US to turn gays away from sperm banks

[vniow]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US government said it would ban homosexuals from making anonymous donations to sperm banks, in the name of preventing transmittable diseases, in a move swiftly condemned by gay rights groups.

New Food and Drug Administration rules that take effect May 25 require agencies that collect tissues or cells including sperm to ask the donor if he has had sex with men or used injectable drugs in the past five years. If the answer is affirmative in either case no donation is allowed.

The FDA says the rules are just an extension of procedures already in effect for donating blood or organs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&e=1&u=/afp/us_health_homosexuals

Please tell me this is a hoax.

[Krizoitz]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&e=1&u=/afp/us_health_homosexuals

Please tell me this is a hoax.

Well, it is true that anal sex has a much higher risk of transmiting disease, so I can see where they might have to be more careful in accepting donations. If it means they have to spend more resources on testing then it could make sense. What I don't understand is, shouldn't they have to test all blood anyway? I'd like to see more evidence as to why they made this decision before I make any judgements however.

[Ugg]

Well, it is true that anal sex has a much higher risk of transmiting disease, so I can see where they might have to be more careful in accepting donations. If it means they have to spend more resources on testing then it could make sense. What I don't understand is, shouldn't they have to test all blood anyway? I'd like to see more evidence as to why they made this decision before I make any judgements however.

Codwallop, I say. All sperm donors are tested for communicable diseases. There is no reason to believe that gay anal sex is any more likely to be a problem than straight anal sex.

Given the danger of Sars, it would seem much more beneficial to test for it.

This is simply anti-gay bias, most likely a vote getter.

[zimv20]

and the bigotry bus rolls on...

[Voltron]

If Homosexuality is genetic maybe they don't want to pass the genetic defect on to unsuspecting couples?

[dopefiend]

If Homosexuality is genetic maybe they don't want to pass the genetic defect on to unsuspecting couples?


Ohhhh true! I remember hearing about some people thinking its genetic!

[pseudobrit]

Ohhhh true! I remember hearing about some people thinking its genetic!

Maybe genetic, but I think Voltroll just called a bunch of people on this board defects.

[dopefiend]

Maybe genetic, but I think Voltroll just called a bunch of people on this board defects.


**shrug** Could be ;)

Edit: the genetic part that is, could be a defect. Clear that up a bit :p

[skunk]

Clear that up a bit :p
Hmm. Clear as mud.

[dopefiend]

Hmm. Clear as mud.

Well, the lifestyle isn't a defect...but a possible mutation or defect in the genes that causes one to not be attracted to the opposite sex is what I meant.

[skunk]

Well, the lifestyle isn't a defect...but a possible mutation or defect in the genes that causes one to not be attracted to the opposite sex is what I meant.
IT IS COMPLETELY NATURAL. There are many variations in behaviour. These are not all caused by "defects". You might just as well say that being black - or white - is a defect.

[cc bcc]

If Homosexuality is genetic maybe they don't want to pass the genetic defect on to unsuspecting couples?

Just think about it, if homosexuality was genetic those genes would have died out millions of years ago..

[Krizoitz]

Just think about it, if homosexuality was genetic those genes would have died out millions of years ago..

Not necessarilly. Social preasures would have caused homosexuals into heterosexual relationships that could cause them to propogate. Additionally females might act as carriers and not be affected. Or it could be a mutation that is relatively easy to see.

I don't know if any of these are actually true, but they are at least possible.

[radhak]

If Homosexuality is genetic maybe they don't want to pass the genetic defect on to unsuspecting couples?
1. So the government wants to sanitize the gene pool? But doesn't this administration oppose any sort of experimentation with genetic science? So this is plain old cleansing? (not ethnic cleansing, but - help me out here - some sort of sexual-orientation-cleansing...)
2. How about those who want homosexual kids? ;)


Just think about it, if homosexuality was genetic those genes would have died out millions of years ago..
thats too much of logic for some... :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

Maybe genetic, but I think Voltroll just called a bunch of people on this board defects.
Maybe I should put Pseudobrit on my ignore list.
Then again if I did that I'd be narrow minded and short sighted wouldn't I?

