In this play, subtext is much more important than the major text. The story of a man who disowns his family because of an anti-gay action is designed to drive the subtext, which is a story against genetic engineering, a story line produced in a clumsy and inept manner by someone who clearly does not understand his subject matter at all; there is also the tinge of an anti-abortion message in it, though the author goes to great lengths to try to hide that in the language of pro-choice, a language that is technically correct but unconvincing. The premise behind the story is a woman who has to face a decision about aborting her wanted baby when genetic testing determines the child will be gay (something we cannot do even 25 years after this play was written), and the supposed science underpinning the play comes more from conspiracy theory or fearmongering places about science, without bothering to learn what is and isn't possible. In addition, while the structure of the play fits with a lot of modern conceits, I found that got in the way in this particular case, and the long monologues by each of the characters were just annoying, not particularly enlightening. This is a clumsy, ham-handed bit of work that was well received in its day for reasons that are apparent when reading the work, the same reasons that the play it made me think of - An Experiment with an Air Pump - was well received in spite of major flaws. The characters were all the worst sorts of stereotypes, which is a sign of a lazy author, unless you are using stereotypes to break stereotypes, or for some greater purpose that is not evident here. ( )