- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gay male couples face more challenges, higher costs to start a family
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:17 pm to djmed
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:17 pm to djmed
quote:
Gay male couples typically face a more expensive journey, as surrogacy or adoption are their primary choices.
Wait.....I thought men could get pregnant?
0
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:18 pm to Pettifogger
quote:We can absolutely discuss it. The problem is that "evil" is a subjective concept, and ITT we are discussing objective concepts of "the law."
We can't debate whether it's evil for gay men to unnaturally create children and bring them into an unnatural household, all via the exploitation of poor women
We'll just debate whether it's wrong that gay men have to pay out of pocket for it
If we, as a society, want to give homosexuals fewer legal rights than heterosexuals, we need only revise the 14th Amendment. I don't see a big groundswell for such an Amendment, though.
This post was edited on 6/23/23 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:19 pm to djmed
quote:
Gay male couples face more challenges, higher costs to start a family
Impossible is not a challenge, it's just simply not possible...without having a woman involved. It would be unfair to provide them with extra benefit and financial support to do what has been very easily done for thousands of years.
quote:
Almost two-thirds, 63%, of LGBTQ+ people plan to use assisted reproductive technology, foster care, or adoption to become parents
So 37% don't plan on having kids at all, or they're going to go through the horrific process of putting a dick in a vagina?
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I see no reason that they should pay more to "start a family" versus any other infertile couple,
So match rules for 100% of the gay community, with 10ish% of the hetero community. And people complain why insurance and medical prices keep going up with no end in site. SMFH
Frick them, they knew 100% what the situation of being unable to procreate naturally before their "journey." Majority of hetero-couples, do not.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:24 pm to djmed
They haven't a womb.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If we, as a society, want to give homosexuals fewer legal rights than heterosexuals, we need only revise the 14th Amendment. I don't see a big groundswell for such an Amendment, though.
I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights where all people have a right to a family/children
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We can absolutely discuss it. The problem is that "evil" is a subjective concept, and we are discussing objective concepts of "the law."
Are we? The OP is just a blurb whining about the disparity, and while it no doubt rests on some legal/contractual issues, you brought up the policy terms specifically.
But sure, in lieu of a constitutional change I'm in favor of any and all roadblocks that can practically be erected here. Including consideration of changes that would impact heterosexual couples too (like very severe limits on surrogacy).
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We can absolutely discuss it. The problem is that "evil" is a subjective concept, and ITT we are discussing objective concepts of "the law."
There’s no legal system without a concept of objective evil.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
we are discussing objective concepts of "the law."
The law dictates right from wrong.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:28 pm to wutangfinancial
quote:No, it requires that the government treat folks in similar situations the same way. That whole "Equal Protection" thing. (OK, that is in the 14A, not in the Bill of Rights, but I think it is what you were referencing).
I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights where all people have a right to a family/children
It does not specifically mention funding for infertility any more than it specifically mentions the thousands of other specific areas in which the Equal Protection Clause comes into play.
Personally, I don't see any reason for the government to spend tax dollars helping ANYONE have children. But if it chooses to do so, it must do so "equally."
This post was edited on 6/23/23 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If we, as a society, want to give homosexuals fewer legal rights than heterosexuals,
Who wants to give them lesser rights?
What rights do they not have?
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:30 pm to the808bass
quote:Nonsense.
There’s no legal system without a concept of objective evil.
As just one simple example, no one says that jaywalking is "evil," but it is nonetheless prohibited.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:30 pm to the808bass
quote:
There’s no legal system without a concept of objective evil.
Exactly.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:31 pm to wutangfinancial
quote:
I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights where all people have a right to a family/children
It’s in between the right to abortion on demand and the right to mutilate your kid’s genitals.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:33 pm to wutangfinancial
quote:As an aside, this comment demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights, which does NOT create rights, but simply outlines a host of things that the federal government is now allowed to do.
I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights where all people have a right to a family/children
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:34 pm to djmed
quote:
Gay male couples face more challenges, higher costs to start a family
Good
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:35 pm to Pettifogger
quote:Bit of a derail, but why? If all parties agree, why should the government get involved and "limit" it? (Assuming no coercion and no minors, obviously)
very severe limits on surrogacy
Or are you acknowledging that a few hetero-couples will be negatively-impacted and are willing to accept that side-effect in order to deny access to homo-couples (for whom it is essentially the only way to have kids who share your genetics).
This post was edited on 6/23/23 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:36 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As just one simple example, no one says that jaywalking is "evil," but it is nonetheless prohibited.
Look! It’s a retard!
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:36 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Good
Choices have consequences.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:36 pm to djmed
quote:
Gay male couples face more challenges, higher costs to start a family
It's pretty justified seeing as you're an abomination and shouldn't be allowed to make your own children.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News