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

I only have three questions, which address all your points: 1)Why should parents have the right to choose as opposed to the children, on something so fundamental to the child's character? 2)What is the bigger danger, being gay or having an important part of who you are suppressed? 3)RE your claims about metrics ie level of disease etc, given the fact that the homosexual population is much smaller than the general and that other lifestyle factors not directly related to homosexuality (ie smoking) are relatively prevalent in this group [1], why do you think homosexuality is the correct cause for all these things, especially when confronted with my point #3? I am now going to answer your questions. I notice that while I am at a disadvantage in this round, I am advantaged again in the last round so you do not need to take off words. (-: 1)The Kinsey reports are verified by multiple researchers, and although slight inaccuracies were discovered and corrected for, the figure is now generally accepted. Your modern results are surveys, not indications about who actually has the sexual feelings. Anyone who has done statistics at primary school will know survey-format and question effects have created a non-sampling bias (who wants to admit to having had a homosexual experience to his/her partner?) Now is also a good time to ask you to respond to contention #2 and #3. 2)Say we start vaccinating all the kids. That is a paradigm shift away from the present gay culture in the long run (even if there are still lots of gay kids around). So what is likely to happen to those who are already gay? Their numbers will start to dwindle by a few percentage points, and eventually the same groups will be ostracized and delegitimized by society in a way never seen before. This is bad for them, and I think that they deserve better treatment. While not an issue directly caused by your proposition, it is an unintended side-effect that has the potential to instill much more misery. 3)Again, assume the vaccination program is in place. Children who would otherwise associate with "gay" people are forced into becoming like the masses. I claim this is immoral because these children should have the right to associate with whatever group they choose, not the ones society deems convenient. By removing all inhibitions to being part of another group, this would be like "vaccinating" all national socialists to become democrats. In the long run, again, you will only stifle society with your plan. Hope these extra explanations make it clear to you. 4)These cultures are not likely to accept the vaccination. I contend that the vast majority of people make up one of these religions or cultures and therefore the vast majority of gay kids will not be vaccinated. So there will be no benefit, no matter what other benefits you claim, to the vast majority of gay kids. This argument I don't see as being fundamental to my case, but the point is that your "benefit" will continue to create lots of gay kids in exactly those households least tolerant of homosexuals in a society where homosexuality is becoming less legitimate anyway. 5)"Predominately prefer" is a very broad term, and is not objectively measurable. Your pre-natal cure would have to set a very exact number on how homosexual you have to be. I doubt you will find even two doctors who would agree on such a thing. Does that clarify what I meant? 6)Even if homosexuality is an undesirable condition, which I do not for a moment concede, "curing" it portrays it to society as if it were a malady of sorts. This is unethical because it sends the wrong message to people, which doctors are not allowed to do. The only way to avoid this dilemma is not to cure them at all. By the way, I would also like a response to contentions 8 and 10, in particular number 8 because I like that one! (-: 7)I think this is a slippery slope because geneticists are desperately looking for an excuse, any excuse, to allow them to expand their research into new fields. Now that they are able to, under your plan, they would be more likely to market still-more designed babies to consumers. When they do so, they are legitimized to carry out still further research. Can you see the slippery slope now? 8)Parents should have the option to cure pre-natal diseases, except that homosexuality is not a disease. This is not actually my view by the way, but the most favorable response I can possibly give you. It does not help your argument in any way. Please also respond to contention #12. 9)Do not assume that we are talking exclusively about males here. The theory applies to both uncles and aunts. An increase in the amount of influence one gender exerts has no impact on the theory, which simply explains why women with more children are more likely to have exactly one homosexual. 10)To be honest, I do not care. I am happy for my children to choose who they want to be. I would love them whether they turn out homo or heterosexual. I believe I could educate them well enough so that they can live a life as fulfilling as everybody else if they turn out gay. And I feel sorry for your children who will be forced to be little robots, carrying out their masters wishes even in their bedrooms. [1] http://www.conservapedia.com...