[quote=“Seravee, post:13, topic:48129”]
Men cannot have children. It is biologically impossible. Infertile would imply that they are
incapable of producing children. These men are not infertile they just do not understand how biology works.
[/quote]This couple is “incapable of producing children”. There is an important difference between dictionary definition of words, and legal intent. The purpose of the rule is, the couple can’t have their own biological children though reproduction, so the tax break is offered so they can use technology in order to have their own biological children.
[quote=“TerryOfromCA, post:15, topic:48129”]
What the heck is that!! People of the same sex who are sexually attracted to each other are disordered and abnormal. A man attracted to a woman who might happen to be infertile is NOT disordered and abnormal.
[/quote]Actually, it is a glitch in the system. Sexual attraction stems from a biological drive to reproduce. Something you can’t do with either a man, or an infertile woman. Both are aberrations from the purpose of biological sexual attraction.
And this is also true of birth control. Birth control is a violation of the natural drive to reproduce. It is un-natural in every way. And it is also clearly not something God designed, since we never had this ability before the 20th century.
[quote=PapaDave]t means they are biologically INCAPABLE of reproducing with one another. Individual gays ARE usually capable of reproduction–they just have to reproduce with someone of the OPPOSITE sex.[/quote]And an infertile straight couple almost universally has only one infertile partner. The other partner is perfectly capable of reproducing with a different man/woman. This is a tax break provided to the couple, because the *couple as a unit *are incapable of having their own biological children together.