What exactly does "strengthening marriage for a new generation" mean?

That's the slogan of Maggie Gallagher's Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, aka MarriageDebate.com. It occurs to me that their "new generation" is the generation that will have to deal with genetic engineering and same-sex conception. Maggie and her mutually-credentializing network of academics are, I truly believe, tasked with figuring out how to keep marriage meaningful after babies are no longer the union of the spouses. It's as if the geneticists realized back in the 80's how incompatible their eugenic engineering program was with marriage, and so they connived to have a "marriage debate" where they would manipulate both side's messages so that marriage winds up redefined away from the historical meaning of conception rights and to a "parenting" or "relationship" model that is compatible with genetic engineered children, and also to use gay people to justify developing same-sex conception and open the door for actually creating children.

Yes, it seems like paranoia, but why else would Maggie and her friends at other blogs stifle the argument that same-sex couples should not have conception rights, and that all marriages should have conception rights? It really must be because they don't actually believe those things. They must believe that same-sex couples should have conception rights (Leon Kass said it would have to be settled in court, which explains the murky "two progenitors" language in his PCBE recommendations). I hope Maggie embarrasses me by coming out in favor of a ban on conceiving children that are not the union of a man and a woman's own natural genes, but I really think she's contractually bound and ideologically committed and she will never do that.

It would also be good for Leon Kass to explain why the PCBE didn't say "sperm of a human male" and "egg of a human female" like the Missouri Egg and Sperm law said. They did not want to prohibit using egg and sperm cells derived from adult stem cells, or say more than that children should have "two genetic parents." Why? He's on this task force with Maggie, that's why. And Wesley Smith, too. And Opine (they closed comments on my guest post). And heck, Bush and Romney too - all manipulating us into a "new generation". Until these people say they are for natural sexual reproduction rights and opposed to all genetic engineering of people, I'll stick with my paranoia that this debate is seriously rigged.

Banned again

So, after allowing me three diaries, Pam banned me from Pam's House Blend when I asked her in an Open Thread what her priorities were, equal protections or same-sex conception? Again, like Blue Mass Group and Daily Kos, I've been banned for bringing up the subject of same-sex conception, not for any rules infraction. Pam never addressed the issue, and actually deleted my comments from the open thread. My diaries are still there though. Ironically, even Dan Kennedy ignores me when I suggest that this story should win one of his "Muzzle Awards" for stories that are kept out of the media by the media. Currently, I have a guest post up at the anti-SSM blog Opine Editorials, after having had all my comments deleted form their other threads because they too don't like the subject. I can understand LGBT blogs like Pam's considering the issue too upsetting to deal with, but it's hard to fathom why Opine (and MarriageDebate, AnchorRising, SecondhandSmoke, and all of the "Family" organizations I've contacted) wants to suppress this subject also. Thanks to KnowThyNeighbor for not banning me there yet.

Transgenderism = Postgenderism?

The Wikipedia entry on "postgenderism" has been merged with the entry on "Transgenderism", because according to the wiki entry:

More recently, the term has also been used as a synonym for postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.

It is good to see that people are recognizing the shared beliefs of transhumanists and LGBT activists finally, and stating the goals out loud:

According to futurist George Dvorsky, postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies. Advocates of postgenderism argue that the presence of gender roles, social stratification, and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Given the radical potential for advanced assistive reproductive options, postgenderists believe that sex for reproductive purposes will either eventually become a thing of the past or that all human beings will have the ability, if they so choose, to both carry a pregnancy to term and father a child, placing the entire need for gender and gender differences into question.

And it's been a theme of feminism for a while now too. In 1991 socialist feminist Donna Haraway published an essay, "A Cyborg Manifesto", in which

Haraway argued that women would only be freed from their biological restraints when their reproductive obligations were dispensed with. In other words, Haraway believes that women will only achieve true liberation once they become postbiological organisms, or postgendered.

This entry does not mention any of the risks or costs involved, it just lays out the psychological demand for same-sex conception and artificial wombs. And it doesn't get into whether the people being created would also be genetically engineered, but it's clear they would support that as well, because transhumanists are postgenderists are transgenderists are LGBT activists are transhumanists. They are all unsatisfied with natural man-woman conception and oppose an Egg and Sperm law.

Btw, the wiki on Transhumanism has a section called "controversy" that presents some common arguments against transhumanism that is worth a read.