El Sitherino Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Click This really makes no sense. There is no real evidence to suggest gays are by practice itself more prone to disease. If they practice safe sex they're no less a risk than straight people. I assume they'll be banned from blood tests as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 "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." Ditto. Let's ban obese people from donating, too. They could be carrying an obesity gene, after all:rolleyes:... This, like the gay foster parent nonsense, is all about homophobia and surpression of gay rights. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 when did america turn into some form of eugenics driven state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 And the bull**** continues...... I really don't get how a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex a year ago outside a monogamous relationship is less likely to have AIDs than a homosexual man.... And why 5 years? ESPECIALLY if they're in a monogamous relationship that entire five years. One would think that they would already HAVE HIV if they were going to contract it. this is.....disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 And why 5 years? ESPECIALLY if they're in a monogamous relationship that entire five years. One would think that they would already HAVE HIV if they were going to contract it. Don't you know? HIV only lasts for five years, then it dies inside you, never to be seen again:rolleyes: ... (sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Really, I'm not suprised. I knew that once these "Hey, look what we can do to the homos now, legally!" cases started up (i.e. gay adoption), they'll just continue to take away every right they can. They might as well just change the word "slave" to "faggot" and have them out picking cotton. Because at this rate that's where this country's headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 I'd not be too surprised if they pulled a Neo-Con and replaced everything "Homo" with "Freedom". "Now, kids, this is a Freedomgenous mixture here"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 "This... is a solution. Solutions are freedomogeneous and can exist in solid, liquid, or gaseous states. A freedomogeneous solution has a uniform composition throughout." XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hidden One Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 It must be gay's "get banned from certain things" month in the U.S.A and around the world. Some people just take it to far.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by TK-8252 They might as well just change the word "slave" to "faggot" and have them out picking cotton. Because at this rate that's where this country's headed. I wouldn't exactly go that far. There's a fair difference between slave labour and excluding people from social contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith I wouldn't exactly go that far. There's a fair difference between slave labour and excluding people from social contribution. Meh, just an exaggeration... I didn't intend that to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Not everything is about repression. The unfortunate truth and reality is that just like the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by young urban 'men of color', that overwhelming majority of HIV cases and transmissions are in the homosexual community. By putting a date limit, you limit not just liability but also risk. There are statistically significant amounts of false negative HIV results, which diminishes as the disease progresses. Would you want the child of a loved one getting HIV because the hospital wanted to be politically correct? And a thing about statistics - numbers never lie, people do. Imagine reading this - "Female pay soars 600%, greatly outstripping men!". What would you think? How about when you found out that it was CEO pay, and accounted for ~1% of all women, and that the aggregate female pay is going nowhere fast. My point is that whatever the 'fastest growing' part of HIV is - which is actually white women - that is on a percentage basis, so going from 10 to 20 is a 100% increase, whereas going from 100,000 to 150,000 is 'only' a 50% increase. It is also nice to note how every quoted source of opinion was from a 'lambda' or 'rainbow' source ... totally biased. That is 50% ok, but they should have had something to balance it off. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 The unfortunate truth and reality is that just like the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by young urban 'men of color'That one is true, unfortunately. that overwhelming majority of HIV cases and transmissions are in the homosexual community. That's not what I've been hearing. Can you link to a source of that information, please? Would you want the child of a loved one getting HIV because the hospital wanted to be politically correct? Hey, we all have to sacrifice something for society (sarcasm). And a thing about statistics - numbers never lie, people do. I've never heard it be put that way, but that couldn't be more true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle That's not what I've been hearing. Can you link to a source of that information, please? Of the adults and adolescents with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men, * 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM) * 22% were injection drug users (IDU) * 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact * 8% were both MSM and IDU. So basically, >88% non-hetero. There you go ... from avert.org Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 so because 20% more of people with AIDs are gay, that lists them as so much higher risk that they should be banned from sperm donation? It seems like the method for finding straight people at risk of having AIDs would be just as effective to use against homosexuals. If they pass this law they should make it so a straight man must either be in a monogamous relationship or have been celibate for 5 years as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by ET Warrior so because 20% more of people with AIDs are gay, that lists them as so much higher risk that they should be banned from sperm donation? Actually, if you do the math, excluding drug -only users, you end up with a risk ***6 times higher***. That is 3x higher than the risk increase of an accident by talking on a cell phone, yet most agree that it is risky. Look - I'm not saying it is fair or perfect, but the basic supposition here seems to be that the rule is based on a homophobic conservative persecution. Whereas there is decently plausible scientific evidence of safety gains by risk reduction. In fact, that is the more plausible argument. