FDA! No gay sperm donations allowed.

[SlowwHand]

prickly. I figured the puritan censor might block out with asterisks.

[MrFun]

[Japher]

Where is the justice in making such inane distinctions as race or sexual orientation when there is no NEED for it?

NEED? Prove that it is not needed...

[MrFun]

We do not need to make the distinction on sexual orientation because we can test everyone with the same method, thus ensuring everyone's safety and health.

[SlowwHand]

You know, you really ought to be nicer to me.
I'm on your damned side.

[Anita Blake]

I can understand where the Bush administration is coming from because of my own religious background. They are afarid that if homosexuality is genetic that this would make the children that are born "more likely" to be homosexual. However, in the Deaf community, there was a lesbian couple who intentionally had a Deaf baby. This brought out an outcry from the public because people see it as condeming the child to having a disability: something that deviates from the norm. I think this is what the Bush administration is trying to do, but in either case (the case of seeing deafness or homosexuality), classifying these as a disability is wrong. I don't think that the government should be allowed to discriminate in this way. Whether the sperm donor is homosexual should be like any other characteristic listed on their bio sheet.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You know, you really ought to be nicer to me.
I'm on your damned side.

sorry

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Anita Blake
I can understand where the Bush administration is coming from because of my own religious background. They are afarid that if homosexuality is genetic that this would make the children that are born "more likely" to be homosexual. However, in the Deaf community, there was a lesbian couple who intentionally had a Deaf baby. This brought out an outcry from the public because people see it as condeming the child to having a disability: something that deviates from the norm. I think this is what the Bush administration is trying to do, but in either case (the case of seeing deafness or homosexuality) as a disability is wrong. I don't think that the government should be allowed to discriminate in this way. Whether the sperm donor is homosexual should be like any other characteristic listed on their bio sheet.

Oh great -- now we're going to use a couple of whackos as an example, to further distort the issue.

[Japher]

That is one smart DL

[Anita Blake]

how would you classify to Deaf women trying to have a child that is like them as wackos?

[Anita Blake]

and i'm not a dl

[Solomwi]

I thought you said they were lesbians?

Oh, and

[Anita Blake]

they are. maybe i took it wrong, but i took it as mr fun saying that they were wackos b/c they were trying to have a deaf baby. if i misudnerstood that, then i take my comment back

[Anita Blake]

BTW, what do the little dancing smileys mean?

[Asher]

Re: And Now For The Rest of The Story

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I don’t even know where to start with you idiots…

First, basic public health. If you are trying to prevent the spread of an infectious disease, first you screen out high risk populations based on risk factors, then you test. You do it this way because testing is time-consuming and expensive. Gay men are high risk for HIV, so they get screened out just like other high risk groups such as drug users, people who have contact with hepatitis, or literally 20 other risk factors in the regs, including risk factors that heterosexuals face.

Give me a break -- you would have a point if maybe 50% of the gay population had HIV, but the VAST majority do not.

11,686 gay men were diagnosed worldwide with HIV during 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, while 40,000 people are diagnosed with AIDS every year (so about 11,686/160,000 of cases involve gay men...). You're an economist, I'll let you figure out the percentage of that...

Further, if we're going to isolate minorities for AIDs infections, blacks are way more likely -- out of any minority (sexuality, skincolor, religion, whatever) to have HIV, so as a cost-cutting measure why are they allowed to donate blood and sperm if gays cannot? Black people account for 55% of all people infected with HIV.

So a minority in which 7.3% of all cases belong to is banned from blood/sperm donations, while a minority in which 55% of all cases belong to is permitted.

Obviously, your argument is bunk.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3242686.stm