No, it's you who are acting "offended."

I didn't say Saletan is advocating for medicating gayness. What I clearly said is that he leaves open the possibility of supporting it, which he clearly does in the quoted passage, and which is clearly a morally feeble, cowardly -- dare I say, candyass? -- response to an issue concerning which a "time will tell" attitude hardly counts as "objectivity."

Especially in light of the general tone of the "Human Nature" column under Saletan's guidance. If you scroll through his recent posts there is no doubt that he believes in a principle of his own devising according to which technology trumps morality in all instances where liberal values are in question (although, for some strange reason, conservative values are never undermined in the same way). He not only suggests, he states straight out, that gay rights as a political position is doomed by medical advances, because it is beyond discussion that given the choice our society would use technology to eliminate gay fetal development.

Thus, it is you are wrong to act offended at the idea that poor William Saletan's "objective" analysis is being so unjustly accused of bias. The bias is beyond dispute, least all by Saletan himself, who has made a slanted reading of the relationship between science and morality central to his career as a middling unctuous hyperlinker.