>Well if you're viewing it in the context of science and
>medicine


I wasn't. I was speaking on viewing it in the same way that we view infertility.
Well-meaning people often use the infertility line, and it's not a good comparison.
This was my point in asking these questions... the fact that even people who "defend"
homosexuality do it in the wrong way... thus you have overblown discussions like
we often have on here AND offline. I'm in COMPLETE agreement that it's like being
left-handed, and this is exactly the point I wanted someone in here to make,
because ppl have a tendency to overlook the points I make on this particular site,
so I just asked the questions that would facilitate the discussion.



>>Some actually argue that this is the case.
>
>People argue lots of things -- that doesn't mean we should
>entertain their nonsense, especially when it's destructive, as
>is the case with "gay conversions." If homosexuality is deemed
>a lack of heterosexuality, then who is to say that blackness
>isn't a lack of whiteness, a legitimate disorder considered
>treatable via skin bleaching and total assimilation?



Well, as stated above, the "lack" idea was only if you look at it homosexuality
from the perspective of infertility as Ted Gee suggested. I don't think it should
be seen that way. But if one viewed race that way, it would white people who were
lacking melanin, lol... and that's not treatable, hence their demonizing of Black folks
and relentless attempts to make US feel inferior... but that's another thread.


>The burden of change must be put on the oppressor, not on the
>oppressed. Gay people aren't "lacking" anything but the peace
>that comes with being accepted for who they are


Agreed.