Assuming this study turns out to be valid - an assumption I am not yet prepared to make - it seems that this is a simple solution to the issue.

If homosexuality is not genetically innate, but the result of abnormal prenatal development, then why wouldn't you want to correct that abnormality? Who would it harm?

It sure seems to me, based on the constant barrage of complaints from homosexual activists of systematic discrimination, that this would be something that I would want to spare my kids if I could.

Think of it this way: If your kids are short because of a genetic predisposition, so be it. But if it turns out that their shortness is caused, not by genetics, but by a lack of some nutrient in their mother's diet, wouldn't you want to correct that?

Do you honestly intend to make a comparison between the physical effects of malnutrition and homosexuality?

In your analogy, the short stature would be a symptom of a larger, more dangerous health issue which needs to be addressed for the sake of avoiding further harm to the child.

For an anti-gay society, (and perhaps for conservatives such as yourself if your screen name is an indication), Homosexuality is not merely an abnormal trait of some larger disease. It is viewed as the disease itself.

But. There is no credible scientific evidence to support the belief that homosexuality causes harm other than the psychic stigma that comes with living in a society that freaks out that homosexuals exist.

There is scientific evidence that homosexuality is part and parcel of the diversity of normal human expression.

Leaving out the usual kneejerk "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" theological protest (or the biological determinist's corollary, males and females are evolutionarily wired to breed and pass on seed)... what exactly is so wrong with being gay anyway?

It's not a matter of it being right or wrong, it's a matter of parents making decisions that they feel are in the best interests of their child. Look, most people recognize that it's difficult being gay. You say it yourself in your reply. I'm gay, and I'll tell you it's difficult. The woman who is offered this treatment in the doctor's office knows this. She can't change society to make it ok for her child, but she can change her child's sexual orientation. And many will, and the more who do so, the lonelier it will be for the children of those who don't.

Simply put, you can't expect people to put high-minded, abstract values like "celebrating the diversity of humanity" above their own children's well being.

It's not a matter of it being right or wrong, it's a matter of parents making decisions that they feel are in the best interests of their child. Look, most people recognize that it's difficult being gay. You say it yourself in your reply. I'm gay, and I'll tell you it's difficult. The woman who is offered this treatment in the doctor's office knows this. She can't change society to make it ok for her child, but she can change her child's sexual orientation. And many will, and the more who do so, the lonelier it will be for the children of those who don't.

Simply put, you can't expect people to put high-minded, abstract values like "celebrating the diversity of humanity" above their own children's well being.

mzappala:

It's not a matter of it being right or wrong, it's a matter of parents making decisions that they feel are in the best interests of their child. Look, most people recognize that it's difficult being gay. You say it yourself in your reply. I'm gay, and I'll tell you it's difficult. The woman who is offered this treatment in the doctor's office knows this. She can't change society to make it ok for her child, but she can change her child's sexual orientation. And many will, and the more who do so, the lonelier it will be for the children of those who don't.

Simply put, you can't expect people to put high-minded, abstract values like "celebrating the diversity of humanity" above their own children's well being.

I just don't really like the idea of tampering with who people are before they are born. Sure it's sexuality today, tomorrow, everyone's got blue eyes (of course there is a difference between genetic engineering and hormone therapy, but you get the slippery slope argument). Being gay isn't a "disease" it doesn't interfere with a child's health. The only problems it may cause are purely social so I don't see why we should cure social problems with medical answers.

I can also just imagine that the same people who are all up and arms against stem cell research and "cloning" as they call it would be the ones jumping on this treatment. It's like the people who think it's "unnatural" to use hormonal contraception, but JUMP at the change to use fertility pills when the weren't built to reproduce easily. It's big 'ol bag of hypocrisy.

people with blue eyes have worse eyesight than those with darker eyes and they can have longer term problems with their eyes as a result.

if we are going to spare homosexuals of a hard life, then i say we spare blue eyed people of the same difficult life.

same thing goes for left handed people.

all you do in the end is reduce genetic diversity in our species which any scientist will tell you is a bad thing.

[all you do in the end is reduce genetic diversity in our species which any scientist will tell you is a bad thing.]

Did you so much as read the article? This has nothing to do with genetics.