Two men and two women are not infertile. They're just not capable of impregnating each other. This isn't a medical problem. It's a mental problem.
It's interesting sometimes to read about the last days of past civilizations. It's hard not to notice during these readings that those last days were filled with completely irrational ideas and behaviors that could not be explained in any way outside of a mass collapse of reason.
In entirely unrelated news, there's a new proposal to mandate coverage for Gay Infertility. The problem is that Gay Infertility is just biology. Two men and two women are not infertile. They're just not capable of impregnating each other. This isn't a medical problem. It's a mental problem.
Infertility is meant to cover natural couples who would be capable of conceiving a child if not for medical problems. Gay rights activists will predictably argue that couples in which one partner has deeper medical problems may also be covered, but that is only as part of a larger set of natural couples. Unnatural couples cannot ever have children without medical intervention. They're not infertile. They're biologically incompatible.
But now that we've decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned. Gay infertility must also be a real thing. And you must also pay for it.
Should health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples? Yes, according to a bill (AB 460) filed in the California legislature by assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). In fact, refusing to do so should be a crime.
Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization (IVF). If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever “a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause for infertility” has been diagnosed—or upon “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.” Thus, under current law, diagnosis of a physical reason for the inability to conceive or sire a child is not required. It is enough that a couple tried to get pregnant for a year and failed.
According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination” based on sexual orientation. Instead, they are denying infertility treatment benefits “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” AB 460 would amend the law to add the following language:
"Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation."
But why stop there?
Once we've determined that 70-year-olds and gay men are equally entitled to infertility treatments, not to mention people paralyzed from the waist down and 3-year-olds... it's time to extend the civil right of a medical treatment meant to help biologically compatible couples to people trying to impregnate sheep and coffee tables.
If we're going to treat biology like a bad joke, why stop at the human species line? Why stop at biology at all.
Object Sexuality is a condition in which people are attracted to and fall in love with objects. There is an Object Sexualist woman in the UK who is in a gay marriage with the Statue of Liberty.
It's up to someone to help them battle the boundaries of biology and sanity by getting someone in this relationship pregnant. Possibly the Statue of Liberty.
Anything else is the vilest kind of bigotry no different than apartheid and segregation. Just ask Congressman John Lewis who for $8.95 and a jelly donut will declare anything to be the new civil rights movement.
New Yorkers love the Statue of Liberty - but maybe not as much as Amanda Liberty. The 27-year-old British woman, whose real name is Amanda Whittaker, has literally fallen in love with the monument: She has "objectum sexuality," which means she is attracted to objects. "I've lost 4 stone in weight because I'm so happy with her," Amanda said on a news program recently.
Erika Eiffel, an object-sexual, married Paris's Eiffel Tower in 2007 while Eklöf Berliner-Mauer is believed to be the first person to go public with the condition, when she announced her love for a Swedish red fence.
Under AB 640 which protects the right of anyone to infertility treatment regardless of " gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information... sexual orientation"... Objectexualists have the same rights to infertility treatment with the statues, buildings and red fences of their choice.
And stop laughing. You're a bigot. You're an Objectosexualophobe.
The upshot of gay rights is that the real cost never ends. How can it? If every homosexual coupling is entitled to infertility treatment at the cost of mere tens of thousands of dollars and other people are entitled to pay for it... then the health insurance system creaks ever closer to collapse as it is forced to indulge the impossible whims of people who want to defy biology with imaginary relationships and get someone else to foot the bill.