Homosexuality

[Pindar]

a haircut is not the same as altering genetic dat to result in a different person.

Based on what you wrote they are parallel: any change of a part constitutes a change (and in fact elimination) of the whole. Thus, a hair cut means the end of the person whose hair was cut.

your constant method of selecting only a small part of my argument and then applying your own definition in an effort to lead the conversation isn't going to work here.

Have you presented an argument? Is this it: "(in theory) changing genetic data so as to change a person/infant/foetus/whatever from homosexual to heterosexual is also elimination."?

Is there some larger argumentative strata I am missing?

I have presented no definition. I do understand rational implication however and can use it.

you need to answer my original question of whether your theory of being gay as a detectable physiological flaw holds parity with other, documented unwanted genetic flaws. pretty much a yes/no question.

I have presented no theory of being gay. Please read more carefully. I did say that if gaydom could be consigned to a genetic state then the more interesting question would be whether such should be considered a defect and fixed where possible.

Obviously, if being gay is a genetic flaw then it would be similar to other genetic flaws.