It is not clear that homosexuality is a biological mistake in the sense of a maladaptation.

We often interpret natural selection as operating at the level of the individual, but nature is more subtle than that. Sometimes it is more helpful to think of it at the genetic level. And at this level the existence of a gay gene (or whatever inherited factor) is interesting but not inexplicable by natural selection. It could well be adaptive.

How? Here’s one way.

A few years back researchers found that female maternal relatives of gay men tend to be more fecund than the average gal (Proceeding of the Royal Society 2004). The cartoon idea is that the factors endows the women in the family with super-heterosexuality, but occasionally gives sons homosexuality. The upshot: it could be that this inherited factor is a boon to inclusive fitness on the whole.

That is one way that homosexuality may not be a biological mistake. You may say that if natural selection had its druthers there’d be extra fecundity without homosexuality, but that is stretching the intentional metaphor too far.

And anyway, it’s not as if what you perceive as nature’s intention is normative.

Also, it’s not clear that individuals care much about having as many grandkids as possible. If that were true all men would donate to sperm banks and sire hundreds.

More likely people just do not want their kids to be different for the same reason that they don’t want their house to be a weird color: “What would the neighbors think??”

And I can imagine that parent will in fact abort their gay children if it is a quality that is detectable in the womb, or even have it changed. We need only look to the number of children born with Downs Syndrome in America in the past twenty years. The number is drastically down, coinciding with the ability of science to detect this problem in utero.

Wouldn’t the most effective way to prevent this selective abortion be to declare abortion without medical necessity to be illegal? Getting upset about the motives behind the abortion is just splitting hairs.

People give homosexuality a pass when it comes to calling it a defect, but what if it were another sexual preference that was a deviation from being attracted to sexually mature members of the opposite sex? You’d see few people arguing that such a cure isn’t an unqualified good for the person who has to deal with them.

It’s fine for someone to choose to remain homosexual, but it’s also perfectly fine for two parents to decide to tinker a little with their child’s DNA for the sole purpose of fixing genetic defects, in order to give their child a healthier, happier life.

Out gay people today are more interesting than the general population because to be a member of their set you have to have, by definition, gone against a strong social norm to follow you inclinations.

Now just imagine a world in which hetracil is widely available. Suddenly being an out gay means not only following your inclinations, but even refusing to change your inclinations. What an interesting group of people that would be!