If developed, a pre-natal cure for homosexuality would be desirable

OK ... here goes! I have 13 substantive contentions. Like my opponent, I would like to remind readers that this is about working out what is good for homosexuals, not about whether homosexuals are good, so please put aside any prejudices you might have. First, I contend that any medication has risks and benefits associated with it. In the past, pills which affected sexuality, no matter how successful, have always carried side-effects. Genetic treatment for homosexuality leads to "high blood pressure, plus changes in glucose metabolism, brain structure and brain function, leading to memory problems" because of changes in associated genes. [1] It is largely for this reason, coupled with the lack of evidence of any negative issues associated with same-sex relationships, that "No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public" [2] Second, I contend that homosexuals who feel like their relationships are not working, and wish they were not homosexual for this reason, already have sufficient support available to them. Excellent international organizations, such as Evergreen International, already provide sufficient support services to this group [3]. Many millions of others have turned to religious organizations and found support there. Paul Gebhard suggests this may affect about 35% of the population, whom you want to medicate [4]. I rather support them having this choice. Third, a recent study [5] found the risk of drug abuse and suicide actually doubled after people who used to be gay became straight. I do not understand why this would not be true for people at any stage in development, given that we're dealing with genes here, which remain constant throughout life. Fourth, the remaining 2% of the people are gay and proud. By drugging people into what society perceives is "OK", you marginalize and delegitimize this group. This cannot be a good thing for this population either. Fifth, you deny children the right to associate with the group mentioned in point 4 above. It is not moral to play God over something so fundamental to a person's character. Sixth, many religious groups do not believe in this sort of medication (Christians, Muslims etc) because they believe it to be a choice [6]. Therefore this sort of drug would not go down very well with cultures where these beliefs are widespread, undermining your plan because unless most parents adopt it, there will be no real change to society and no real benefit to homosexual children either. Seventh, there is some suggestion that sexuality might be a fluid thing [7]. This would suggest that your "treatment" would affect the normal sexual development of EVERYONE, gay and non-gay, which I do not think most people would find desirable. This is consistent with the views of Sigmund Freud [10]. Eighth, just because you cure homosexual relations does not mean you create heterosexual ones [8]. This would indicate, and I quote from my source, that you are depriving people from their ability to respond to others sexually. Depriving people of anything is bad enough. Ninth, it is unethical because it purports to be a "cure" for something commonly deemed not to be an illness, providing a misleading representation of homosexuality as something that needs to be "cured" when in fact by even your standards it is only undesirable [9]. Tenth, it is unethical because it reinforces commonly held prejudices against homosexuality that are baseless and unfounded [9]. Unless my opponent demonstrates why these claims are legitimate, it is ethically illegitimate to support this motion. Eleventh, by legitimizing a parent's right to choose their child's sexual orientation, you also legitimize their right to create babies with not only designer bodies but designer minds. Hey, some parents might want it. Is that the sort of society we want to live in? Taken with a long-term view, we will likely become more obedient, because that's what parents want in children. Which makes every single human being more vulnerable to exploitation. Which is bad. Twelfth, some of the greatest people in history have been homosexual. If it were not for this influence, one can only speculate whether their minds would have taken the human society to where it is now [10]. Think Plato. Finally, Richard Dawkin's "gay uncle" theory might also have some merit [11]. If true, then that means homosexuality is important to human survival, and eradicating it might have dire consequences for our civilization. It also explains why mothers of homosexual children have more kids [12]. My case is simple - there is no good cause to eliminate something that is so good for society as a whole. It is grounded in the principles of choice, tolerance and freedom. I can't wait to rebut my opponent's case and await his questioning. For now, I too must rest my weary head. Till next time! [1] http://unitedwestandky.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.evergreeninternational.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] Shidlo, Ariel; Schroeder, Michael (2002). "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33 (3): 249–259. cited in http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [7] see analogy at http://www.angelfire.com... [8] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu... [9] http://www.sexualwholeness.com... (second part) [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] www.youtube.com/watch? v=MHDCAllQgS0 (without the space, I didn't want it to embed the video) [12] http://answers.yahoo.com...