Gay debate (redux)

Asguard said:
....Actually now i think about it i belive there was a single women who sued the goverment and won the right to access IVF on medicare. They had to create a new catigory of "infertile" for that reason. I belive it was called socially infertile or something like it
Click to expand...

so, why couldn't a gay person do this as well? :shrug:
 
because the law SPECIFICALLY states that they cant, not to mention that even if they did the other person CANT be concidered guardian (even let alone parent) to the child and lastly because even if they did that ONLY helps lesbian couples because surogacy a) is currently illegal in most juristictions i belive though there is proposed legislation to change that b) when it IS changed will again specifically prevent same sex couples from accessing it
 
lets take a senario. 2 same sex couples who are friends (one male male, the other female female) get together and decide that as they both want children one of the males will provide sperm (or both and then its pot luck which get used), one of the females will donate the egg and then they will impant enough to have twins into the other women. Then one of the children will go to the lesbian couple and the other to the gay one.

Even if they privatly funded this and organised it, no one backed out or anything the law would STILL prevent it happerning
 
Asguard said:
because the law SPECIFICALLY states that they cant, not to mention that even if they did the other person CANT be concidered guardian (even let alone parent) to the child and lastly because even if they did that ONLY helps lesbian couples because surogacy a) is currently illegal in most juristictions i belive though there is proposed legislation to change that b) when it IS changed will again specifically prevent same sex couples from accessing it
Click to expand...

but surrogacy isn't allowed for hetero couples either. That seems fair.

The Commonwealth Government of Australia cannot universally legislate for reproductive technology practice. Therefore each state and territory is responsible for designing and implementing separate legislation. This has resulted in laws and practices that differ from state to state.

http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/reproductive-technology/other.asp Hmmm, is this site incorrect?
 
Note to those who dont support gay agendas, your posts will be deleted in a democratic "it never existed" way.
 
draqon said:
Note to those who dont support gay agendas, your posts will be deleted in a democratic "it never existed" way.
Click to expand...

fuck! There was an agenda?! I never saw it. Can I borrow your copy? Or did only gay people get it? Well then, can I still borrow your copy?
 
yes that site looks acurate, and your right that different states take different times to get legislation past but (im assuming you read through it not just that line) notice that ONLY victoria is actually looking at same sex couples where as the other states are either focusing exclusivly on married and defacto HETROSEXUAL couples or even infertile single women but not same sex couples. There is actually another group who have been excluded from the debate (i only noticed it when reading your link), that is SINGLE men (and before you say men cant give birth rember we are talking about surgocy here). All the laws state either "infertile women" or couples which is a breach of ALL of the states (and the commonwealth as well) sex discrimination acts
 
Asguard you made a major mistake when you spelled out HETEROSEXUAL, make sure to correct it and add an "E" where applicable.
 
Norsefire said:
Yes because that's all voluntary too. As long as it is being paid for privately (voluntarily) then it's fine, and as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
Click to expand...

Is a mother giving up her newly born for a ritualistic killing alright too ? It IS voluntary..
 
Asguard said:
yes that site looks acurate, and your right that different states take different times to get legislation past but (im assuming you read through it not just that line) notice that ONLY victoria is actually looking at same sex couples where as the other states are either focusing exclusivly on married and defacto HETROSEXUAL couples or even infertile single women but not same sex couples. There is actually another group who have been excluded from the debate (i only noticed it when reading your link), that is SINGLE men (and before you say men cant give birth rember we are talking about surgocy here). All the laws state either "infertile women" or couples which is a breach of ALL of the states (and the commonwealth as well) sex discrimination acts
Click to expand...

well then, it seems the laws there are unfair. Hopefully people (such as yourself??) are working to change that.
 
unfortunatly there is little that can be done currently. There is no court to take an action in because there is no equal protection clause in our consitution and as long as labor especially dont have the courage to step up to this issue there isnt anyone to vote for who will except people like the greens and they are basically usless on issues like this. The best that can be done is to surport people like Ian Hunter to actually fight it from inside the party room
 
Enmos said:
Is a mother giving up her newly born for a ritualistic killing alright too ? It IS voluntary..
Click to expand...

Not for the baby, although if it can be proven that babies have no significant conscious ability, then certainly.
 
Norsefire said:
Not for the baby, although if it can be proven that babies have no significant conscious ability, then certainly.
Click to expand...

I made that point to make you see that your definition is incomplete.
I guess I failed.. miserably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top