Indiana bill would limit reproduction procedures for gays, singles

The Mullinator

The Mullinator

Newbie
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
5,794
Reaction score
0
http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2752
The bill defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor cannot begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.
Click to expand...
Quite chilling if you ask me. Also a good example of government getting a little too involved in peoples personal lives.
 
The Mullinator said:
http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2752

Quite chilling if you ask me. Also a good example of government getting a little too involved in peoples personal lives.
Click to expand...

holy shit, that's going too far. Directly targeting gay couples/unmarried couples. This is discrimination


I wonder if the parents get divorced whether the government will demand they give the child back
 
CptStern said:
I wonder if the parents get divorced whether the government will demand they give the child back
Click to expand...

No.. they go to the "Government Unbirthing Facility"
 
why would the goverment care about that? its none of their buisness
 
We're losing whatever "freedoms" we have left each day. Note how I quoted freedom, because there is no such thing as true freedom when it comes to countries and goverments. We're not truely free.
 
I suppose the politician(s) that wrote that bill think they're clever... indirectly excluding gays by virtue of the fact they can't legally marry.

American politics is a prime example of religious and moral beliefs run amok.

People may not be truly free, but that doesn't mean we should accept being clearly oppressed.
 
Man, that would suck to have gay parents. Imagine seeing your dad kiss another guy every day for 18 years straight. That would do some serious damage.
 
No, it wouldn't at all. Actually, it would be a good way to teach tolerance. What would do serious damage would be having intolerant parents preaching the "damage" of homosexuality.
 
That would do some serious damage.
Click to expand...

Only if you were brought up to be intolerant or weirded-out by gays. Which you wouldn't be.
 
JNightshade said:
No, it wouldn't at all. Actually, it would be a good way to teach tolerance. What would do serious damage would be having intolerant parents preaching the "damage" of homosexuality.
Click to expand...



so everybody should be gay??

If you grow withgay parents your bound to be gay me thinks:|
 
I doubt it to be honest. Is everyone with heterosexual parents straight?
 
chances are that ur gonna turn gay with gay parents are 600% me thinks
 
apart from the background checks into married couples i think that they r spot on.
i dont beleive that gays or singles should be able to have a child.
im not sure about unmarried people, i know a couple with three kids and they are not married (they live together and love each other but not married)
its fairly obvious really, let nature take its course, gays cant have kids n e way, i dont beleive that they should be able to adopt either. im not homophobic i just dont think its right. its not natural, and its not fair on the child.
 
Looks like the combine are finally taking over...

Damn governments >_<
 
who said:
apart from the background checks into married couples i think that they r spot on.
i dont beleive that gays or singles should be able to have a child.
im not sure about unmarried people, i know a couple with three kids and they are not married (they live together and love each other but not married)
its fairly obvious really, let nature take its course, gays cant have kids n e way, i dont beleive that they should be able to adopt either. im not homophobic i just dont think its right. its not natural, and its not fair on the child.
Click to expand...


there's a lot of unwanted children out there ...over 50% of marriages end in divorce anways so more than 50% of those kids would eventually be in a single parent household


oh there's absolutely no rational reason why homosexual couples cant adopt/have kids. In fact homosexuals tend to earn more than their heterosexual counterparts, they're better providers. And dont use that it's not natural" excuse because there's many heterosexual couples who cant "naturally" have a child
 
Spicy Tuna said:
chances are that ur gonna turn gay with gay parents are 600% me thinks
Click to expand...

Is that bullshit I smell? Sorry but there are two problems here:

1. Not all children of heterosexual parents are heterosexual.
2. An ex of mine was born via artificial means because her mum was a lesbian. And I'm pretty sure she wasn't gay. :rolleyes:

its not natural
Click to expand...

Beeep. WRONG. It occurs naturally in animals as well as humans - whether by upbringing or quirk of birth, we don't know. Plus, I don't believe that it's possible for something to not be natural because we are creations of nature and so anything we create or do cannot be outside our 'natural' remit else it wouldn't happen.
 
Beeep. WRONG. It occurs naturally in animals as well as humans - whether by upbringing or quirk of birth, we don't know. Plus, I don't believe that it's possible for something to not be natural because we are creations of nature and so anything we create or do cannot be outside our 'natural' remit else it wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...
What I think what he means is "Natural" in the sense that humans have a definiton of Natural that is not the same as Nature's "Natural" definiton. (say that 10 times fast:rolling: ) What humans think of natural is a sense on our moral beliefs and not the universe's definition of natural.
 
Of course you could say that it's not natural because the 'natural' purpose of sex is to create children. But in an age where we can create them artificially I hardly think that's relevant.

(that is quite hard to say at lightning kung-fu fighting speed :eek:)
 
Sulkdodds said:
Of course you could say that it's not natural because the 'natural' purpose of sex is to create children. But in an age where we can create them artificially I hardly think that's relevant.
Click to expand...
And, due to the nature of "natural", artificial insemination and other means of procreating are completely natural. For it to not be natural, humans would somehow have to violate the most basic laws of physics and logic :E
 
Sulkdodds said:
Of course you could say that it's not natural because the 'natural' purpose of sex is to create children. But in an age where we can create them artificially I hardly think that's relevant.

(that is quite hard to say at lightning kung-fu fighting speed :eek:)
Click to expand...
The natural way is still leagues superior to the artificial way. All that artificial shit is too complicated.
 
Last One In said:
The natural way is still leagues superior to the artificial way. All that artificial shit is too complicated.
Click to expand...

So... what exactly is your argument? I'm not seeing one.
 
The argument apparently boils down to "I'm not gay, and I don't know any gay people. Therefore this law is awesome."

Your government is totally ****ed up, America. Seriously, this is horrendous.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Your government is totally ****ed up, America. Seriously, this is horrendous.
Click to expand...

Oh, believe me. Some of us recognize that.
 
bliink said:
No.. they go to the "Government Unbirthing Facility"
Click to expand...
Also known as "Shoot your kid in the face with a rocket launcher". But that doesn't flow well from the tongue.


nick said:
Neither is monogamy, pal....
Click to expand...
Cheers to that :cheers:
 
No, really. Men can father many many children in a year, whereas a lady can only make one. Therefore, it makes more sense from a purely biological standpoint. Mind, you, I do have a somewhat warped sense of logic.

That new law is going on my list of 'reasons i'm glad I dont live in the US'.
 
Beerdude26 said:
Cheers to that :cheers:
Click to expand...


that's true, but i'd still wouldn't want some x dude to screw my GF when i come home...would you?...*khm*...emm...ups...sorry didn't know you haven't had a GF...sorry! :rolleyes:
 
that's true, but i'd still wouldn't want some x dude to screw my GF when i come home
Click to expand...

If I was your GF I'd screw someone else.

See? I can be an offensive **** as well.
 
this calls for international intervention and regime change..
 
Mr Stabby said:
this calls for international intervention and regime change..
Click to expand...
Dont worry, the revolution is coming.

Sulkodds that was another example of your unprovoked meanness!
 
Erhm... am I the only one reminded of Dr. Breen's speech in Half-Life 2...

"I have here a letter from one of our concerned citizens..."

...?
 
Sulkdodds said:
If I was your GF I'd screw someone else.

See? I can be an offensive **** as well.
Click to expand...


so where is your GF now?...out for a walk with her friends...riiiight?!...:upstare:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jverne
genetic manipulation...we need to come to an agreement here!
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Danimal
Danimal
Back
Top