California court to hear lesbian insemination caseSee, that's the biggest issue with this fags getting married and / or raising families business. Besides being physically and morally wrong. There's the separation of church and state thing.
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Wed May 28, 3:41 AM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - Guadalupe Benitez claims that after being treated with fertility drugs for nearly a year, her Christian doctors refused to inseminate her because she is a lesbian.
She sued and a San Diego County trial judge sided with her. But an appeals court reversed the ruling, and her lawsuit is scheduled to be heard by the California Supreme Court this week.
[...]
This is not a health or medical issue, this is a pure elective two mommies thing. It goes against the beliefs of Christian doctors to do non-Christian practices such as this, so the law of the land gets called into action.
Along the same lines, it goes against the beliefs of Christian preachers to perform marriages for fags, so what's next? The preachers get sued by the people and are either forced to marry these heathens or face the consequences of the law.
People are designed differently for a reason: For procreation. And marriage has been a union created for establishing a family for eons. To taint it by dragging shit like this through the court system takes away any seriousness or solemness by which this institution was originally conceived.
Why not just start marrying your fucking dog, your elm tree, your lawn tractor, whatever the hell you think you want to live with?
If people want someone to be entitled to benefits or perks that spouses are privy to, maybe a different sort of binding commitment should be invented, sort of like a beneficiary on your insurance. But marriage? That's just stupid. And getting yourself knocked up so the poor little bastard gets to grow up in an abnormal, dysfunctional household is even stupider.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 comments:
Interestingly enough, there was an article I'm too lazy to link to about a woman who is married to the Berlin Wall.
My hospital/doctor of choice would not perform my vasectomy on religious grounds, nor would they issue prescriptions for any type of birth control. It's an elective procedure in all cases, like insemination, thus they have the right to refuse to perform it.
All the above being said, sexuality doesn't matter. I've seen(and been raised in) too many heterosexual families that are totally fucked to cast aspersions on any loving environment, single parent or same-sex. Loving anyone, regardless of sex, isn't morally wrong as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not wrapped up enough in religion to worry about it, I guess.
True, hetero's can be quite fucked up too. It's more the "marriage" thing that gets me. You should be able to assign benefits to someone you think could benefit from them, or claim them as a dependent. But people have gotten all stupid with the marriage bit. Like the Berlin Wall thing. (I read that too.)
Consider this, if you will: The marriage ceremony was an invention of man, not God. Nowadays a church marriage isn't binding in the eyes of the State(whichever one you live in) unless you have a marriage license issued by the government.
To my thinking, modern marriage is a legal contract between two people, especially in community property states. The contract essentially is "I agree to share EVERYTHING with you, and if I violate that contract, we split everything down the middle"
If two men or two women are willing to agree to the same contract as a man and a woman, why shouldn't they reap the same benefits?
I would bet that same-sex marriages for the express purpose of acquiring benefits are much more rare than in the case of heterosexual marriages.
Marriage laws are a perfect argument for separation of church and state.
My problem with this, aside from that fact that it's fucking disgusting, is that if two females are married how in the fuck do you treat them from a health insurance perspective? Suddenly you are faced with two potentially very hight maintenance females on the same policy that was designed for only one person who could have female problems. Double the parts, double the cost?
Right. Like that wouldn't be called homophobic.
eleeuc!
Many religions have a holy union which is not a state sponsored union. In fact, when people get married on a ship by a captain, it may not be for a particular government. I would venture to guess that states started issuing marriage licenses for the sole reason of determining status according to other state statutes like taxes, benefits, blah blah blah. In short, because of fucking lawyers.
But, like I said, people are designed differently for a reason. And two people of the same sex who are attracted to or "in love" with one another have psychological problems.
I don't believe in the libtard bullshit about being a man in a woman's body or vice-versa. It's a fucking mental illness that needs to be treated instead of pandered to.
Post a Comment