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 So then why is it only sperm donation? So far they haven't even mentioned plans of banning them from blood donation. That's my problem. If it's truely about health, why aren't they pushing blood donation as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith So then why is it only sperm donation? So far they haven't even mentioned plans of banning them from blood donation. That's my problem. If it's truely about health, why aren't they pushing blood donation as well? I have no idea about the genetics and biology involved ... sperm are different than blood, and the impact might be different. Thing is, the report cited was only worried about stirring up the outrage over the possibibility if homophobia. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 why even have sperm donation to ****ing begin with?! there are plenty of kids waiting to be ****ing adopted. i say just ban sperm donation altogether. well...wait a sec...then the woman couldn't get pregnant and experience child birth or something. but who ****ing cares!!!! just adopt these poor kids living in foster homes!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by txa1265 I have no idea about the genetics and biology involved ... sperm are different than blood, and the impact might be different. HIV infected blood is more dangerous than HIV infected seminal fluid though. HIV infected blood going into you is more likely to give you HIV than having unprotected sex with a person with HIV. That's why I really don't get this. I think that might be why people are crying homophobia. Perhaps they think "fag" semen will "gay up" the population? Originally posted by Rogue15 adopt these poor kids living in foster homes!!!!! I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by txa1265 The unfortunate truth and reality is that just like the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by young urban 'men of color' But that doesn't mean you can exclude (any more htan they are already) whole groups from society based on the statistical actions of some of them. eg: - allow police to arrest black males with less evidence than white people - remove the right to silence for black males - remove the right to buy guns from black males only etc... You can change your rules to try and deal with the problems, but those rules have to apply equally to ALL. EG: - reduce evidence requirements - remove right to silence - ban guns - don't let anyone who has been sexually active outside a marriage donate sperm etc.. but not simply ban a single group because they mightbe more at risk. I don't have any concrete figures, but even among gay men you are only talking around 8% with HIV (and that was a few years back, must be going down these days with the move fromt he promiscuous 80s to the safe sex 90s). If you ban gay men from sperm donation because 1 in 10 may have ads, then you need to ban men from sperm donation because 1 in 10 may be gay! Or it would be like tagging arab-americans because there is a statistically higher risk that they might be a terrorist (even if only 0.01% of them actually are). Or you could just test anyone who has had unprotected sex in the last 12 months... which i would kind of assume they would do anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 But that doesn't mean you can exclude (any more htan they are already) whole groups from society based on the statistical actions of some of them. eg: - allow police to arrest black males with less evidence than white people - remove the right to silence for black males - remove the right to buy guns from black males only etc... You can change your rules to try and deal with the problems, but those rules have to apply equally to ALL. EG: - reduce evidence requirements - remove right to silence - ban guns - don't let anyone who has been sexually active outside a marriage donate sperm etc.. That may be morally right, but realistically if one group in society is doing more damage than another group, it may indeed bring down crime in general to pick on them. Failure to protect the victims of crime is also morally reprehensible after all. I have another solution: Reduce those rights for POOR people. Poor people commit most crimes. Stop and search them more, remove their rights to silence. Though this solution is classist, it isn't racist, but it would still be opposed by activists because in many areas of our countries, ethnic minorities are also some of the poorest people. It's a no-win situation for the police. Personally I don't know how to cut crime WITHOUT picking on SOMEONE. As we've seen in the UK with violent crime... If the police are afraid to pick on certain social groups, if they're made to fill out form upon form upon an arrest... crime can increase as a result. And if you gave me a choice between living in a more violent neighborhood or living in a neighborhood where the police picked on people on the basis of their financial standing... Well heck, suddenly the question isn't as morally clear. I have a choice between infringing the minor, everyday rights of poor people or consciously allowing more people to be victimised by scummy criminals... that's a tough choice. I'd go for the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Well, think about it - aren't there already 'anti-gang' laws in place in most urban centers, and anti-mafia laws as well? Aren't those restricted rights based on association of a small group of the population based on behaviour associated indirectly with organizations of that type? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 Profiling of appearance is already taught to cops. They are taught to be suspicious of certains types of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.