Posted on 04/09/2013 2:16:01 PM PDT by servo1969
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Gay infertility. It is... (chuckles) It's about mandated insurance coverage for the inability to have babies. I know you're scratching your head. "Wait, wait, wait. There's no such thing as 'gay infertility.'" Oh, yes, there is now. The language doesn't mean anything anymore, folks. Truth doesn't mean anything anymore.
Language doesn't mean anything.
So if a bunch of activists want to create the concept of "gay infertility" and then tax all the rest of us to compensate them for the fact that they can't have babies, then that's gonna happen. You haven't missed anything yet. I'm just teasing you as to what's coming. Gays now think it's not fair they can't have babies, so they're calling that "infertility," and it will require mandatory health insurance because of it. (interruption) Yeah, I know they're not infertile but that doesn't matter; they can't have babies.
Even after they're married, they can't do it -- and that's not fair to them. That is culturally unfair. (interruption) Well, you mean the guy with the artificial womb? (interruption) Oh, that guy? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That guy. Well, I don't think they all want to go through that. See, that's the point. They'd have to do mastectomies, chopadicoffamies, addadictomies. They don't want to have to do all that. It's just gonna be easier to... (interruption) Folks, if you're thinking this never gonna happen, it's time to wake up. Time to wake up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, gay infertility. Are you paying attention? This is from Front Page magazine, this David Horowitz's great publication. "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." And boy, are we seemingly there.
You know, most societies die of suicide, not attack. Did you know that? Most societies wipe themselves out and it's interesting to read about the last days of past civilizations. You'll note that the last days of past civilizations were filled with idiotic, irrational ideas and behaviors that couldn't be explained by 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." It's a physiological 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."
What they're getting at here is that infertility coverage for heterosexual couples, it's not fair that coverage is not available to gay couples. And you say, "Wait a minute, gay couples are not infertile. They just, by definition, can't have baby." Doesn't matter. It's not fair that they can't have babies when other people can. It's not fair that gay couples can't have babies, and so we want access to infertility coverage. This is gonna be the next push according to this story in the magazine.
"Come on, Rush, it's never gonna happen."
Never gonna happen, right?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Hey, Mike, you know, I just thought of something, as quickly as you can, grab Klaus Nomi. I may as well do a full-fledged gay community update on this infertility business. I may as well go all in, uh, all the way, uh, dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. We'll get to Mitch McConnell's office being bugged by the Democrats here just a second, folks, but first a gay community update on infertility insurance. Here's our theme, Klaus Nomi singing.
(playing of song)
The Rush Limbaugh program.
(Continued playing of song)
All right. Let 'er rip here, man.
(continued playing of song)
It is a story at the Front Page magazine, it's on their website: "'Gay Infertility' is the New Mandatory Health Insurance Frontier ... Now that we’ve decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned." Because if gay marriage is a real thing, gay infertility must be a real thing. It's not fair. I mean, it wasn't fair they couldn't get married, and now it's not fair that they can't have babies, even though they're not infertile, that doesn't matter. And so there must be access to infertility insurance for married gay couples, if our culture and if our society is to be fair and equal for one and all, and it is coming, and don't laugh about it.
(continued playing of song)
Okay, folks, they're gonna get really revved up here now.
(continued playing of song)
Klaus Nomi everybody, let's hear it, Klaus Nomi. You Don't Own Me. That's a cover, the old Lesley Gore tune, one of our all-time first favorite feminist update themes, by the way. I'm telling you, it's a genuine story in Front Page magazine, it's by Daniel Greenfield and he's heard rumblings of this and is writing about it, and is effectively predicting it.
"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)."
So it's already a proposed piece of legislation. In fact, refusing to offer infertility treatment for gay couples, should be a crime according to this bill.
"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.'"
So the bill says that if two people engage in sexual relations, two people, not two heterosexual couples, if two people engage in regular sexual relations and after a year there is no conception, that couple's entitled to infertility compensation. And since gay couples will be married and will engage in sexual relations and will not conceive, then they will be entitled to infertility compensation, and California taxpayers will pay for it.
