>>102226195I mean, that would work if until the in-vitro they were just breeding for reproduction.
Look at the Egyptians. They were cool with the gays, so long as you conform to societal rule which was that harmony in the household comes above all things, as the family is the means through which all worth in life is derived. You must have children to continue your line and parents must be married, but they didn’t restrict your sex life.
One of the Pharaohs is depicted holding one of his generals in the manner of a husband and wife, with his queen and his children at his side. We know from their records that you could marry another man’s wife so long as both men and the wife agree to it, but sleeping with another man’s wife without him being okay with it earned you a castration. You just had to have the formal paperwork to go around having swinger parties.
It didn’t matter who you fuck as long as nobody in the family gets butthurt about it, so long as you form a heterosexual marriage and produce offspring.
In a more logical and less allegorical version of that work, the in-vitro would remove the unpleasantness of the reproduction for the gay majority and wouldn’t really affect the straight minority.
I don’t mind allegory, but you need to put it in the context where the handwave is acceptable. You don’t question the logic of a fable like Animal Farm or a satire like Judge Dredd too much, but when you try to present something too serious it just becomes what it is; a bad allegory that’s too full of itself to patch its own logic.
