There's also the other side: if someone is a homicidal psychopath due to their genetics, then I still do not want them to roam free. So genetically predetermined is not a good argument to use in favor of gay rights. People should be allowed to determine their own sexuality, regardless of whether that determination was preset by their genetics or not, just as people should not be allowed to commit murder regardless of whether that was preset by their genetics. (Same goes for other possible sources of determination.)
That's cheating. A person is only a homicidal psychopath after they have committed homicide. Locking up a psychopath who has committed no crimes is just as fucked up as locking up someone for being gay.
Prison is actually "fucked up" like that in way. Violent criminals are often locked up for longer than minimum of their sentence (denied parole), not for any revenge, punishment, or deterrence reason but only because they're judged as dangerous. That means the remaining time they spend in prison is because of their predicted future crimes.
Whether we lock them up or punish them afterwards is besides the point: in either case the "I'm genetically programmed this way" is not a defense that would (or should) fly when it comes to murder.
I really don't think that is besides the point. Your analogy only holds if the only issue at hand was anti-sodomy laws. But we're also concerned about protected rights and lessening discrimination against gay people who don't have any gay sex.
There may be individuals biologically inclined to commit murder, but they still don't have to. Gay people have no autonomy at all in choosing their sexual orientation. Even if you had a direct mandate from god that engaging in homosexual behavior was immoral, it would be unethical to punish someone for the way they were born. Punishing psychopaths for murdering people might have a weak argument against it, but it still seems reasonable under most legal/civic/ethical frameworks.
I presume they meant ones who have committed crimes, rather than ones who roughly fit a profile of who might commit homicide.
I agree that profiling someone like this could lead into some serious Minority Report territory where you try to arrest someone "before they commit a crime", which will inevitably sweep up a lot of people who wouldn't have committed such a crime.
Having such a deficit in empathy could be considered a disability, like many others, although not one the individual would necessarily be able to recognise, because to them, an absence of empathy would be "normal".
There's another side. Conversion therapy of any form is inhumane. It makes someone deny their very identity. It may even drive them to suicide. And for what, so someone doesn't get offended by their existence?
Why? In particular, why if it’s voluntarily chosen?
Surely if men can want to become women, then so can homosexual people want to becomes straight? (Whether or not they can succeed is of course a different issue.)
