WARNING: Butt Babies discussed in the comments to this post.Upgraded and adapted from the Moot, more for old time's sake than anything else, Homophobic Bioconservative and Official Self-Appointed Enemy of Amor Mundi John Howard has swooped in from his secret location, no doubt among twink pornsites, to offer another variation on what long-time readers here will recognize as a familiar theme:
Insisting on an equal right to reproduce with someone regardless of their sex is also "conceptually incoherent, pseudo-scientific, pathologically symptomatic, and politically reactionary" but that doesn't stop you does it? You just say that as long as it is safe, wanted, and consensual, then it should be allowed, regardless of the risks to the child, the costs to society, the effects on culture. It's completely incoherent to put same-sex reproductive rights at the very tip top of priorities, when it can't even be done and might never be possible. It is as far-fetched as bringing a frozen brain back to life someday. But you do more than just rhapsodize about lifeway diversity and celebrate people who would choose to do it, like the Robot Cultists do, you make it the essential plank of government, refusing to compromise, putting civilization at risk. This is a real world situation that you could fix, but instead you chose to join the Robot Cultists when the chips are down.What you claim is a "tip top priority" of mine is something that is not a priority of mine at all. The "right" to access to a non-existing technique you claim I "insist" on is something I don't insist on at all and I don't even remotely see how it could constitute a right.
All things equal, I certainly have no more problem with queers than straight folks adopting wanted kids, queers than straights making recourse to surrogacy, lesbians than straight folks making recourse to artificial insemination or IVF. I do think there is evidence of exploitation and misinformation and other harm in the global traffic of adoption, surrogacy, and egg harvestation, all of which calls for more regulation and monitoring, but I don't think queerness or straightness comes into it. Some people speak of "reproductive cloning" but the techniques that seem remotely viable have been determined to be unsafe and are rightly banned. If other techniques arrive, if they are judged actually safe, then they should be made available to those who want them and forced on no one, straight or not. There is nothing about the participation of queer folks in making families that "risks children" or "puts civilization at risk."
Nobody has to join a Robot Cult to advocate equitable consensual access to actually safe, actually available, actually wanted therapies, nor to demand their regulation for safety at every stage of development and use. (Why on earth would they?) This is straightforward equitable consensual heathcare advocacy. Heck, my position advocating single payer is probably more out of the American mainstream than my position on access to ARTs (alternative/artificial reproductive techniques).
You have posted these homophobic freakouts on my blog and at other places where I have been published with alarming regularity. You keep attributing views to me that I do not hold at all, let alone prioritize. You have problems, John Howard, you hear voices in your head, you have a strange fascination with queer copulation that would possibly be better addressed with the help of a therapist than in these bizarre harangues in my comments section.