If there is a genetic component of homosexuality, there could eventually be an in utero test that could be done by pregnant mothers to determine if their child is likely to be homosexual.
Many (not all) parents could elect to have an abortion in that case, out of a desire to have a greater chance to have grandchildren and continue their line, or out of other personal preferences. The radical effect of such a genetic test could be to breed homosexuality, whether dominant or recessive, out of the human species rapidly over the course of several generations.
Needless to say, I would condemn such a test specifically and abortion and eugenics in total, and I don’t believe individuals’ behavioral choices are bound by their genetics.
But this led to an interesting discussion (actually, argument) last week with a co-worker, who supports “abortion rights”: would she accept the use of such a test, and would a parent have the right to decide to abort a chid (which she argues for in most every other case) if the test came back positive and they didn’t want to have a gay child.
She argued vehemently that the test and procedure would have to be made illegal, but couldn’t come up with a logically consistent argument to support her position, based on her stated position that abortion is solely a personal choice of the mother. I asked if the same argument applied to selective sex abortions, which are common in some countries and possibly becoming more common here, but she denied that this is frequent enough to be a problem. She did say she felt uncomfortable with the idea of aborting females solely for being female, but seemed to be in a quandry as to whether “feminism” or “abortion rights” trumped each other.
Interesting question to ask your secular friends, perhaps.