What ever happened to it not being anyones business what you do with your genes pulled down?

If you believe homosexuality is genetic, then you probably also believe in Darwin.

But, according to Darwin's theory, wouldn't homosexuality have bred itself out, since, at least until very recently, homosexuality pretty much precluded having children?

What the??? Now I've seen everything.

And how exactly, EVEN IF I thought being gay was genetic instead of behavioral, how praytell are they going to decipher the difference?????

I started to think back to high school biology and genetics, but then I got a headache.

If it were recessive, the gene could hang around in people who carried the gene but were not gay. (Like brown-eyed parents having blue-eyed children.)

But the nature of genetics would mean that if both parents exhibited the recessive gene, then the child MUST as well. So just like two blue-eyed parents cannot have a brown eyed kid, nor could two gay parents have a straight kid.

One should not just focus on genetics here, but the possibility of somatic markers and various additional correlates of homosexuality should be considered too. For instance, a recent report has pointed out that in three samples enriched with male homosexuals, the samples had a roughly 30% prevalence of counter-clockwise scalp hair whorl rotation compared to about 8% of general population-based male controls (scalp hair whorl rotation is of prenatal origin); see my summary of this report here. There have also been some reports of an excess of leftward dermal ridge count asymmetry (fixed prenatally) among male homosexuals, although this find is not robust. Male homosexuals have been repeatedly shown to be more likely than heterosexual men to have older brothers, and the high fraternal birth order effect explains about 25% of the variance in male homosexual outcomes. Both male and female homosexuals are more likely to be non-right-handed, which has neuroanatomical correlates. Given these correlates, other correlates of homosexuality, several other finds yet to come, advances in neurophysiology, and improved analysis of fetal neuroanatomy (see gay-straight brain metabolism differences here), the possibility arises that by examining fetuses for a clustering of several correlates of homosexuality, one could easily identify fetuses that are far more likely than average to end up being homosexual, and this raises ethical problems concerning how such advanced knowledge could be put to use.

If as in the present, it is legally allowed to abort normal, healthy fetuses -- conceived following a non-incestuous consensual sex act -- at the whim of a pregnant woman who is not medically threatened by her pregnancy, then other forms of abortion couldn’t be more unethical. In the latter scenario, government restriction of some forms of abortion could be justified in special circumstances which threaten social order such as persistent population-level-biased sex-specific abortions, i.e., banning the abortion of fetuses that are highly likely to turn out to be homosexual could be justified if one convincingly argued that society would be much worse off if there were fewer homosexuals around, but this will surely be a very difficult argument to make.

If advanced fetal diagnostics can identify those who are highly likely to turn out to be homosexual, it will be a feminist nightmare come true. On the other hand, widespread abortion of fetuses that are highly likely to be homosexual will at most reduce the prevalence of homosexuals, not eliminate them, given the remarkable phenotypic variability observed among homosexuals.