A possibly moar politically correct term for this discussion is gene therapy. It focuses on correcting disorders and problems rather than genetically engineering the "superior" human. Neither term completely encompasses the other though.
@Khamsin I'm not disputing that the physiological process is any different. Likely the same chemical reactions occur to instill the feeling of lust, just with opposing stimuli. However that's the simplest part of the matter. There cannot be simply a "gay gene" because that simply shows a binary response, gay or not. This is far too simple, in the whole spectrum of sexuality, there is more than just gay and straight.
The next simplest interaction of genes would be two genes. Gene attraction to women and Gene attraction to men. A man with Gene attraction to women on would be considered heterosexual. A man with Gene attraction to men on would be considered homosexual. A man with both activated would be bisexual, and a man with neither activated would have no attraction. But even this is far too simple. There are many more sexual identities including tastes within sexual categories (physical attributes {fat, thin, muscular, hair color, even style}, personality types), pedophilia, zoophilia, and many more socially unacceptable sexual attractions.
This quickly becomes apparent that sexuality is not a one gene show. Is it entirely genetic? Again there is no conclusive evidence that it is. I personally think there are far too many factors involved to boil it down to simply genetic, though I believe genetics could play a role. But evidence such as fluidity of sexuality, people who were sexually abused having an increased likelihood of becoming abusers themselves regardless whether the original abuser was related to the abused or not, and the wide spectrum of sexual phenotypes and tastes, among many other things probably suggest that sexuality is not something entirely within the genetic code.
XI Wiki


ause:

