I wrote this….call it a year and half ago.
If homosexuality is genetic in nature, doesn’t that argue that at some point a “treatment” could be developed for it? Gene therapies meant to address a host of other genetic conditions either already exist or are on the near horizon. Shouldn’t it be logical to assume that at some point in the future a procedure will be developed that essentially rewrites the genetic code that homosexuality arises from–in short, reversing or (as is more likely, if the genetic conditions for homosexuality can be detected at a fetal stage) preventing the condition from arising in the first place?
The problem with “If you think about it, if homosexuality is a choice, who would choose it?” is that such an argument presupposes that such a choice cannot exist.
What if it does, one day?
What if that day is closer than it seems?
Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.
The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.
It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.
Once the choice exists, it will be interesting to how the percentage of homosexuals in the population changes. Presumably most couples will choose to have a child that reflects their own sexuality, though some hetero couples of a more liberal bent may opt for a pregnancy without that specific genetic treatment, much as they opt for organic pesto and free-range chicken. I’ll expect we’ll see some rather impressive mental acrobatics when it comes to justifying a decision to address fetal deafness in the womb, but not fetal homosexuality . Conservative couples will likely take the opposite course, even as they perform similar acrobatics justifying the need to genetically treat what many will still insist is a moral choice. Given their penchant for producing offspring, the Quiverfull families will face that choice long before it becomes a national issue.
Since conservatives tend to outbreed liberals, homosexuality might well be much rarer a generation or so after a genetic therapy for it becomes available, and possibly more valued, as many rare things are–at which point producing a gay child might become fashionable. Then unfashionable, as the unwashed masses seize on that which was once a marker of taste among the hoi-polloi.
So, expect a bumper crop of gay children–many likely named Brittany, Britney, Brittani, Brittanie, Brittney or Brittni–in the trailer park equivalents of the future.
