As a straight parent who would not care (really) if my kids turned out to be gay, I've got a question: if an overwhelming number of people do care and have the ability to override their kids' gayness, would I then be essentially forced into making the same choice just so that my child would have a reasonable chance of having sex at all?

If 10% of people are gay now (and I don't know the number, but that's one that I've heard bandied about), that's a limited but not outrageously small choice for a date on a Saturday night. If 95% of those would-be homosexuals are done away with through prenatal tinkering, the field starts to get a little tough...

you can make arguments on all sides. How about this one since prenatal tinkering still seems a ways off. Go to gay marriage and think about how many oppressed foreign homosexuals will be coming here to marry partners getting citizenship to the best freest country and one that allows them to be free. So you could see a significant rise in homosexual numbers...


also once the proof arises that it is genetic, i think alot of people will back off their aversion, it leads down a slippery slope of what is a defect. homosexuality is found in every species we take the time to look.

Then the question is, if you are calling it a defect, what would also classify as a defect? Blue eyes are inferior as people with blue or lighter colored eyes have worse eye sight and higher rates of eye problems than those with darker eyes. Should we be screening for this?

Left handed people don't live as long as right handed people (by about a year) so should we protect these children by eliminating them in the womb or fixing them?

we should always look to maximize the genetic diversity in our species not curtail it. so gay people don't have as high a rate of having children as heterosexuals, its not like the world in underpopulated and there are more heterosexuals that do not have children than all homosexuals combined.