If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[Angrboda]

I think there are perhaps several questions here.


Is homosexuality in and of itself inherently bad?
Is homosexuality inherently neutral? Contextually bad? Inherently good?
Is a natural trait inherently worthy?
Is what is natural a basis for what is right?
Is the measure of value based on something's utility, either to the individual, the species, or the ecosystem?
Should we prevent homosexuality in an ideal world where no discrimination against homosexuals exists (and the dating ratio problem were somehow solved) ?
Should we prevent any condition in a world where it could be reliably predicted to result in (more) suffering (than usual)?
(This gets to the heart of some commonly believed moral theories about maximizing well-being, minimizing suffering, the role of empathy as foundational in ethics, and the role of rights, autonomy, and liberty...)
Is it right to exert control over what kind of humans are produced? And on what ethical basis?
(This last has elicited the observation that certain ethical codes, such as those based on the bible, leave gaps in the coverage [the Siamese twins where one must die, for example]. Arguably, there are gaps in our current ethics as well [thus giving rise to the field of medical ethics].)
Reading beyond German's text, at present we don't seem to have "positive control" over the consequences of genetic manipulation:
Is it okay to make the attempt even in the absence of total control?
Is it okay in the presence of total control?

(I don't want to derail the current topic, but a similar question would be, if we genetically modified humans to create a new species, whose rights would apply, what rights, and how would we adjudicate conflicts between the interests of the two types? Perhaps that needs a separate thread...)
(I thought I had more. Maybe I should just make some coffee.)