A homosexual couple cannot produce a child through sex, usually. That pretty much means they're infertile, it's just that they know it starting out. It's like if a male-to-female transsexual married a man, there'd be fertility issues. Or if a couple married after the woman had had a hysterectomy or he'd been castrated.

And man-in-a-can for het couples that have a problem on the male side can get it covered by insurance since it's considered a plain old fertility problem if he's shooting blanks. So if someone wanted to shack up with a male vampire, they'd just have to make sure they had a good insurance policy if they wanted kids.

Can couples be infertile if both people in it are fertile (do we use "fertile" for men? what should I be saying?)?

It seems a muddling of the term.

For the record, I don't think couples get pregnant either. The woman gets pregnant. The man gets her pregnant. The couple may be expecting (an addition to the family), but it's something shy of dyad pregnancy.

There are heterosexual couples who both test out as medically fertile, yet are unable to concieve a child together. (And yeah, it is the woman who does all the gestating, but I'm so used to all the "we're pregnant" "shared experience" couples that I know, that it seems a natural method of wording.) And while in a medical sense, both members of a gay couple are fertile, they're still unable to have a child without outside help - something that a fertile couple doesn't have to deal with.

Dan Savage's book about being a gay adoptive father includes the adoption counseling that he and his partner went to. After a very long day of hearing the heterosexual couples' experiences with fertility treatments et al, he realized one important difference was that he and his partner had already been through and come to terms with the idea that they were "infertile" whereas for the hets it was a big, life-altering realization.

I'm going to stay out of the gay marriage discussion b/c if I joined in I'd probably have to start using such words as, "kill" and "all" and "Liberals".

Re scones:

You know when milk goes off and you're left with a solid in the bottom half of the carton and a foul smelling liquid in the top half?

According to my mate's recently deceased grandmother, scones were conceived as a method to not waste milk that had gone bad. Thus, proper traditional scones are made with the solid part of sour milk. I don't know what else went into the recipe b/c by this time I'd stuck my fingers in my ears. La La La

Swear to ghod, Snake!

Note to Americans re jimi's post: Australian "Liberals" are not the same as American "liberals". In fact, they're more or less the opposite.

In point of fact, insurance does not usually cover most infertility treatments. In some countries, like Canada, yes, but only after something like a year or more, plus there are other constraints. In the US, it varies greatly, but in most states only diagnostic tests for infertility are covered, not treatments. As far as I know, NZ is like America in its general lack of infertility coverage. Most couples dealing with infertility are also dealing with very heavy out of pocket expenses for treatment.

Note to Americans re jimi's post: Australian "Liberals" are not the same as American "liberals". In fact, they're more or less the opposite.

wonders where this puts them in relation to British terms

decides hide from international politics

I'll just be over here, hiding in the corner.

wonders where this puts them in relation to British terms

Our Libs are your Tories.

I don't follow the logic. Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry becuase they won't breed. So does that mean they will breed if they don't marry? The argument is flawed from the get go.