"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."
So you see, whether the couple is the gay or not is irrelevant if after a year there is no conception. Hello, insurance.
But as Daniel Greenfield writes: "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," anything else. "If we’re going to treat biology like a bad joke, why stop at the human species line?"
And this sort of melds with what the actor Jeremy Irons was asking as a Libertarian. He said (paraphrasing), "Wait a minute, now, what's to stop a father from marrying a son so as to escape estate taxes on the death of the father? I mean, what's to stop that? Who is to say a father can't marry his son?" And somebody said, "Well, that would be incest, and there are laws against incest." Jeremy Irons said, "No, no, there wouldn't be incest here because there isn't any procreation." A father and son marriage will not produce kids, but it will get infertility coverage. And a father and son marriage would be a pretty clever way of avoiding estate tax upon the death of the father. And who's to say that the father and son should be denied the love that they obviously have for one another? Is it wrong to love another man?
I have been asked this frequently on the golf course after sinking a long put and saving a hole. Is it wrong to love another man? Of course not. It's not. And is it wrong to love your son, marry your son, to avoid paying taxes? Of course the people that would probably do this are people on the left who want everybody to pay more taxes. But that's just a slight contradiction, we'll deal with that later.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I have a question about gay infertility. "If the treatments work, how do we deal with gay abortions?" Can there be gay abortions if there's no...? Gee, I'm confused. Would we pay for abortions if they change their minds? Gay couples. (sigh) I'm sorry. I've now lost the ability to follow my own train of thought. (interruption) "Stabbing Reported on a Texas College Campus." Eight victims, one arrest. (interruption) A stabbing, eight victims? In a stabbing? (interruption) Wait a minute. You're taking me now from whether or not we're gonna cover gay abortions in the infertility case to eight victims in a stabbing on a Texas college campus. (interruption) No, I know there's no magazine, and there's no clip, but... (interruption)
Well, I guess we're making it harder to gun down our kids.
Okay, Ryan in Cokeville, Wyoming. Let's grab a phone call here before it's too late. Ryan, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. It was a pleasure to be on hold during your obscene profit break. Hey, the real issue with this gay infertility is that the human anatomy is a bigot. That's the real issue.
RUSH: Yeah, I could see that. The human anatomy is the bigot.
CALLER: Yes. The human anatomy is a bigot. We're born and we discriminate by the very definition of the human anatomy.
RUSH: I can't find any fault with that, folks. I really can't.
CALLER: In the spirit of fairness, Rush, I've got a solution here, and the solution is that we need to push some federal legislation mandating that the human anatomy come from the womb gender neutral. This will make everything fair. This will make the anatomy so that it's not a bigot anymore. To get the RINOs on board, we just need a grandfather clause so that those of you born before this legislation passes can keep our gender.
RUSH: Yeah, that's a key element here. If you don't grandfather this in, a lot of us would be really confused.
CALLER: (laughing) Yeah, exactly.
RUSH: Excellent point. So what we need is, human anatomy must come from the womb gender neutral?
CALLER: Yes, that solves the whole problem.
RUSH: Now, for people in Rio Linda, could you explain that?
CALLER: Well, I guess it's kind of difficult to explain but the primary purpose is that so that there's no more bigotry from the human anatomy.
RUSH: Yeah, but what's "gender-neutral anatomy"?
CALLER: Well, if you're not born male or female, and this anatomy can procreate, then it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or whatever. Everyone can procreate and there's no bigotry, and all is well.
RUSH: Okay, so all we gotta do is figure out how to give birth to a gender-neutral anatomy?
CALLER: Yes, and we'll mandate that federally so that, you know, it'll just happen.
RUSH: Yeah. Good. Good idea. I'm jealous I didn't think of this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Lauren in Morgan Hills, California. Lauren, glad you called. Thanks for waiting. You're on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Well, mega dittos, Maha Rushie.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: Thanks so much for everything you do. I learn something new every day. First-time caller. This Tom Ammiano proposal for the California Assembly is really outrageous.
