|
|
On May 10 2012 10:17 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:08 ghrur wrote:On May 10 2012 10:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 10 2012 10:00 Lixler wrote:On May 10 2012 09:38 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 08:21 1Eris1 wrote:On May 10 2012 08:06 sunprince wrote:On May 10 2012 07:27 1Eris1 wrote:Uh, actually no. Plenty of religions/people besides Christianity oppose gay marriage (some believe just being gay is punishable by death), evolution and the like. You cannot make such generalizations. The generalizations are perfectly fair; when 99+% of a group conforms to a generalization, it makes perfect sense. At best, they're just religious bigots belonging to other religions. I've never heard of a singular secular argument made for the death penalty for gays. Virtually 100% of those people are arguing from religious grounds, whether Christian or some other religion. Take a look at the arguments against sex marriage. Notice how the main arugments are religious, and the parenting "concerns" are made by religious people (even though scientists agree that there's no parenting problem)? Likewise, nearly all objections to evolution come from religious sources rather than the scientific community. Bullshit like "intellectual design" are just covers for evangelical Christians with an agenda, as certain federal court cases have made clear. My point was, it's not only Christians, there are plenty of other religions that feel the same way. So a broad statement like, "99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians" is incorrect. OK, so let me amend my statment. 99% of people who are opposed to gay marriage/evolution are Christians and/or other religions equally as ridiculous as Christianity. The point is - the only reason anyone is ever against gay marriage is because some fictional being told them so. Can't someone be against gay marriage because they think it's destructive to society? There are plenty of reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't "The Bible says so." While I agree with you that the only reason doesn't necessarily need to be "Because the Bible says so", I'm interested in hearing a cogent defense of the position "I'm against gay marriage because it's destructive to society". Here you go. http://d.scribd.com/docs/1glhgznbt2rt6rjlmfji.pdf Citations, how the fuck do they work? I don't understand why would go to all the trouble of writing a report like that and involve zero citations from studies. Seriously its all hearsay at this point. "An influential study of homosexual orientation in children raised by gay men reports that only ten percent of the sons were gay, but "[t]his may be an underestimation, because [the researchers] omitted 7 sons whose fathers were only moderately certain of their sexuality, but 2 of these were believed by their fathers to be nonheterosexual." Thats nice, what magical influential study was this? It goes on and on. They only bothered to cite the occasional rulings, and typically wrongly at that.
Do you need to be so abrasive? I wasn't even trying to argue the source's legitimacy but simply responding to a request. However, here's a version with citations. However, it's much more ugly. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~biblarz/soc360/Wardlearticle.PDF
Did you honestly think they wouldn't need citations for such a controversial article to be published in the University of Illinois Law review and then proceed to be cited by over 280 other scholarly works? Do you think these other scholars would bother responding if the source wasn't credible? Really?
Sterile people are small minority, and you know, sometimes you do not want to directly advertise the real reason why the program is runned.
It is foolish to claim that the benefits are there just to have those two be together.
Can you think about any not-children related benefit for the government in promoting marriage?
Please don't assume more from my argument than I said, please. I never made any of the claims that your last paragraph argues about. If I did, quote me. I'm merely debunking the fallacious idea that marriage benefits are meant to encourage fertilization/procreation/baby making. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if sterile people are a minority because if they're allowed to marry. The fact that they can marry logically ruins the argument that government-sanctioned marriage is to promote having a baby. Furthermore, people too old to have children are also allowed to marry despite having no chance of birthing a new child. Your statement that "you do not want to advertise directly" is based on nothing except speculation. In the end, the "marriage is meant to encourage procreation" argument is logically contradicted by facts.
|
On May 10 2012 10:33 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:26 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married? Yes, but I do not expect anyone to be fair about that. Or to be even more correct I`m against a fertile person marriage with sterille, and i think it should be prohibited (to not be ellighable for benefits, not to priohibit their relationships). I`m sorry but my county is decreasing in population by about 1/30 a year, so my oppinion is obvious, goverment should focus on promoting fertility and thow ones uncapable of produsing children under the buss.
1) Well maybe that's great for your country, the US doesn't have the issue of declining population (unless you're worried about the relative declining population of caucasians).
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile.
|
On May 10 2012 10:40 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:37 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:33 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married? Yes, but I do not expect anyone to be fair about that. Or to be even more correct I`m against a fertile person marriage with sterille, and i think it should be prohibited (to not be ellighable for benefits, not to priohibit their relationships). I`m sorry but my county is decreasing in population by about 1/30 a year, so my oppinion is obvious, goverment should focus on promoting fertility and thow ones uncapable of produsing children under the buss. I don't know what kind of la la land your mind lives in to be able to arbitrarily decide what the purpose of marriage is, in your opinion it is obviously solely focused on procreation as a supposed economic benefit. Why is it government's role to decide this? If you really want to achieve your goal, you should allow polygamy, so that the most fertile males with the best genetics mates with the maximum amount of women. Problem is, what to do with the rest of males.
