Quite a Conundrum

Sullivan has posts here, here, here and here exploring a "Final Solution" attempt by scientists to "prevent" homosexuality in utero.

Seems there is a disorder, called Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), which renders women less interested in having sex with men, getting married and performing the traditional wife/mother role. Also, an endocrinologist in Florida is trying to prevent lesbianism by treating pregnant women with an experimental hormone.

The last post highlights a reader's thoughts which echo mine exactly. I think that the whole idea that there might be a "cure" for homosexuality based in biology presents a huge moral dilemma for Christianists and Republicans. Now, it seems logical that these groups, which would like to eradicate homosexuality altogether, would readily hail the development of a medical procedure that could affect females such that they would have higher interest in traditional female sexual and familial roles and activities. But, as the reader writes:

[T]heir opposition to homosexuality, at least ostensibly, stems from the fact that they see it as a sin. But if there is a biological basis for homosexuality, then one cannot say that homosexuality has been chosen. And if you don't have a choice about sexual orientation, then homosexuality cannot be considered a sin.

If it's not a sin, then the whole Christianist dogma about homosexuality being a lifestyle or a choice falls apart. So they would then find themselves in the dubious position of having to oppose something that empirically could eradicate behavior they consider sinful. Can you see their heads spinning around and exploding like the Fembots of Austin Powers?

Of course, they can always come back with their standard response to all things scientific, which is to say that they don't trust medical science any more than they trust evolution, carbon-dating, or paleontology. But, then again, that argument falls apart. It's the position of Christianists that homosexuality is a learned behavior which can be unlearned, or at least curbed, through faith and vigilance. What that implies, at least to me, is that they can, over time, help gay people and their behavior evolve into something more acceptable. Well, isn't all behavior a product of biological and social factors? If the pursuit of sex is something that all humans feel, there has to be a biological aspect to it, no? So trying to alter behavior has to acknowledge at least some biological contribution to that behavior. Again, if it's biological, then homosexuality can't be a sin.