It is true that gay people do not share the same legal protection and social standing that straight people do and as a result face more challenges however how is the problem to be fixed that they are gay and not societal perceptions of homosexuality? In some parts of the world and throughout history being born a woman or being born Jewish would your life harder but this is not the same as a congenital malformation and as civilized people we understand this.

We aren't talking about making a person's life potentially easier by making them heterosexual, we are talking about using eugenics to shape society. We are not talking about making people happier & healthier through science we are talking about eliminating that which some consider subhuman and percieve as lacking. This is a serious ethical question that should be approached as such and approached honestly instead of beating around the bush with nonsense about religion and choice and false altruism.

Well, technically no, we are NOT talking eugenics. (The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.) The changes would not be to the gene pool -- they would just affect the development of the fetus.

Its the same argument that is circulating in the deaf community. As more treatments are found to cure deafness, a large segment of that community has been arguing there is nothing to cure.

Lately autism has been the subject of those arguments as well.

However the communities feel about these cures, the decision on whether to treat a fetus or minor child will remain with the parents. There absolutely no chance that will change. In time the deaf culture may become a thing of the past. That may well be true for the gay community as well. Outrage from either community isn't going to matter one bit.

It's a really sad day when you compare autism and deafness with homosexuality.

Homosexuality isn't a disease. There's nothing wrong with it. Stripped of the superstitious religious (and moronic) negatives attached to it - there is not one argument that can be made against it. In fact, homosexuality is a POSITIVE to society. It provides a necessary population relief valve.

antigoglin, I have to disagree with you on two points.

First "eugenics" means both.

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention... Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.

Second, even if you could eliminate all future births of deaf children you would still have a deaf community due to deaf children being born to families who could not afford treatment or did not want it and people who became deaf at some point after they were born, it would change the community but communities are constantly in change, deafness would not be a thing of the past. The same goes for homosexuality. Even if you could find a prenatal cure you would still have people who could not afford the treatment or did not want the treatment. And people who were not born gay but chose to be and don't forget the transgendered and bisexual.

So yes, we are talking about eugenics, we are talking about changing society for what some think is the better. What I am saying is that we need to be honest about why some think it is better and if that is neccessarily true and ethical.

dingle,

You're right; homosexuality is not a disease. Nor is three anything morally wrong with it. Nor are homosexuals of any negative impact to society.

However, homosexuals don't have the opportunity to contribute to the genetic pool the way mammals traditionally do- through the children they conceive with their partners.

And there's nothing wrong with not having children, nor is there anything wrong with having children in a less traditional way (donor egg/sperm, carrier uterus, whatever works), but I think I would want my hypothetical children to have the opportunity to do it the old fashioned way if they so chose.

Namu, your argument is pretty useless. By your definition of eugenics, any effort at social change with an explicit goal in mind is eugenics. 'How dare you try and free those slaves, you are just trying to change society for what some portion of the populace think is better and we all know that is eugenics'.

That is not a value bad argument, it's just a value useless argument.

The problem here, as hinted to by your title is that we are looking for an answer when in fact there is no explicit question. From a scientific view, the question is "what is the cause of homosexuality'. The answer this article asserts is a relationship not to society or genes, but to hormones.

From a moral view however, there is no explicit question. So when you say 'why is eugenics the answer', I would say 'well first off we need a question before we can go asking why is anything an answer'.

Finally, if this research panned out to be perfectly correct and sexual orientation is decided purely by random hormone releases during pregnancy, how is leaving said orientation up to some random biological action more moral than parents making a considered choice?