Disease:

–noun 1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

I cannot see why a modified brain caused by pre-natal hormonal imbalances would fail to qualify, if it impairs a basic biological function. In this case, the biological function - reproduction - is not necessary for survival but it is necessary for the viability of the species of the whole.

Should gays be discriminated against? Nope. Neither should the deaf, the blind, the mentally handicapped, etc. But the day there is a reasonably safe and effective way to prevent this disease from inflicting my children, I will be the first to sign up.

Some pro-gay people around here remind me of the community of deaf people who don't WANT to be cured (or their children to be cured) lest it interrupt the community.

Procreating is not an obligation, it is a choice. Plenty of heterosexual men and women choose not to have children. Some are physically unable to have them. Being gay isn't some biological defect that is preventing me from having children. I'm perfectly capable of fathering a child. I simply have opted not to do so. Of course there's nothing wrong with having children. I just don't believe one's self-worth lives and dies on it.

Why are you calling homosexuality impaired basic biological function? What if Mother Nature intended that child to be homosexual so that it wouldn't add to the overpopulation of the species?

In that case, homosexuality would be conforming 100% to the biological function it was supposed to perform.

Just because YOUR puny and pathetic mind can't grasp the wonder of our biology doesn't mean that is what reality is, no more than just because religious idiots can't grasp the complexity of biochemistry they believe in "intelligent design".

"est it interrupt the community"

Religious idiocy "interrupts" our community FAR more than where I put my penis.

Some pro-straight people are desperately eager to cure the world of everyone who isn't like them. While I'd love for them to live in that miserably stunted world for a day, sadly it will never happen.

Scientists can claim all they want to claim about their test results. As an exceedingly content man who happens to be sexually attracted to other men--and who happens to be much better able to cope with the world than most of my straight friends--I can guarantee you that their attempts will never succeed.Nurture plays far too much of a role in the equation.

Now if we could just iron out the stoopid gene issue...

By similar arguments, society should try to "cure" the heterosexuals. Maybe best to leave nature alone instead?

To explain:

Since as you say reproduction is only necessary for the species as a whole, then the species is only "diseased" if, collectively, it is unable to sustain its numbers. Since our species is not experiencing underpopulation, it is therefore not "disordered" or "incorrectly functioning" for individuals to refrain from reproducing, while still enjoying the other individual and communal benefits of sex and sexual relationships. Not only homosexuality, but also sex with contraception, oral sex, sex with post-menopausal or pregnant women and every other kind of sexual practice unlikely to result in conception falls in the category of "healthy" but non-procreative sex.

In fact, if you believe (as many people do) that our species is experiencing overpopulation, you could argue that heterosexuality is in fact "disordered" and "incorrectly functioning". By this argument we should attempt to "cure" heterosexuality in some percentage of people, using whatever chemical means we discover through the research mentioned in the article.

If you feel (as I do) that this last suggestion is a terrible idea, perhaps we should err on the side of trusting nature, which has allowed homosexuality to persist over the millenia. There is a lot of human variation that is either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on context. Who knows what advantages society reaps from childless adults with a slightly different perspective on human relationships. The comparison to physical impairment (deafness, blindness) isn't really apples-to-apples since homosexuals are still able to experience sex.

Also, the case for imposing a fetal cure for something like deafness on non-consenting embryos could reasonably be made with input from deaf adults. I do not think you could ever find a clear enough consensus from homosexual adults to morally justify forcing that intervention on a fetus.

Handicaps often do not make something impossible - just difficult. Sure gays CAN have kids, but few choose to do so due to the practical obstacles. The link between your choice to not have children and your sexual orientation is real, not random chance.

Re-read your post, but switch "having children" with climbing Mt. Everest, and being gay with being blind. It makes complete sense.

Being gay is a disease which interrupts a basic biological function (indeed, according to some theories of evolution, THE most basic) that most people want to do and most people ought to do. Why would anyone want their children to be this way if they could prevent it?

Apparently you are still stuck in the 1970's. Birthrates have fallen through the floor all around the world. Every industrialized nation is well below replacement rate, most industrializing nations are as well, and anyone still above it is falling day by day. Over-population is a long-dead myth except for a few African countries...and even they are turning the tide now. So no, we do not need gays to protect us from a non-issue.

Actually, I would consider input from gay adults somewhat suspect. Just like the deaf people who try to prevent their children from receiving implants that will partially restore hearing (lest they hear too well and not fit in the "deaf community" to which their parents belong), gays have an strong emotional interest in the matter, which should be obvious from some of the nasty responses to my single usage of a single word. Indeed, this is true throughout politics...the people most affected usually have so much invested in the matter that while their opinion should be listened to, it is often hopelessly biased. Since it is a democracy, we have to count their votes, but we are often introducing a significant conflict of interest into the system in order to do so.

