Well, I’m not going to get back into the “not normal” =/= “abnormal” discussion again. We handled that higher in the thread for anyone who’s interested.
Homosexuality is not “normal”, but that doesn’t make it “abnormal”. “Above average” intelligence may still be in a “normal” range of intelligence, but super-intelligence is also not “normal” ... not that it’s a bad thing, either. And that’s all I have to say about that.
@laureth I understand and appreciate what you’re saying here, but as @johnpowell also said earlier (with equal validity and apparently similar history), if I can paraphrase him, “Acceptance is a goal… but we’re not there yet.”
I was perfectly willing and unconditionally accepting of my own children when I had my own (unvoiced) concerns about their own sexuality. It wouldn’t have made any difference to me, but I saw what the ambiguity and “perceived difference” with their peers was costing them, too. I don’t want, and wouldn’t want to make my kids pawns in a global political game, either. The hell with that.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir had excellent points about safety, which should obviously be a prime concern. I should have stated in the original hypothetical question that the “treatment” would be no more dangerous than, say, the immunizations that we give our kids. That is, perhaps not “perfectly safe” (what is, after all?), but “safe beyond freak accidents”. And freak accidents can happen to anyone for nearly any reason. (Hence the term.)
Maybe I don’t understand @tinyfaery‘s distinction (although I understand the words well enough), between choosing a child’s gender, if that’s possible, and choosing a “normal” sexual preference. (That freighted word again.)
Maybe tomorrow I’ll ask “What if surveys showed that most homosexuals would have wished that for themselves, if their parents could have assured that they’d be born heterosexual?” but not now.
Thanks for all the responses and discussion so far.