What about them? Didn't you say marriage should be for procreation? The other males can go without marriage for all you are concerned with. Just like how you are expecting all other gay males to go without marriage. It just goes to show how stupid your way of thinking is.
|
On May 10 2012 10:41 ghrur wrote:
Please don't assume more from my argument than I said, please. I never made any of the claims that your last paragraph argues about. If I did, quote me. I'm merely debunking the fallacious idea that marriage benefits are meant to encourage fertilization/procreation/baby making. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if sterile people are a minority because if they're allowed to marry. The fact that they can marry logically ruins the argument that government-sanctioned marriage is to promote having a baby. Furthermore, people too old to have children are also allowed to marry despite having no chance of birthing a new child. Your statement that "you do not want to advertise directly" is based on nothing except speculation. In the end, the "marriage is meant to encourage procreation" argument is logically contradicted by facts.
It is not really contradicted, as much as there is a fact that there are certain loopholes in the program allowing ideally not-ellighable to apply, but as in any case, closing loopholes is hard. If you do not believe me, well look at US taxation.
|
A loophole assumes there's ambiguity. There's no ambiguity. There's no loophole.
Edit: Furthermore, let's look at the defense of marriage act.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:
Note how it specifically says one man and one woman, not one fertile man and one fertile woman.
|
On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile.
Not couples, individuals in said couple.
|
On May 10 2012 10:43 Sakata Gintoki wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:40 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:37 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:33 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married? Yes, but I do not expect anyone to be fair about that. Or to be even more correct I`m against a fertile person marriage with sterille, and i think it should be prohibited (to not be ellighable for benefits, not to priohibit their relationships). I`m sorry but my county is decreasing in population by about 1/30 a year, so my oppinion is obvious, goverment should focus on promoting fertility and thow ones uncapable of produsing children under the buss. I don't know what kind of la la land your mind lives in to be able to arbitrarily decide what the purpose of marriage is, in your opinion it is obviously solely focused on procreation as a supposed economic benefit. Why is it government's role to decide this? If you really want to achieve your goal, you should allow polygamy, so that the most fertile males with the best genetics mates with the maximum amount of women. Problem is, what to do with the rest of males. What about them? Didn't you say marriage should be for procreation? The other males can go without marriage for all you are concerned with. Just like how you are expecting all other gay males to go without marriage. It just goes to show how stupid your way of thinking is.
Ofcourse it is extreemly hard to wrap your head about that:
1. My argumet is about increasing the number of children, and the polygamy creates less wealth for each child than monogamy.
2. My argument is not about the banning not ellighable, just plain killing ones i viev as unworthy, ex,ex,
it is about focusing goverment efforts on promoting population growth.
Thus banning gay-couples from benefit of marriage is 100% right.
Oh and condeming gay relations is fine too(but not banning/punishing).
|
On May 10 2012 10:49 ghrur wrote:A loophole assumes there's ambiguity. There's no ambiguity. There's no loophole. Edit: Furthermore, let's look at the defense of marriage act. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:Note how it specifically says one man and one woman, not one fertile man and one fertile woman.
There are no ambiguity in tax laws. They are 100% clear. Just working not exactly as intended, thus the loopholes to exploit.
|
On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other?
Being able to have a biological child is in no way a requirement of marriage. Infertile women and men are as free to marry as any other. Even if you make an "in essence" argument that I have seen religious figures make on TV (total nonsense but Ill humor it) you would then have to exclude old women because menopause is a much a part of womanhood as the ability to give birth in the first place.
|
On May 10 2012 10:57 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:43 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:40 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:37 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:33 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 Sakata Gintoki wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? So you would be against a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married? Yes, but I do not expect anyone to be fair about that. Or to be even more correct I`m against a fertile person marriage with sterille, and i think it should be prohibited (to not be ellighable for benefits, not to priohibit their relationships). I`m sorry but my county is decreasing in population by about 1/30 a year, so my oppinion is obvious, goverment should focus on promoting fertility and thow ones uncapable of produsing children under the buss. I don't know what kind of la la land your mind lives in to be able to arbitrarily decide what the purpose of marriage is, in your opinion it is obviously solely focused on procreation as a supposed economic benefit. Why is it government's role to decide this? If you really want to achieve your goal, you should allow polygamy, so that the most fertile males with the best genetics mates with the maximum amount of women. Problem is, what to do with the rest of males. What about them? Didn't you say marriage should be for procreation? The other males can go without marriage for all you are concerned with. Just like how you are expecting all other gay males to go without marriage. It just goes to show how stupid your way of thinking is. Ofcourse it is extreemly hard to wrap your head about that: 1. My argumet is about increasing the number of children, and the polygamy creates less wealth for each child than monogamy. 2. My argument is not about the banning not ellighable, just plain killing ones i viev as unworthy, ex,ex, it is about focusing goverment efforts on promoting population growth.Thus banning gay-couples from benefit of marriage is 100% right. Oh and condeming gay relations is fine too(but not banning/punishing).
