Question of the Day: Homosexuality

[BrownEyedBoy]

With that logic, those who don't accept that the KKK hates black people and other minorities are bigots too. I guess that makes black people bigots then for speaking out against bigotry directed at them.

Of course, I won't think of anything that silly. But when I read such a nonsensical argument like that above, it makes me ask different questions.

Melon

I don't hate homosexuals so don't compare this to the KKK.

 

[the soul waits]

What I hate, most of all, is how media stereotypes determine how people are portrayed. I shouldn't have to prove that I'm "as worthy" as straight folk, because "straight folk" don't have to prove anything to anyone. Heterosexuals can be as righteous or hedonistic as they want, and no one will label all heterosexuals based on their behavior. But homosexuals? Oh no...we're supposed to somehow act 10x better than straight society, and maybe then, straight society might throw us a legislative bone. Well, I've got two words for straight society...

Melon

Welcome to the female situation when she's trying to get ahead in the corporate male world.

 

[Anthony]

Welcome to the female situation when she's trying to get ahead in the corporate male world.

Women's rights are now legally recognised. No, it doesn't solve everything, not by a long shot, but its a step in the right direction and its more than what homosexuals have.

Ant.

 

[BVS]

I don't hate homosexuals so don't compare this to the KKK.

Well many in the KKK claim they don't hate, they just want to keep the white race pure. "We don't hate we just want separation."

 

[the soul waits]

Women's rights are now legally recognised. No, it doesn't solve everything, not by a long shot, but its a step in the right direction and its more than what homosexuals have.

Ant.

Actually, no, not here anyway. Men still earn more than women do, performing the exact same job with the exact same qualifications.

 

[melon]

Actually, no, not here anyway. Men still earn more than women do, performing the exact same job with the exact same qualifications.

Same thing with the U.S. Of course, it is also more complex than that. Salaries aren't really set until the person is hired, so most of it depends on "education," and, more importantly, "experience."

I think that if employers were forced to set the salary on a position ahead of time, things would improve a bit on this front.

Melon

 

[deep]

FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex


NEW YORK (AP) -- To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.

The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.

"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, California, that seeks gay sperm donors.

Traiman said adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine and testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases.

Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.
Behavior vs orientation

The practical effect of the provision -- part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 -- is hard to gauge. It is likely to affect some lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man's sperm for artificial insemination.

But it is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, has called it "policy based on bigotry."

"The part I find most offensive -- and a little frightening -- is that it isn't based on good science," Cathcart said. "There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool."

In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors -- gay or straight -- would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or "an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship."

But an FDA spokeswoman cited FDA documents suggesting that officials felt the broader exclusion was prudent even if it affected gay men who practice safe sex.

"The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors," said one document.

Many doctors and fertility clinics already have been rejecting gay sperm donors, citing the pending FDA rules or existing regulations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

"With an anonymous sperm donor, you can't be too careful," said a society spokeswoman, Eleanor Nicoll. "Our concern is for the health of the recipient, not to let more and more people be sperm donors."
'Directed' donors

However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed gay donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying gay men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.

Gay men are a major donor source at Traiman's Rainbow Flag sperm bank, and he said that practice would continue despite the new rules.

"We're going to continue to follow judicious, careful testing procedures for our clients that even experts within the FDA say is safe," said Traiman, referring to the six-month quarantine.

The FDA rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as "directed" sperm donors. If a woman wishing to become pregnant knows a gay man and asks that he provide sperm for artificial insemination, a clinic could provide that service even if the man had engaged in sex with other men within five years.

However, Traiman said some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child, and would thus prefer an anonymous donor.

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

"This rule will make things legally more difficult for them," she said. "I can't think of a scientifically valid reason -- it has to be an issue of discrimination."

 

[dandy]

how exactly do they propose to enforce this?

the lunacy rages on.

 

[deep]

Perhaps they will have nurses with gaydar detectors

or could the inspirational literature selected be the factor as to what goes in the bank or is determined not negotiable, non sufficiently funded?

 

[BVS]

Perhaps they will have nurses with gaydar detectors

or could the inspirational literature selected be the factor as to what goes in the bank or is determined not negotiable, non sufficiently funded?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Incoming Rant Alert!

Allow me to present a hypothetical.

There's a man called Bob. He personally believes that homosexuality is wrong, just like he believes pre-marital sex is wrong. However, he acknowledges that other people are free to determine their own beliefs and morality and he will not obstruct them from practicing activities that he personally does not agree with. So just in the same way as he (if he were in a position to make laws) would keep pre-marital sex legal even though it is against his personal morality, he would also legalise gay marriage and has utterly no problem with two people practicing homosexuality, even though it is against his personal morality.

Is Bob a bigot?

Is Bob a liberal or a conservative? I have to know because what I like to do, being the intellectual I am, is hold what you might call a double standard. If Bob is a conservative, he's a narrow-minded, bigoted bastard. If he's a liberal, I'd say he's pretty tolerant. Was that a sarcastic rant? I have to know more about this Bob guy, because I hold a double standard for that as well.

 

[BVS]

Incoming Rant Alert!



Is Bob a liberal or a conservative? I have to know because what I like to do, being the intellectual I am, is hold what you might call a double standard. If Bob is a conservative, he's a narrow-minded, bigoted bastard. If he's a liberal, I'd say he's pretty tolerant. Was that a sarcastic rant? I have to know more about this Bob guy, because I hold a double standard for that as well.

 

[melon]

Is Bob a liberal or a conservative? I have to know because what I like to do, being the intellectual I am, is hold what you might call a double standard. If Bob is a conservative, he's a narrow-minded, bigoted bastard. If he's a liberal, I'd say he's pretty tolerant. Was that a sarcastic rant? I have to know more about this Bob guy, because I hold a double standard for that as well.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

 

[Irvine511]

very mature, gentlemen.

 

[saltwaterkiss26]

do you believe it is possible for a person to believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong and not be a bigot?

I believe that it is possible for a person to be ignorant about homosexuality and not be a bigot. I believe that it is possible for a person to believe that homosexuality is un-Christian and not be a bigot. I believe that it is possible for a person to believe that homosexuality is something that will never affect them and not be a bigot. I believe that it is possible for a person to believe homosexuality to be gross and not be a bigot.

But to think that it is wrong makes it hard, I think, to have a case. There's something about the word that gets me.

 

[Do Miss America]

Re: Re: Question of the Day: Homosexuality

I believe that it is possible for a person to be ignorant about homosexuality and not be a bigot. I believe that it is possible for a person to believe that homosexuality is un-Christian and not be a bigot. I believe that it is possible for a person to believe that homosexuality is something that will never affect them and not be a bigot. I believe that it is possible for a person to believe homosexuality to be gross and not be a bigot.

Can you be ignorant about black people, believe it's a sin, or think it's gross and not be a bigot?

 

[melon]

I hate heterosexuals. They're gross and stupid.

Melon

 

[saltwaterkiss26]

honestly, dear, I agree... but to add the word 'hate', I don't believe that you can hate homosexuals (or any group) and not be a bigot. seems to me that's the ultimate definition.