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

Answers to questions: 1) Because the child can't choose himself before he is born. The parents have the child's best interests in mind most of the time. You support vaccines to cure birth defects, so presumably we can just argue homosexual dysfunction. 2) I don't know. It depends. 3) Your third point will be addressed. Some causes for the prevalence of diseases comes from the mechanics of homosexual sex. Many psychological issues can stem from social intolerance. Drug use probably comes from the lowered life expectancy. Who cares if you get lung cancer at 60 when you die at 40 from AIDS? Its depressing but homosexuality is very highly correlated with these disadvantages. Given that this is my last round, I'll have to economize! First some comments on neg's answers to my q's. 1) The plethora of other reports generate significantly different results... I understand the methodological differences. I would claim this is a moot point because if 30% of men are homosexual, 15% of everyone is homosexual. Still a minority group, so many of my arguments depending on this fact are still valid. 2) I don't think short term impact warrants much consideration. I'd rather improve people's lives for the next 1000 years than worry about one generation. 3) The vaccination is not about conformity, it is about functionality. The same logic that leads us to support a vaccination against serious birth defects leads me to support a vaccination against homosexuality. 4) I think your answer is largely speculative. Regardless, as long as some people use the vaccine they are improving their children's lives. 5) Its up to scientists to discover the causes and extent of homosexuality. I would argue that even the ultimate grey case - bisexuals - could benefit from the vaccine since they also have exposure to the many dangers I've been mentioning. 6) I disagree, but this is another short term consideration that I can ignore as above. 7) I think the slippery slope depends more on the accessibility of the science rather than the motives. There is already a market for genetically engineered babies. 8) But it is a disadvantage. "Disease" is just rhetoric. I care about functionality. 9) Your answer still doesn't explain why society needs gay uncles. 10) I would love my children unconditionally too. But I would still choose to vaccinate against deformity, mental illness, and homosexuality. I don't want my children to die before I do. >>> Addressing the Neg Case: C1) Side effects of real life medication doesn't matter. We agreed to treat the vaccine as medical magic. C2) The existence of homosexual support groups only proves how difficult it is to be homosexual C3) Side effect. See arguments above in C1). C4) I don't really care if I temporarily marginalize a small segment of society. Debates like this might help to convince homosexuals that a vaccine is an act of love and compassion rather than bigotry and homophobia. C5) People and children can still hang out with gays C6) This is another transitional point. I don't care what religious nuts think. Anyway, the existence of a vaccine is more likely to convince them that homosexuality IS actually genetic. C7) Covered when addressing bi-sexuality in the questions section above. C8) Ah this is an interesting point. The resolution does not specify that the vaccine will make people straight. I still advocate the development of a vaccine because is an incremental step towards heterosexuality. There are many sex-drive treatments, and they will continue to get better in the future. C9) You should still fix undesirable things. C10) That depends how the vaccine is pitched. I'm not advocating the vaccine out of homophobia. C11) I don't think designer babies are a bad idea. I claimed before that I think parents are more likely to choose traits to make their children successful rather than robotic. Regardless, my assumed burden is to "cure bad things" rather than "create more good things". C12) And a lot of real smart people have been straight. I dont know if homosexuality is related to the greatness of thinkers. C13) I claimed above that "gay uncles" are anachronistic. Stay at home dads fill their shoes. >>> Buffering Aff Case C1) A) Anal sex really is dangerous! Heterosexual intercourse is much safer. Therefore, being homosexual is a physical disadvantage. B) Intercourse with other homosexuals is more likely to result in disease. Disease is a disadvantage. C) Homosexuals have a lower overall quality of life. Causes aside, I'd rather not be in this demographic. D) "Given that you meet a person, your chances are significantly higher that you can have a serious romantic relationship with them if you are heterosexual." C2) A) Rather than wait for the masses to become tolerant, a vaccine might dissolve the conflict much more quickly. B) Choices are nice! Admittedly, a vaccine would not allow individuals to make their own choices. The parents are the decision makers. But parents usually have their child's best interest at heart, and doctors can help inform their decision with pamphlets of this debate! Thanks for giving me your time larz. I've enjoyed it.