I have a feeling that by the time any sort of fetal hormonal diagnosis and treatment for homosexuality became available, a lot more american parents would know a happily married gay couple with kids who lives across the street and seems pretty normal. That's the direction our society is headed and science is going to be pretty slow to catch up with policy and family law.

A lot of pregnant women I know get really paranoid about what they put in their bodies. Somehow, I can't see the type of people who buy organic milk (hormone and antibiotic free) being very comfortable with exposing their unborn baby to a hormone regimen, just in order to prevent the baby from being gay. The scientific evidence for the side effects of these therapies may be very good (they'd have to be to get FDA approval) but so is the scientific evidence for the safety of vaccines. Parents are still going to be concerned.

So the societal result of something like this would have all of the very liberal parents joining neo-natal PLFAG as soon as they get the test result, a large number of moderate parents deciding that they're more comfortable with their baby being gay than being exposed to lots of hormones, and the conservative/religious types opting for the treatment without reservation.

Which means that the gay kids will be born to parents who are either excited about the idea of having a gay child, or who are mostly ok with it. The religious/conservative types won't get a chance to have gay kids and mess them up by sending them to a "God will make you straight" program or telling them they'll burn in hell. That generally seems like a good thing to me.

Parents could also conceivably use the same technology to specifically have gay children too. The Baptist guy might want to be careful what he wishes for.

Why does everyone assume they know how "religious types", Christians, conservatives, and Baptists will respond to this theoretical "vaccine"? The people posting such things do not fall into any of the above categories and, therefore, haven't the least clue as to how these groups would react. Even I, as a Christian, can't feign to know how every other Christian would respond to such a scenario.

We're as diverse as *gasp* gay men! How would you feel if I stereotyped every gay man into an effeminate, flamboyant, drama queen that works at the local salon? I promise, we come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and colors and a dizzying array of opinions.

We may not know the "cause" of "homosexuality," we may not even agree whether it is inborn or chosen. But we certainly know that religiosity can be prevented. Perhaps we are discussing the wrong "vaccine."

Well, actually I grew up in a very conservative christian home. I still consider myself to be evangelical, but have developed a strong conviction that legislating Christian morality only imposes hypocrisy on people and denies the transformative power of a relationship with Christ. If you can make people 'good' (by Christian standards) by just passing laws and constitutional amendments, what do you need Jesus for?

All of which is just to say, that when I talk about conservative Christians, it's as someone who's been one, and someone who still shares enough common values to see that position with empathy. So I know my parents, in a position like this, would see opting for a hormone therapy like this as a way to spare their child overwhelming temptation to sin and a great deal of pain and suffering. Not every Christian would feel this way, certainly just as large numbers of Christian parents find themselves becoming much more accepting of homosexuality when their own kid comes out. But if you know from before the child's birth, what their sexuality is going to be, then that's going to have a radical impact on how you respond, compared to it being something you find out when the child is in their teens or college.

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.

I have blue eyes. I like them; think they're pretty. I also have 20/400 vision. I hate that. If some sort of pre-natal therapy had been available to my parents when I was en utero that would have cured the vision issues but altered my eye color, would I want that? Sure. I like my blue eyes, but if I had brown or green or gray eyes my whole life I'd probably be just as emotionally attached to them. And I wouldn't have to hunt down 3 oz. bottles of contact lense solution every time I wanted to fly! But eye color is a pretty trivial part of a person's identity. Not so much for sexual orientation...