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.

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.

Most infertility treatments are not covered in Canada, such as in vetro fertilization, since they are not considered medically necessary. I have a friend who spent over $50,000 trying to get pregnant.

Re the sour milk -- "spoilage" is really a culturally relative term. For people who are used to making cheese -- which is forced curdling -- soured milk is no big deal.

I don't follow the logic.

That's because it's insane troll-doll logic.

Re the sour milk -- "spoilage" is really a culturally relative term. For people who are used to making cheese -- which is forced curdling -- soured milk is no big deal.

nods

First time I was in Romania, some 6 or 7 years ago, I was presented with a glass of cold milk by my hosts. It was sour. It had skin on the top.

(Getting milk at all was a relatively new thing in the town, and very exciting, and it was brought in from farms and people went and collected it and absolutely didn't waste it. I don't think it was pasteurised or anything, but I'm not sure.)

The problem with many of the anti-gay-marriage arguments (IMHO) is that they're papering over the real reasons for disapproving with rationalization.

For instance, the gays-can't-have-children thing. Every time I've heard of a couple of 65 marrying, the reaction has been 'Oh, how sweet, how nice for them.' Everybody knows they won't have babies, but nobody's suggesting that their marriage violates the laws of God and Man. Nobody (except perhaps some fringe churches) suggests that a fertile couple marrying without the intention of conceiving isn't really married. They may disapprove of the choice, but nobody's saying it's not a marriage. (Well, I think you can get a Catholic annulment on those grounds, but I haven't heard any Catholics arguing this should be the societal rule.)

Similarly (and I've really heard this one): men sleep around more, therefore gay marriages are more likely to be adulterous, therefore gay marriages threaten the sanctity of het marriages. If you really believe this, you should be supporting lesbian marriages, because they contain two unlikely-to-sleep-around partners. Go the chaste lesbians! Sadly, this argument is never heard.

I think a lot of people are talking around the real issue, which is that they find homosexuality and homosexual sex icky. Which is becoming an unacceptable thing to say in polite circles.

I genuinely believe that the right wing are right to be threatened: they are losing the cultural wars.

Go the chaste lesbians!

HAHAHAH! Right. Cause I don't know ANY lesbians that sleep around and cheat on their partners. Nope.

Fay, did you DRINK the gross milk??