I'm still not sure that a physical handicap which keeps one from living a well-rounded and complete existence is the same thing as being gay.

There is nothing that being gay keeps anybody from engaging in. Even heterosexual relations are possible - undesired - but possible.

I find that different than never hearing music - never hearing one's parents say I love you - never hearing the birds or the beach or the Good Humor man or... well, you get the idea.

I will never understand the theory that you (not 'you' personally) make gays' life miserable, so they should change so that you aren't able to treat them miserably.

Wouldn't it be so much better - not to mention EASIER - to simply not treat them miserably?

This entire "what would you do" is examined in (nauseatingly) detail in the Broadway play and film "The Twilight of the Golds" ... anybody really interested in the subject should see it. It's a little talky - but certainly every pro-and-con argument for both sides is there.

edited to add: no - I would not turn my child into somebody else.

Which is why I don't think the two are analogous.

Gay or straight, you are treated in accordance with how much money you have. I have posted this many times. I really think it's that simple.

My first hunch would be to agree with you, but then I go back and realize that generally homosexual couples have higher disposable incomes than straight people and then your argument doesn't make sense. When gay couples have more money than straight couples and still aren't treated well, how do we explain that?

It's tough to say, dabateman. For every set of parents that wants to micor-manage their child, there's a set who are secure enough to let the child make their own choices.

Be that as it may, I undersand why the "genocide" of Gay culture would bother you so. You are gay, and apparenlty comfortable being gay, so you have a vested personal interest in homosexuality being no more "different" than, say, having blue eyes when most people around you have brown ones. Your worldview and sense of self-awareness might very well rest upon that concept being -- for you, at least -- an unshakable reality. I think I can honestly say that were I in your shoes, I would think and feel exactly the same way.

Still, IMO, in the big picture, that's no reason to not be completely open to the pursuit of objective study of homosexuality -- and being open to the possiblity that it is a reversable condition.

As I aluded to before, deaf people balk at the thought of the loss of "deaf culture".. still, is that really a reason to stop seeking a cure for deafness. And if one is found, after 100 years would anybody care or be suffering even one little bit if "deaf culture" had dissapered?

IMO, that mentality is sort of like shunning ships with propeller screws and internal combustion engines, because it meant an end to the era of the sailing ship ruling the waves. Change and progress are a basic rule of existance.

Again, I can fully understand why YOU don't wan't gay culture to dissapear. But if it did, in 200 years, would anybody really miss it?

I'm all for diversity. But with homosexuality, are we trying to normalize dysfunction in order to preserve "diversity?"
Where do we draw the line with "diversity?" What do we decide is simply above questioning?

These are tough questions, yes, and I don't pretend to have the answers. But if honest investigation, pondering and questioning is getting shouted down by "diversity..." well, that I have a problem wtih.

Only if you enjoy art, music, theater, psychology, spirituality, television, books and movies....

Nice sterotyping.

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic.

BTW, creative people are also notorious for suffering from depression, bi-polar disorder and other similar conditions.

So, in the that spirit, we should stop seeking effective treatments for those things in the name of good art.