The amount of children being produced, let's say is 100 per year, will not change if gay marriage is allowed.
All gay marriage does is allow two gay people to get married.
Two gay people getting married is not going to increase/decrease the chance for two straight people from having a child.
Two gay people not getting married is not going to increase/decrease the chance for two straight people from having a child.
|
So I decided to look up some of the legal rights and benefits that married couple have that are being denied to gays. I've heard some of these arguments before but very few of them sounded like actual legal rights. For example, hospital visits: if the hospitals are privately owned then presumably they can establish their own policies for visits, which has nothing to do with legal rights. If there are any laws associated with this or any government run hospitals with such policies then the policies should be changed. Estate planning/Death benefits: These are essentially private contracts which can be engaged in by anyone, even gay couples, and so this sounds less like a legal right and more like a legal convenience. Things like tax exemptions for gifts to spouses should either be eliminated or extended to others, as well as life estate trusts which are restricted to married couples. Employment benefits: Again, employers are private companies and can set their own procedures and rules, this isn't a legal right. If the employer is public then those policies should likewise be changed. Family benefits ie. adoption, foster care, divorce distribution, child support. Again these rights should be extended to anyone who wants to make them whether they even choose to be married or not. "Common law marriage" already establishes these provisions for non-married couples. Housing benefits ie. neighborhoods zoned for "families only"... huh? Why do these even exist? Visiting rights in jails: Change them. Marital communications privilege? I'm really having difficulty coming up with justifications for this stuff...
The only legal problem which seems difficult to resolve in this regard is the "immigration and residency" benefits. The rest are either not legal benefits at all, or they are legal benefits which should not exist. I'm sure I'm missing many examples here, but I'm trying to make the point that married couples shouldn't have additional legal rights in the first place. Marriage is a social construct, it is a social or religious institution, and the government should not be attempting to regulate invented social constructs. The whole gay marriage debate exists because the government decided to extend some benefits and rights to some individuals and not extend them to others based upon some traditional social distinction. I say get the government out of marriage as much as possible, and create equal rules for married and non married people alike, as much as possible.
|
On May 10 2012 11:01 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? Being able to have a biological child is in no way a requirement of marriage. Infertile women and men are as free to marry as any other. Even if you make an "in essence" argument that I have seen religious figures make on TV (total nonsense but Ill humor it) you would then have to exclude old women because menopause is a much a part of womanhood as the ability to give birth in the first place.
problem is, old womans have voting rights, so,..
IDEALY, it would be great to do, but it is just 100% impossible to legally path.
Though in 10-15 years, probably anything will be possible if the situation will not improve(in my country, not US).
|
On May 10 2012 11:00 naastyOne wrote:There are no ambiguity in tax laws. They are 100% clear. Just working not exactly as intended, thus the loopholes to exploit.
It's great how you make a false analogy when I've put the law right in front of your face. Please tell me where the ambiguity in the law is and point to me specifically where in Tax laws the same situation occurs to make your analogy hold water. As of now, it doesn't because while there might be ambiguity in tax laws (never said there wasn't), there is none here.
Also, if you want government to focus on increasing population size, go ask them to stop building that wall down south, and tell them to let in more immigrants.
|
On May 10 2012 09:00 naastyOne wrote:
Adoption is covered by another program and is not covered by marriage at all.
What the fuck? You've made the argument that marriage is about protecting children. Since when do adopted children or children born from surrogacy not need the same protection?
On May 10 2012 09:00 naastyOne wrote:
The fact that many don`t have children doesn`t cancel the fact that it is about the childred.
Actually, yes it does. You're arguing that gay people don't deserve marriage because they can't have children. Aside from the fact that they do have children through surrogacy/previous partners/adoption, there's also the fact that plenty of straight couples can't have kids, yet we don't deny them marriage.
Either having children is a requirement for marriage or it isn't. You can't agree that it isn't a requirement, and then use that requirement to ban gays from marrying. That's complete double standard bullshit.
