Modern pollution is a problem.  I agree.  It changes our bodies, our digestive, nervous and hormonal systems.  

Polluting businesses should be held accountable for their actions.  IMHO, all processed food industry should be on trial.

What you are suggesting is that we somehow can control what nature puts out and how nature controls living organisms.  I don't think we have the technology to 'save the gay people'.  I don't feel they need to be 'saved' because I don't think they are 'disabled' or 'damned'.  Many straight people decide not to have children at all, are you going to go after them and correct their genes (assuming the issue is genetic in nature)?  It is a slippery slope.  I would stay away and let the nature deal with it.  When two gay people are having sex they are not harming anyone.  It is their choice, let them be happy.  And you be happy.  

Nature is cruel, but it works.  Sometimes interfering with it causes more long-term damage than it is worthwhile.

PS. Human population doubles every '70/growth rate' years.  If nature can find a way to slow it down, the better our chances of survival as humanity.  We'll have to leave Earth sooner rather than later because of our exponential population growth.  Currently we are adding 1 billion people every 12 years.  That is the root cause of most of our pollution problems.  But nobody wants to talk about it.  Politicians, businessmen want 'growth'.

"Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally."

This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

The following two (relatively) short videos may be of interest regarding previous discussion:
The moral argument for God
Why Does God Allow Evil?