kami said:
There is nothing to say gay marriage would relegate marriage to a permission to copulate since that permission already exists. Rather marriage would be, as it is currently, an institution that serves to bestow rights and priveleges while declaring emotional attachment and (depending on the marraige)a religious affirmation of such attachment.
As I noted before, the government would not issue tax breaks to married couples for an unmeasurable reason - "emotional attachment," there are far more important goals at work, namely, procreation, however subtly, thats the underlying message, whether you want to admit to it or not.
And most marriages would continue to concieve children - especially when you consider how much of a minority homosexuals are. However it should also be outlined that marriage licences are issued to people who are already old, infertile and disinterested - which is similar to the case of homosexual couples as there is no chance of a conception with these couples.
"Highlighting the few negative exceptions does not create any grounds to allow even more negative exceptions, thats stupid." Thats the structural fallacy you're failing to aknowledge, if something is bad, making it worse will not help. An extrmely small percentage - if ACA is to believed with their "selfish married couples who wont have children" segment, 1%, of married couples staying together for long enough, will not concieve.
If the reproduction aspect were so important to marriage then I suspect they'd require all couples to be under a certain age, provide a medical document ensuring fertility and a statutory declaration that they intend to procreate.
The government weights the pros and cons of every decision, employing agencies and extra public servants to carry out those sorts of screenings would cost the government more money and nothing more, letting unproductive gay couples marry would cost the government in unpaid taxes, however keeping gays out of the institution costs nothing.
How could they not know the person who is raising them?
We're talking any potential gay IVF here.
Why should it be illegal? And yes, single women are currently unable to use IVF.
It appears that
OB/GYN News disagrees with you...
This would change if the marriage laws were passed.
It isn't a choice of gender.
Ignoring the fact that this list came directly from
here, most of those issues are debatable:
- Is there anything wrong with the fact that something is assisted by technology? Most mainstays of society are created thus - our mode of interaction for one, the house you live in for another.
- The over-fertilisation issue is moot if they employ the ICSI method as that requires direct implant into an egg.
- The technology is no longer untested as many clinics all over developed countries use IVF and ICSI everyday , though it may have been untested ten years ago.
- It will become more affordable if it is less restricted as it will encourage the market to sponsor more research in this area which leads to better methods and more competitive prices.
Your link only refutes only one foreign study, not the concept, and not the reality of IVF
http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=3564
IVF BABIES AT MORE RISK OF BIRTH DEFECTS THAN NATURALLY CONCEIVED BABIES
15 March 2002 Children conceived with assisted reproductive technology (ART), for example IVF, have about twice the risk of having a major birth defect or low birth weight than children conceived naturally, Australian and US studies show. In the Australian study, children conceived with ART had a 9 per cent chance of a major birth defect compared with a 4 per cent chance in naturally conceived children. The study was published in the medical journal
New England Journal of Medicine (2002; 346: 725-30).
This increased risk was the same whether the children were from single or multiple pregnancies, the review of all births in Western Australia showed.
The use of ART also increased the chances of multiple major defects, chromosomal and musculoskeletal defects.
Age of the mother and parity (the number of times she has given birth before) and the sex of the child did not affect the results.
The US study showed a 2.3 per cent increased risk of low birth weight in term singleton children (as opposed to children from multiple births, such as twins) conceived with ART compared to children conceived naturally (
New England Journal of Medicine 2002; 346: 731-37).
The risk did not vary according to the cause of infertility, and because the mothers were all apparently healthy, the increased risk of low birth weight after ART may be directly related to the techniques themselves, the authors suggested.
Also
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s904186.htm
"This story drops a bombshell on the IVF industry. Invitro fertilization is 25 years old, but until last year, no one even suspected there could be a problem with brave new world of this “miracle baby” technology. But an Australian researcher has found IVF kids are twice as likely to have birth defects as normal births. The repercussions for the IVF industry are still reverberating. One in 20 Australians are now born through IVF. And, remarkably, until recently, it seemed not to have much downside. But last year a review of the birth records of all the IVF babies in WA, showed that one in ten IVF children had a birth defect, compared with one in 20 for children born through conventional means. Catalyst reporter Jonica Newby investigates what’s going wrong and why it’s taken 25 years to find out that IVF isn’t perfect."
Reproduced with kind permission from
Medical Observer Weekly
Reviewed : 22/3/2002
IVF should be restricted to infertile, married women in dire circumstances, thats it.
