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

I strongly support correcting things that have serious harms to people, because that is the role of medicine. Let us examine the "serious harms" that my opponent alledges are directly caused by homosexuality: 1)They are a minority. OK, so what? There are plenty of minorities in the world that we respect and do not try to vaccinate. This argument is just plain illogical. 2)He says that those who do not want to be homosexual have nowhere to turn to. That is not true. They have plenty of support groups, as I have shown. 3)Just because anal sex is worse does not mean it is very unsafe. If somebody chooses to engage in it, let them. If somebody chooses to kill themselves with cigarettes, let them! If that results in disease, then I am glad their stupidity is out of our gene pool. 4)I dispute how this "quality of life" is measured. I think it is purely because of the marginalization of the group. As I have said, education is the answer, vaccination is a failure. In any event, this is not a serious harm of homosexuality. 5)Vaccination is faster than education. I agree with my opponent on this one. But vaccination is so fast it is dangerous. And it can never be undone. 6)Homosexuals never find true love. lol. I don't think I know one "single" gay person. These points show that there are no concrete serious harms my opponent can think up. His case has failed. In this debate, I then went further than I had to and discussed possible other disadvantages to his hypothetical treatment. All of them are still standing at the end of the debate. Here is why: 1)By his own admission, he is not going to make kids straight. He is simply depriving them of sexual expression. 2)He is taking away the choices of the children and putting them into the hands of adults. By his own admission, he is simply hoping for parents to make the right decision. But how can they, given that they do not know what their child would have wanted? I certainly would not want my parents deciding what is good and bad for me! 3)He admits in response to my third question that the problem is not homosexuality but social intolerance. This is true, but the way to fix that problem is not to give people the option to be non-homosexual, because that just fuels the intolerance. Under his plan, homosexuals will still exist, just be even more marginalised. Then he goes on to demonstrate his own intolerance – "I don't really care if I temporarily marginalize a small segment of society". 4)He ignores short-term impacts of his plan, again by his own admission. He is oblivious to the fact that short-term impacts can have long-term consequences. 5)The vaccine encourages conformity. His only response is that it has a functional benefit too, but he never tells us what that is. Except that I infer he is talking about the idea that homosexuality is a malady, which need I remind you, is false. He also says that it depends on how we pitch the treatment. No it does not. 6)He ignores the religious and cultural groups that make up the majority of the population, saying that their beliefs that are written and constant are "merely speculative." Not good enough. 7)He ignores the lack of a scientific consensus on the level of homosexuality required for qualification. He puts the onus back on the scientists, who cannot agree. My point is that they never will. 8)He ignores my moral concerns about Genetically Engineered babies, pointing only to the profit they generate. That, by the way, is beside the point. 9)He shows his ignorance of the gay uncle theory. Gay uncles or aunts are required to care for children. Whatever one of the parents stays at home, their role is not diminished. 10)He says side effects do not ever accrue in medication. Lol. 11)He thinks it is OK to delegitimize the gay population, then goes on to say that people will still hang out with gays. Yeah right. 12)He thinks homosexuality is not related to intelligence. In fact, the best research says that it is [1]. In summary, let us give homosexuals the rights, the freedoms and the choices they, like everyone else, deserves. I thank my opponent both for the debate and for ignoring the fact that gays are people too. Let your vote show him that this is the case, because the motion has fallen. [1] http://www.springerlink.com...