On May 10 2012 09:00 naastyOne wrote:
But okay, of course you can obviously state in which way absence of gay marriage creates disadvantages for Gays other than inability to say that they are married?
Separate but equal is not equal; we established this decades ago. If it's really not a problem, why are you so adamant that they aren't allowed to call themselves married?
|
On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple.
If a heterosexual couple adopts a child that does child becomes the couple's legal responsibility. Homosexual couples aren't even given the choice to have both parents as legally responsible. Your statement is precisely the problem. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents. Most states will not allow the non-birth parent to cross adopt, making both parents responsible for the child.
|
On May 10 2012 11:06 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:01 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? Being able to have a biological child is in no way a requirement of marriage. Infertile women and men are as free to marry as any other. Even if you make an "in essence" argument that I have seen religious figures make on TV (total nonsense but Ill humor it) you would then have to exclude old women because menopause is a much a part of womanhood as the ability to give birth in the first place. problem is, old womans have voting rights, so,.. IDEALY, it would be great to do, but it is just 100% impossible to legally path. Though in 10-15 years, probably anything will be possible if the situation will not improve(in my country, not US).
Did you just advocate excluding menopausal women from getting married? I dread a world where men and women have to take fertility tests to qualify for marriage. Hey, maybe you could take it a step further and say that if a married woman hits menopause and has no children she should be automatically divorced.
|
On May 10 2012 11:06 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:00 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:49 ghrur wrote:A loophole assumes there's ambiguity. There's no ambiguity. There's no loophole. Edit: Furthermore, let's look at the defense of marriage act. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:Note how it specifically says one man and one woman, not one fertile man and one fertile woman. There are no ambiguity in tax laws. They are 100% clear. Just working not exactly as intended, thus the loopholes to exploit. It's great how you make a false analogy when I've put the law right in front of your face. Please tell me where the ambiguity in the law is and point to me specifically where in Tax laws the same situation occurs to make your analogy hold water. As of now, it doesn't because while there might be ambiguity in tax laws (never said there wasn't), there is none here. Also, if you want government to focus on increasing population size, go ask them to stop building that wall down south, and tell them to let in more immigrants.
Again, the loophole is presence of some ammendment which allows you to exploit it, to pay less like in tax laws.
OR the absence of a better clarification.
So yes, the absence of the fertile in front of man and woman is a loophole, and needs correction.
in our case we need to build the wall in the west, and ban foreign universities from accepting our students. Europe is getting about 50% of graduates of Physics, Chemistry, Biology. What the ?...
|
On May 10 2012 11:21 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 11:06 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 11:01 Velocirapture wrote:On May 10 2012 10:26 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:16 Velocirapture wrote:
Children are in no way linked to the institution of marriage. It is perfectly valid to believe that a heterosexual, loving marriage of two biological parents is the best environment in which to raise children but none of those elements are in any way mandated by the institution. We associate love, childbirth and cohabitation with marriage because it so highly correlates but it is nothing more than that. In order for somebody to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage you have to tell me something that is required by heterosexual couples as part of the marriage contract that can't be done by two males or two females. As far as I know the only enforced obligation for entering marriage is that both parties are able of participating in a legally binding contract. In this light, the male/female distinction is as arbitrary as the black/white distinction we made in recent history. how about actually have biological child with each other? Being able to have a biological child is in no way a requirement of marriage. Infertile women and men are as free to marry as any other. Even if you make an "in essence" argument that I have seen religious figures make on TV (total nonsense but Ill humor it) you would then have to exclude old women because menopause is a much a part of womanhood as the ability to give birth in the first place. problem is, old womans have voting rights, so,.. IDEALY, it would be great to do, but it is just 100% impossible to legally path. Though in 10-15 years, probably anything will be possible if the situation will not improve(in my country, not US). Did you just advocate excluding menopausal women from getting married? I dread a world where men and women have to take fertility tests to qualify for marriage. Hey, maybe you could take it a step further and say that if a married woman hits menopause and has no children she should be automatically divorced.
Not just marring, ideally from voting as well, to let the goverment not be overloaded with senior benefits/healthcare for the eldery (oh and by the way infertile man as well)
|
On May 10 2012 11:09 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 10:50 naastyOne wrote:On May 10 2012 10:41 ZeaL. wrote:
2) I know most male couples don't have kids but I know quite a few lesbian couples that have kids, and not adopted ones either. Sperm banks and such make it so that homosexual couples can be fertile. Not couples, individuals in said couple. They are considered children of the individual, because they cannot be treated as a child of both parents
Because the child is indeed children of the individual and an anonymous donor to sperm bank?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
