FDA! No gay sperm donations allowed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I actually need point out that that list did not exclude homosexuals, but men who've have sex with another man since 1977?

Given MrFun's usual tirades against reductionists reducing our identities to whom we have sex with, I might have expected my honoured(?) opponents to take note of that fact.

I don't see the difference. Men who have sex with men = gay, gay = men who have sex with men.

Are we supposed to jump for joy that in a blatant attempt to seem non-discriminatory, they didn't use the words "homosexual" or "gay"?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

I am being nice, believe me.


It's more or less redundant, actually.

thanks for being nice

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I actually need point out that that list did not exclude homosexuals, but men who've have sex with another man since 1977?

Given MrFun's usual tirades against reductionists reducing our identities to whom we have sex with, I might have expected my honoured(?) opponents to take note of that fact.

I'm not sure why some straight people have to blow this whole sexual orientation issue out of proportion.


If we tested everyone with the same objective, standard procedure then there would be no reductionist focus on who is having sex with whom.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by MrFun



thanks for being nice

Kick his butt Mr. Fun!

[Asher]

Bring it on! I'll take on all of youse!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
Oh and as for the label "whacked out Christian" that is completely unfounded and completely uncalled for.

No, just redundant

[MrFun]

There is nothing whacked out about believing in God, so how can it be redundant?

[Az]

There is nothing whacked out about believing in God

Sure there isn't.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't see the difference. Men who have sex with men = gay, gay = men who have sex with men.

Well, if that's your definition of "gay", there's no difference. Mine revolves around sexual orientation.

The point is that they discriminate based on risk behaviour, not on membership of a group prone to risk behaviour.

Are we supposed to jump for joy that in a blatant attempt to seem non-discriminatory, they didn't use the words "homosexual" or "gay"?

You are supposed to note what they actually are discriminating based on.

(It's you, not me, who finds discrimination in this context wrong.)

[Gibsie]

You are correct. It's not discrimination because these rules affect both straight and gay people who have had sex with men. Just like when you ban gay marriage it's not discrimination because gays can still get married

[Last Conformist]

I'm the one defending discrimination here ...

[Gibsie]

Well, there's discrimination and then there's discrimination...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Well, if that's your definition of "gay", there's no difference. Mine revolves around sexual orientation.

The point is that they discriminate based on risk behaviour, not on membership of a group prone to risk behaviour.

If they discriminated based on risk behavior, it would be unprotected sex -- period.

The risk factor isn't that they're gay, it's that gay people tend to have more unprotected sex, and therefore higher HIV infection rates.

[Elok]

I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, but I'll repeat my usual message that sperm banks shouldn't exist in the first place. The world's overpopulated already; making custom babies in a tube so you can say you "have a child" with a total stranger is just wasteful vanity. ADOPT, you silly McWhoresons, ADOPT!

As for the actual issue, there are far more revolting human rights twistings going on than this.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Asher

If they discriminated based on risk behavior, it would be unprotected sex -- period.

The risk factor isn't that they're gay, it's that gay people tend to have more unprotected sex, and therefore higher HIV infection rates.

The risk behaviour they're trying to get at here is male-male sex. It's simply a numerical fact that male-male sexual intercourse is more likely to leave you with a HIV infection than male-female.