And, the economics of health care have to be considered here because certain "conditions" only become so when there's funding available to provide a clinical response. Or a chemical one.
Some of that is a good outcome of free enterprise but inevitably, once health care becomes publicly funded, it's at the mercy of the politically motivated and that's usually the most emphatically pursued by people with the most offensive (or extreme) behaviors in search of "acceptance."
I also agree with something earlier written here to suggest that the heterosexual rejection of many aspects of homosexuality is almost certainly biologically motivated. Most of who and what we are as humans is.
However, the biological imperative to reproduce is secondary only to that of survival and homosexuality poses a distraction -- if not a destructive use of resources on a survivalist level (you're a tribe with limited resources and the one or few individuals in that tribe who are not reproducing are not contributing, on a very primal level, and, worse, they are using resources that reproduction would otherwise have available, so, there's got to be some sort of motivation to "avoid" if not admonish people who pose those problems, however subtle).
Worth considering. At this point, it seems that homosexuality is more tolerated within some correlation to the population: the larger it becomes, the more "tolerated" are behaviors that would otherwise be completely rejected by most.
I agree, with the 'politics' problem..
"However, the biological imperative to reproduce is secondary only to that of survival and homosexuality poses a distraction.."
By their very 'nature' on both counts Homosexuals are dead in the water so to speak, unless there are alternatives available to them for reproduction and hence long term 'survival'.. since only immediate survival is an end in itself. And the road to 'alternatives' opens another can of worms.
BTW, is FR slow tonite?