Point taken, but then again everyone has their own opinion, and anyone can seem biased from the perspective of someone who disagrees. While you may be upset by the strong language used against your initial remark, please remember that "disease" is a strong word in this kind of discussion. It assumes a norm and defines someone as deviating from the norm in a negative way. It may apply to homosexuals in terms of not having children, but many people also cite the psychological distress as a reason not to be gay. That strain is the responsibility of a larger group of people deciding that difference is wrong. I know that you don't mean that part of it per se, but that perception of difference is what comes across with words like "disease." Creating a homogeneous society by deciding that difference needs to be cured is not necessarily a good thing if it prevents us from seeing certain ways of being human.

I agree with you.

Also if homosexuality, theoretically is a "Gene" now, my question is how did this gene get passed on? It is simple science: two man can't make a baby together and two woman can't make a baby together, it is impossible. If they want a baby they can't make it with their partners.

So, how did this "gene" get passed on if they carriers of this "gene" can't recreate? More importantly, how did they get this gene if their parents had to engage in heterosexual reproduction in order for them to be alive? (I have never heard of homosexual reproduction) If everyone, 100% on earth was gay, our species would die out, there would be no reproduction, and I'm sorry to say it, but we would all die one day. This doesn't sound like a survival of a the fittest move to me, in order to survive (the human race), We Must reproduce.

I'm not gay, and I think all the hand wringing over gays - their "life style", their rights under the law, their threat to humanity - is bunk. Utter, bigoted bunk. They are different in one respect only, their sexual orientation. To know any of them personally is to understand that they are human beings who deserve every right and privilege afforded to everyone else. This seems so obvious and simple that I have absolutely no sympathy for the "arguments" against them.

As for reproduction: we are doing way too fine of a job. The poster above sounds the alarm that industrial countries are underperforming in making citizens. This is nonsense. The human population, especially of the industrial nations, is putting such a strain on the planet that we run the risk of spoiling the whole thing. It won't matter a whit if you are gay or straight when all people are as sterile as the atmosphere we have created.

Okay, so I exaggerate, but only a little.

Interesting that so many wish "to leave it to nature." So, do you agree that we should "leave it to nature" when it comes to abortion, fetal stem cells, and genetic research? I think this whole issue should be a lesson to the left about why so many on the right are concerned about the direction of medical research.

Sakura:

Handicaps often do not make something impossible - just difficult. Sure gays CAN have kids, but few choose to do so due to the practical obstacles. The link between your choice to not have children and your sexual orientation is real, not random chance.

Actually, many gay people are having children through surrogates and artificial insemination (I didn't mention adoption because obviously that doesn't boost the population growth). If I wanted to have children of my own, I would. Plain and simple. Many gay people who want children of their own are taking the steps to have them. Granted, it's not accidentally happening at age fifteen because someone "forgot" to use a condom while maintaining a membership in the "saving myself for marriage" club. But they aren't throwing their hands in the air and saying "Oh dear, I want to have children but I'm gay, so I guess I'll just go out dancing all night."

I don't think my input is somewhat suspect as you say. I do think yours is however, because you consider being gay a disease, and it has long been medically proven to not be some kind of disorder. Calling it a disease is your opinion (to which you're entitled), not medical fact. To date no one has given me a special sticker so I can park closer to the supermarket. There are many straight people who are unable to procreate, and no one is calling them "diseased". Being deaf or blind, while certainly nothing to be ashamed of, IS a medical condition that could be considered a disorder. If your beef with gays truly is only about their ability to procreate, then problem solved. We can, and we do.

"Being gay is a disease which interrupts a basic biological function (indeed, according to some theories of evolution, THE most basic) that most people want to do and most people ought to do."

>>Actually it doesn't--barring actual infertility gay people and straight people are equally capable of impregnating/becoming pregnant. They may choose not to, just as many straight married couples elect to remain childless, but the capacity remains.

That said, by what reasoning is conceiving a biolgical child something most people ought to do?

"Why would anyone want their children to be this way if they could prevent it?"

>>Why would anyone not want their children to be this way even if they could prevent it? The only downside to being a homosexual I see is that they're subject to discrimination, something hardly unique to differential orientation, for which the ethical solution is to eliminate that discrimination--not chemically alter individuals innate beings.

...by immigration, however, and if this fails to be sufficient it would certainly be appropriate to encourage individuals to elect to bear children (through financial incentives, provision of affordable child care, etc.) There's a lot of possible solutions that don't require intervening to alter an individual's innate self.