be hetero as well. Sexuality is INCREDIBLY complex. There's no, AFAIK from the latest research, "gay gene." In fact I'm not sure if science has even identified the mechanism that determines sexual orientation, or even if there IS a specific biological trigger (and preemptively to your point below: no, I'm NOT saying it's a choice).I never said that Gabby being gay means Laura must also be gay. I just said it's a fact that supports the notion and is something that contributes to it making sense. It's like a puzzle piece that fits.
As for your argument that it undermines Gabby's story...ehhh. Makes about as much sense as me arguing that Laura should be gay because Logan is heterosexual to avoid her building off him too much.
This is bordering dangerously on devolving into an ad hominin attack. You KNOW that I didn't mean this was a literal choice made by Laura.Sexual orientation isn't a choice, so to bring up Laura's choices and agency seems weird. Really, all this just sounds like clutching at straws and trying to come up with arguments against because you personally strongly prefer Laura not to be gay.
What was the single biggest motivating factor in why Rice tormented Laura so brutally in Innocence Lost/Target X? Because as Logan's clone (or at least an offspring created from his DNA after recent revelations) he projected his anger on her. That a clone (or genetic offspring) is a separate entity from their genetic template (or father/whatever) has been one of several themes at the heart of Laura's story (frankly, the concept works whether you're talking about clones OR offspring. Sins of the Father and all). By having Laura be LGBT because Gabby is LGBT — or at least using the latter as a justification in support of the former — VERY directly undermines that message.
It might be one thing if Gabby never existed, or if she were to be straight. Having them both as LGBT (especially if you use one to develop the other) is narratively problematic for both.
I mentioned before, but after rereading Kyle's Tweet I don't believe he's saying it was something they INTENDED originally, (and Yost's X-Po commentary seems to suggest otherwise is indeed the case) just a direction he'd take NOW.
The lack of prior development is definitely an issue in Laura's case. While it's "only" been 15 years since her first appearance, that's still enough time that her character is pretty well-established. Revealing Sarah donating her own DNA to creating her works because there was enough ambiguity left in the cloning process, and some bits and pieces that would naturally justify it (IE Laura always being drawn to resemble a younger Sarah). The fact that the VAST majority of comments about it were along the lines of "Wait, didn't we already know this?" shows just how widespread it was. Kyle may not have intended it, but the fans ran with it long before it became canon, anyway.
Now I'm sure there's LGBT individuals who had a sudden epiphany about their orientation. But for fiction, that narrative process is incredibly important. The Claremont example is a great comparison; his work was positively loaded with subtext, and he laid groundwork that would be very easy for other writers to build on. However that's not the case with Laura. You really only end up with two examples that are ever cited; Mercury hugging her while breaking down in the aftermath of Mercury Falling, or the frame where she tempts Jubilee with her blood. The former was never really mentioned again, and is very easy to handwave away (TBH, I compare it to the people who try to use Sam and Frodo's interactions throughout the Lord of the Rings to comment on their sexuality). The latter is problematic because vampires are INHERENTLY laden with subtext so it's very difficult to separate out whether what you're seeing is because of Laura's orientation, or simply the nature of vampire fiction.
Regardless, a reveal of that nature would indeed be a rather significant retcon. Laura may not have the history Bobby did, but 15 years for a Big Two comics character is nothing to sneeze at, either.