FDA! No gay sperm donations allowed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm always weary with any idea of putting monetary value on human dignity and principle of basic respect for one another.

Man I'm glad that you aren't in charge of policy. My taxes would be 98% .

And man, has Adam School PWNED both you and Asher up and down this thread. Just give it up and save some dignity.

[Nubclear]

I do hate to say it, but you Americans are seemingly more bigoted than the average Russian teenager.

And that is saying something.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which ones? Mr Fun? Because I don't see any bigotry in Adam Smith's posts. Just basic facts.

Or do you mean non-posters?

[DinoDoc]

I can tell you right now Tass. That the opinion of a Mormon living in Utah wounds every American to the core.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I can tell you right now Tass. That the opinion of a Mormon living in Utah wounds every American to the core.

I'm sorry

I'll take it back if it'll prevent a national mourning

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And Now For The Rest of The Story

Originally posted by Adam Smith
This is consistent with the CDC data. I am also skeptical of your 7.3 percent for reasons stated below.

Er. So?
People with known cases don't go to give blood donations or sperm donations, and since we're comparing new cases of black people versus new cases of gay people, I don't see what difference it makes. If anything, it plays more into my favor, since black people are more likely to be in a state of poverty, which means they're less likely to get tested, which means their percentage is likely even higher.

This calculation is totally wrong for a number of reasons. First, the standard CDC measure is annual incidence, so the 11,600 is per year, not over a period of four years. Second, as the BBC article indicates, this is only for 29 states, excluding New York, California and DC, all of which have higher than average rates. (ie, this is part of the US, not world wide, as you claimed in a prevous post.) Third, it is my understanding that gay men are at risk, not lesbians. So cut the denominator in half. Lastly, and most importantly, the probability of infection depends on the cumulative number of cases in the population not on the additional number of cases each year, which is the number you used.

My mistake, the wording was poor in the article.

Leaving aside the problems with your math, let me put it this way. The BBC article indicates there are 40,000 new cases each year, of which 11,686 are gay men. If the BBC numbers are correct, and the same proportion held back in previous years, then you can cut the problem size by 25 percent by screening out gay men. You can probably take off at least another 25 percent by screening out IV drug users. Any epidemiologist would be happy to have that kind of success before the first medical test is even run.

So 29% of new HIV cases are with gay men.
5% of people in the USA are gay men, giving us: 11,686 / 14,597,507 = 0.0008% infection rate per year for gay men. I am only counting new cases, because old cases are irrelevant, as they won't be donating blood or sperm (presumably ).

So if about 14M gay men went to donate blood, only 0.0008% of them would likely be infected with HIV. You feel this risk is too high, and this figure is so high it'll cost considerable amounts of money? What do you say to the blood banks who are apparently always asking for more blood?

I warned you that the BBC article was totally confused, and in addition you made a complete hash of the facts in two successive posts. I think its clear who's position is supportable.

Clearly it can't be yours, as you have not supported it with any facts at all. And I honestly don't see how you can have issue with a number like a 0.0008% infection rate each year. It's rather callous of you to disenfranchise a minority by telling them they can't donate. If the number was 25%, I could see it. But 0.0008%? Give me a break.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Anita Blake compares homosexuality to deafness. Doesn't anyone else here find this a tad ridiculous? Homosexuals are not disabled.

Well...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Anita Blake
I was using the Deaf couple as an example. It just ticked me off when someone said that deafness was a disability. The comparison that I made was that neither homosexuality nor deafness are disabilites, just different ways of life.

So being incapable of hearing isn't a disability?

dis·a·bil·i·ty n. pl. dis·a·bil·i·ties

a. The condition of being disabled; incapacity.
b. The period of such a condition: never received a penny during her disability.

2. A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.

3. Something that hinders or incapacitates.

4. Law. A legal incapacity or disqualification.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, being deaf IS a disability and is covered under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

[Urban Ranger]

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

Unless you can counter AS's point wrt high risk groups categorically, somehow thumping your chest screaming "I am oppressed!" while you are just one of a very large group, it doesn't make for a very good argument.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Unless you can counter AS's point wrt high risk groups categorically, somehow thumping your chest screaming "I am oppressed!" while you are just one of a very large group, it doesn't make for a very good argument.

But AS' point wrt "high risk groups" wasn't a good argument to begin with.

"high risk groups" to me, means there's a high risk.

I don't consider 0.0008% high risk, but maybe AS is one of those people who never leaves the house out of fear of being paralysed by a diving peregrine falcon.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And Now For The Rest of The Story

Originally posted by Asher
So 29% of new HIV cases are with gay men.
5% of people in the USA are gay men, giving us: 11,686 / 14,597,507 = 0.0008% infection rate per year for gay men. I am only counting new cases, because old cases are irrelevant, as they won't be donating blood or sperm (presumably ).

So if about 14M gay men went to donate blood, only 0.0008% of them would likely be infected with HIV.

If 29% of new HIV cases are with gays, that means there is a 29% chance per year per gay to become infected by the HIV virus.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And Now For The Rest of The Story

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If 29% of new HIV cases are with gays, that means there is a 29% chance per year per gay to become infected by the HIV virus.

ROTFLMAO...

No wonder you never make any sense in a debate. You clearly have zero logical reasoning ability.

Go figure you're stuck in IT work.

[Urban Ranger]

Sorry, brain fart

Still, if 29% of new cases are with gays and 5% of the population are gays, that means the chance for a gay to catch the HIV virus is almost 6 times higher than a non-gay. Quite a significant risk.

[Last Conformist]

@MrFun: In principle, I'd be fine with blood/sperm banks discriminating based on pretty much anything. In practice, discriminating wrt race may carry unacceptable political costs, which hardly is the case with discriminating based on sexual orientation.

@Anita: Deafness isn't a disability, but a way of life? Your definitions of "disability" and "way of life" must be fairly unusual ...

@All: There is no such thing as safe HIV testing of blood or sperm. Saying "it doesn't matter because it's gonna be tested anyway" is either ignorant or dishonest.

Edit: Added missing words.