The Cure, now with More Science™

At least, I'll try to add some more science.

The dangers of, if not a "potential" pill that could repress homosexuality, but a theoretical one, are twofold, the way I see it.

One, lack of understanding - i.e., "being gay is a choice" versus "being gay is genetic."
Two, genetic modification, Aryan-ism, and augmentation.

One, then.
The major trouble here is that homosexuality is still, I believe, not well understood. Too many people are too content to simply say, "Well, the Christian Bible declares it a sinful abomination. People keep themselves from murdering, don't they? Murder is an abomination, too. Why can't people keep from being gay?"
There are probably millions of counterarguments out there for this one, and it isn't my main point, so let me just say that that's a completely bogus way of looking at things, end.
To those people, though - not necessarily Christians, let me make plain, but anyone for whom being gay is supposedly a choice - the possibility of a pill to cure homosexuality is a viable thing. Well, why not? Many people still think, despite what the APA has ruled, that homosexuality is a disease; this itself is a belief system which has no merit or verifiable fact, but still it exists. Then again, the United States isn't necessarily known for its smooth logic - just look at Creationists. I refuse to even write "the Creation vs. Evolution debate" because there is no debate, in my mind, there's only ignorance versus fact. Similarly, I grant the belief that gaiety is a disorder no credence, but that way of thinking need to be mentioned because for such people there is something to be cured, and so a cure is viable. Too bad medicine, science, and fact get in the way, eh? So, my first point: There can be no cure because, medically, there is nothing to cure.

Two.
Suppose medicine were to discover whatever gene sequence(s) separate homosexual and heterosexual humans. What would you do with that?
On the one hand, how much could you get into debating the Hippocratic Oath? Isn't it definitively harmful to change a person so completely? There are a couple of different ways to look at this, too:
*Personal choice. If you, as an accountable adult for whatever reason, didn't want to be gay, and could go to your doctor (well, a specialist, anyway) and say, switch it off, that would be viable. I would find it fairly repugnant, but it could happen.
*Parents' choice. Suppose such a genetic sequence could be detected in utero. If parents didn't want their child to be gay, they could tell their doctors to simply modify the child. This is a frightening option for me because who knows how that would turn out? See, my parents are lovely liberal people who have known plenty of gay folks, but suppose they thought they would be doing me a favor by deactivating the gay sequence before I was born?
Simply put, I would not exist.
Someone else would, and I suppose this then become more of a hindsight problem because I would never know the me that I am, and likewise I would never know the straight version of me. Still, it's a rather scary thing to think about, because where does it stop? Theoretically, if your parents could manipulate the genes for sexuality, what else could they do? How far do we get into petri dish babies? Oh, I want a blond boy; oh, I don't want the kid to be as black as your father; oh, I would like to have a straight child. Dangerous territory. This, I think, is where the Hippocratic Oath should come in, even though I can see plenty of arguments against it.
*Someone else's choice. The largest possibility I see here is in ex-gay camps, which could profess to be completely ex-gay, were this gene sequence discovered. On the one hand, this could also fall under personal choice, but imagine a teenager who's been sent off to a real ex-gay camp. Surprise, now you're definitively straight! That, my friends, is a frightening idea.

Any way you look at it, it's a scary thing. I would like to end here with "and if they are looking for it, let the doctors spend their time searching for a cure to AIDS or something!" But I know that people who search for such disease cures and for gene sequences are very different types of scientists, so so much for that.

Kurt Vonnegut or Margaret Atwood or god-knows-who would probably have a field day with this idea, in fictional form. But, truly? The idea of being able to screw around with who you are, who you have been, or who you could become, at least on a genetic level, should remain firmly in the realm of fiction.