View Full Version : Indiana bill would limit reproduction procedures for gays, singles
The Mullinator
05-10-2005, 11:27 PM
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.
Quite chilling if you ask me. Also a good example of government getting a little too involved in peoples personal lives.
dream431ca
05-10-2005, 11:30 PM
1 down...49 to go.
CptStern
06-10-2005, 03:48 AM
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.
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
Sulkdodds
06-10-2005, 10:14 AM
That's....really quite disgusting.
bliink
06-10-2005, 10:16 AM
I wonder if the parents get divorced whether the government will demand they give the child back
No.. they go to the "Government Unbirthing Facility"
Lemonking
06-10-2005, 10:19 AM
why would the goverment care about that? its none of their buisness
Sulkdodds
06-10-2005, 10:21 AM
No.. they go to the "Government Unbirthing Facility"
Stuff it back in! :o
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.
falconwind
06-10-2005, 10:48 PM
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.
Last One In
07-10-2005, 06:30 AM
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.
JNightshade
07-10-2005, 06:49 AM
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.
Sulkdodds
07-10-2005, 10:17 AM
That would do some serious damage.
Only if you were brought up to be intolerant or weirded-out by gays. Which you wouldn't be.
Lemonking
07-10-2005, 11:20 AM
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.
so everybody should be gay??
If you grow withgay parents your bound to be gay me thinks:|
Sulkdodds
07-10-2005, 11:24 AM
I doubt it to be honest. Is everyone with heterosexual parents straight?
Lemonking
07-10-2005, 11:46 AM
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.
Ren.182
07-10-2005, 11:57 AM
Looks like the combine are finally taking over...
Damn governments >_<
CptStern
07-10-2005, 05:45 PM
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.
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
CptStern
07-10-2005, 05:46 PM
chances are that ur gonna turn gay with gay parents are 600% me thinks
source?
Sulkdodds
07-10-2005, 06:32 PM
chances are that ur gonna turn gay with gay parents are 600% me thinks
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
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.
dream431ca
07-10-2005, 07:57 PM
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.
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.
Sulkdodds
07-10-2005, 07:59 PM
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 :o)
Stigmata
08-10-2005, 04:38 AM
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.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
08-10-2005, 12:39 PM
Yeah, that too. :rolling: :D
Last One In
08-10-2005, 06:44 PM
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 :o)
The natural way is still leagues superior to the artificial way. All that artificial shit is too complicated.
Absinthe
08-10-2005, 07:02 PM
The natural way is still leagues superior to the artificial way. All that artificial shit is too complicated.
So... what exactly is your argument? I'm not seeing one.
Mechagodzilla
08-10-2005, 09:08 PM
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.
its not natural
Neither is monogamy, pal....
Absinthe
08-10-2005, 10:17 PM
Your government is totally ****ed up, America. Seriously, this is horrendous.
Oh, believe me. Some of us recognize that.
Beerdude26
08-10-2005, 10:21 PM
No.. they go to the "Government Unbirthing Facility"Also known as "Shoot your kid in the face with a rocket launcher". But that doesn't flow well from the tongue.
Neither is monogamy, pal....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'.
jverne
11-10-2005, 05:48 PM
Cheers to that :cheers:
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:
Sulkdodds
11-10-2005, 06:24 PM
that's true, but i'd still wouldn't want some x dude to screw my GF when i come home
If I was your GF I'd screw someone else.
See? I can be an offensive **** as well.
Mr Stabby
11-10-2005, 07:26 PM
this calls for international intervention and regime change..
Mechagodzilla
11-10-2005, 09:33 PM
If I was your GF I'd screw someone else.
See? I can be an offensive **** as well.
ZING! :O
Solaris
11-10-2005, 09:46 PM
this calls for international intervention and regime change..
Dont worry, the revolution is coming.
Sulkodds that was another example of your unprovoked meanness!
Kmack
12-10-2005, 03:54 PM
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.
now...perhaps the christian right could have a little to do with this. land of the free my ass.
MrWhite
13-10-2005, 07:36 AM
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..."
...?
jverne
13-10-2005, 07:21 PM
f******* ***** **** internet
jverne
13-10-2005, 07:22 PM
If I was your GF I'd screw someone else.
See? I can be an offensive **** as well.
so where is your GF now?...out for a walk with her friends...riiiight?!...:upstare:
Sulkdodds
13-10-2005, 09:36 PM
No. I left her quite a while ago because I hated her and she annoyed me.
Seriously, if you're not going to actually say anything interesting, remotely relating to the thread, informed, funny, or even scathing - I mean Christ, you've got to be able to do better than that if you're trying to be offensive - then just don't bother. There really isn't much point.
bliink
14-10-2005, 10:06 AM
f******* ***** **** internet
stop spamming or else.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.