The author does seem to bring forth some though provoking ideas about a possible genetic link to male homosexuality, but his closing remark--(paraphrased) would we medicinally treat homosexuality like we treat sickle-cell anemia?--is absurd, even disparaging, to say the least. True, sickle-cell anemia (SCA) is a genetic expression (mutation) that is treated medically, but that is because exacerbations of SCA are often extremely painful and can threaten limb and life. Homosexuality has never shown to be physiologically detrimental (though it could perhaps be psychologically damaging, especially in social structures that show much disfavor toward gays).

So why would the author seemingly juxtapose the two "conditions"? Perhaps because homosexuality was at one time classified in the American Psychiatric Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM). And while homosexuality is no longer listed in the DSM, the idea that it's a mental disease still lingers in the air that we breathe. To some it's overtly conspicuous--like the repugnant smell of burning sulfur, while others don't even notice. I have the feeling that the author of the main article is somewhere in between the two; ambivalent about the topic on a personal level though generally desensitized (or even accepting) on a social level.

In the end, though, conservatism aside, what difference does it make whether homosexuality is choice or fate? It's not like gay men are harming the world. If anything, they've made it a more fabulous place to live.

go back and reread that last paragraph. He was explicitly warning AGAINST conflating diseases like SCA with homosexuality.

"If anything, they've made it a more fabulous place to live. "

Examples?

You give Saletan too much credit. He asks, in a tone of disingenuous wonderment, if we would treat homosexuality in the same way as sickle cell anemia. As the top post in this thread shows with thorough lucidity, the comparison itself is absurd.

But this latest "Human Nature" is merely in keeping with Saletan's whole approach to homosexuality as a "problem" in genetics. Over the course of a recent series of articles he's made clear that medical technology will "undermine" the argument on behalf of gay rights; to claim that gayness is inherent will only lead to a determination to find a hormonal treatment for it.

His reasoning is utterly circular; instead of presenting an argument for why male homosexuality should be treated as a "problem" in the first place, he talks his way around a tautological circle according to which any thing that can be "medicated" is by definiton a problem, a defect, a "disease." Ruzylacm has done us all a favor in the face of Saletan's confused determinism by reminding us that any discussion of whether homosexuality is a thing to be eliminated is a priori ethical and ideolgical in nature.

I had seen on tv on Dateline a long time ago that they had some kind of way to "treat" gays and homosexuality. I don't remember what it was and how it worked, but it seems kind of far fetched.

Just out of curiosity, was it a medical treatment, or were they "praying the gay away?" I know there's been an ongoing issue with the "ex-gay" movement. Basically religious based groups promise to cure homosexuality by having you pray whenever the urge strikes you. Not really a cure, in the sense that the person is still attracted to the same sex. I didn't see the show, so it might have been something else.

MarkEHaag:

You give Saletan too much credit. He asks, in a tone of disingenuous wonderment, if we would treat homosexuality in the same way as sickle cell anemia. As the top post in this thread shows with thorough lucidity, the comparison itself is absurd.

But this latest "Human Nature" is merely in keeping with Saletan's whole approach to homosexuality as a "problem" in genetics. Over the course of a recent series of articles he's made clear that medical technology will "undermine" the argument on behalf of gay rights; to claim that gayness is inherent will only lead to a determination to find a hormonal treatment for it.

His reasoning is utterly circular; instead of presenting an argument for why male homosexuality should be treated as a "problem" in the first place, he talks his way around a tautological circle according to which any thing that can be "medicated" is by definiton a problem, a defect, a "disease." Ruzylacm has done us all a favor in the face of Saletan's confused determinism by reminding us that any discussion of whether homosexuality is a thing to be eliminated is a priori ethical and ideolgical in nature.

You are being way too harsh on Saletan. It seems to me he is merely reporting facts and wondering what could happen. That's not at all the same thing as supporting it. I highly doubt Saletan has an anti-gay agenda like you are presuming.