RUSH: Infertility insurance coverage for gay couples, yeah.
CALLER: Infertility insurance. Let me tell you. We are a mixed-race couple. I'm Chinese-American, and my husband is American mutt. It took us about eight and a half years before --
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Whoa. I just want to make sure I'm hearing this right. You are Chinese-American and your husband is "American mutt"?
CALLER: Right. He's Irish, Italian, (garbled).
RUSH: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. He's a white guy. Okay.
CALLER: A little bit of everything in there.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: We did not know for some time that we were both infertile, and our internist -- we saw the same one -- she said, "Well, I am seeing a specialist, and I recommend him highly." We come to find out that both of us required infertility treatment and the odds were probably 4% that we would ever conceive naturally. Well, we were devastated. We hadn't planned for this. You know, we didn't think that... We were healthy. We're in the middle of our thirties. So we went to this great specialist and thank God --
RUSH: Yeah, but did you have infertility coverage?
CALLER: We did not. I worked for an evil corporation. My husband worked for an evil corporation. I had an SSA program, an account, and we utilized that -- and our savings -- to cover the cost of testing. There's a lot of blood testing.
RUSH: Let me guess. Let me guess. You and your husband have tried very hard; you've not been able to have babies. You found out you're infertile. It's been an arduous thing to endure, to deal with, to pay for, and so forth -- and you're insulted here that your circumstance can be just automatically blanket applied?
CALLER: Offended. Offended completely, and it's a mockery to those of us who have gone through fertility treatment. There's a huge range. You cannot imagine, Rush, what can be done even when the odds are minuscule, like the way we did. So my husband was on a prescription. I was on a prescription.
RUSH: Look, I totally understand. You have a real problem. You have a real, genuine problem, you and your husband -- who, by the way, when you said "American mutt," I was worried for a moment that you'd married your dog. But now I know that that's not the case. You and your... (interruption) Well, "American mutt," see... (interruption) Yeah, I know. Not yet. You and your husband have this real, genuine problem that is emotionally draining and so forth.
Now all of a sudden, just because some people want some money, there's a bill before the California legislature --the assembly -- to treat any couple who's failed to conceive after one year of sex, to grant them access to infertility coverage, treatment. I'd be offended if I were you, too. It's trivializing your real life circumstance, in exchange for a money grab. So I know exactly how you feel and I want you to know that. We feel for you and we all here wish you the best, Lauren. Thanks much.
END TRANSCRIPT
Is there any other religion or church that is actually against this stuff in principle?
Like, here do the Eastern Orthodox stand on this? Or the Orthodox Jews? Or Baptists, or anybody? Ears perked.
I’m curious myself. Important and interesting question.
Sorry for all the typos. I think I’ll blame that on my allergies!
Unfortunately the rational means to recognize and wield certain self-evident biological facts are beyond the grasp of parrots who adorn themselves in vestigial Babylonian/Egyptian/Roman State-Established plumage whilst squawking from their pulpits that the world can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old.
Institutions created by humans that worship themselves in defiance of their Creator would naturally fall among the “created things” called out in Romans 1.
Thomas Jefferson recognized it as a State of affairs where:
“FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS”
And “because of this, God gave them over...”
I'm sorry, I seem to have run into a reading comprehension difficulty. I'm not sure what this paragraph means.
In particular, who or what are these plumage-adorned parrots who squawk that the world can't be more than a few thousand years old?
Thanks...
“FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS”
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html
I read over T. Jefferson’s words. Thanks. But it ddn
t tell me about the plumage-adorned parrots who squawk that the world can’t be more than a few thousand years old. Could you please fill me in with the missing information?
Who was Jefferson talking about?
That’s MY question.
That’s YOUR homework.
Oh, you’re just saying that to be provocative ... :o0
Well, I wouldn’t want to think him a fool.
Well, the nature of self-evident truth is that it remains what it is regardless of what some folks might or might not want.
What was the nature of the relationship between Indulgences and the state-establishment of those who sold them?
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=indulgences+site:www.lcms.org&oq=indulgences&fp=1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.