>>Somehow I think homosexuality is not purely genetic, or else these guys would have vanished long ago by simply taking themselves out of the gene pool. However, there may be a predisposition, i.e. a chance that one's orientation is more or less wide. Don't see how that could be manipulated genetically without affecting something else along the way. Who'd take the risk?
>
>Unfortunately, there are many who would take the risk. Anyone thinking in terms of genetic engineering for anything will weigh one thing against another. A homophobe will see that as the worst possible prospect, and will feel that even if it has side effects, anything is better than allowing an offspring to suffer the 'horrors' of homosexuality.
>
>Think of the cultures that drown the female child, or the new blood tests that easily allow one to determine the gender of an unborn child. The majority apparently take the test in order to weed out the girls early on.

Ah, the proponents of the "the male homosexuals will inherit the world" movement.

>Zealots are capable of much that is incomprehensible to the rest of us. I realise that some of this is due to a cultural heritage that tells them this is necessary, and intellectually I can sort of understand it, but emotionally, never.
>
>Believe it, Dragan, they'd take the risk.

The sex revolution of 1968 was perverted. Instead of creating free people, it created free market for porn, and all sorts of other markets, including the most ancient one.

Had I believed in anything above humanity, I'd pray it saves us from saviors. Lacking that, I just hope the humanity is resilient enough to survive them.