What if homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait that arises more frequently in the presence of environmental pollutants (say endocrine disruptors or whatever causes allergies)?
This is not implausible; in fact I’d be surprised if it weren’t probable (that enviromental pollutants affect human brain development and therefore sexuality)
What are the consequences or the course of action -if any - that should be taken?
I have come across this before when I was a biologist many years ago. Homosexuality does not look like a genetic trait. It looks remarkably like a disease state - even an infectious one at that. But the first and last time I discussed this with other biology students, the reaction was very bad.
Research like this may get interpreted politically, and therefore ignored or even suppressed and the researchers lose credibility.
I do not know what you would interpret as natural, but homosexuality is detrimental for the persistence of a species. It is entirely a dead-end. The correct action to be taken is to prevent and/or counter the agent that causes this.
How do you state this with such confidence? In an overpopulated world, homosexuality may be beneficial for the survival of our species. Homosexuals who do not reproduce potentially provide nanny-power to family units, or parenting power to orphans. It is in no way clear cut that "the correct action to be taken is to prevent and/or counter the agent that causes this." This is crazy talk.