[mactastic]

Wow, now not only are you calling people around here defects, but now you're calling several of the people here narrow minded and short sighted too... Way to go.

[numediaman]

If its OK for the government to sterilize its citizens -- a position supported by Voltron and others -- why shouldn't the government not be allowed to also control the gene pool? Seems like the logical next step.

Why not simply eliminate the threat altogether and get rid of all citizens that could pollute the public gene pool?

[skunk]

If its OK for the government to sterilize its citizens -- a position supported by Voltron and others -- why shouldn't the government not be allowed to also control the gene pool? Seems like the logical next step.

Why not simply eliminate the threat altogether and get rid of all citizens that could pollute the public gene pool?
Because there'd be nobody left to pay the taxes to support the military (all kneel).

[skunk]

Maybe I should put Pseudobrit on my ignore list.
Then again if I did that I'd be narrow minded and short sighted wouldn't I?
I want to be first!

[iMeowbot]

Just think about it, if homosexuality was genetic those genes would have died out millions of years ago..
Before discounting the possibility that there may have been a survival advantage to having us around, you may want to read up on something called kin selection. There are tons of traits and behaviors that never did fit into the classical model of evolution. Darwin observed this but didn't have an explanation to offer; kin selection is a relatively new attempt to explain it, but it's still not very well understood.

[Krizoitz]

If its OK for the government to sterilize its citizens -- a position supported by Voltron and others -- why shouldn't the government not be allowed to also control the gene pool? Seems like the logical next step.

Why not simply eliminate the threat altogether and get rid of all citizens that could pollute the public gene pool?

While I may not agree with Voltron on this point, I must point out that you're insinuation of some sort of gov't sponsored sterlization is off base and inflamatory. The topic you are refering to was a limited case in which sterilization was one option to deal with a couple (both drug users) who kept having and neglecting/abusing their children (they all tested positive for cocaine, the oldest was 5). If you are going to offer an argument, fine, but try to do so without resorting extremeist tactics. You may not agree with either him/her me or others on various issues, but what you are doing is trying to de-rail what could be a productive and informative debate by carrying arguments to absurdity.

I think that many members in this forum, from all sides (and this definitely includes you Voltron, so don't think I'm siding with you) would benefit from being a little less reactionary to positions they may disagree with. I'm not saying you have to just accept what they say, but it is possible to disagree and voice that opinion without seeming so close-minded. Perhaps if everyone was more willing to listen, progress could actually be made, instead of what I see as most political threads turning into a villification of one group or the other. I am NOT saying you have to agree with him or even like him, but lets try to actually debate what is being said and not what we think is being said.

[cc bcc]

Before discounting the possibility that there may have been a survival advantage to having us around, you may want to read up on something called kin selection. There are tons of traits and behaviors that never did fit into the classical model of evolution. Darwin observed this but didn't have an explanation to offer; kin selection is a relatively new attempt to explain it, but it's still not very well understood.

I agree that I put it a little too simplistic ;-) (Homosexual -> no reproduction -> "gay genes" die out)

[Krizoitz]

I agree that I put it a little too simplistic ;-) (Homosexual -> no reproduction -> "gay genes" die out)

You know, if that were true, then the right should be jumping at the idea of gay-marriage. What better way to get rid of all those pesky homosexuals than to encourage them to all be together and not produce babies! :p

[skunk]

You know, if that were true, then the right should be jumping at the idea of gay-marriage. What better way to get rid of all those pesky homosexuals than to encourage them to all be together and not produce babies! :p
What, like on Fire Island? :D
Unfortunately for that argument, though, homosexuality, strangely enough, doesn't arise through heredity: I think you'll find that most homosexuals were born to heterosexual parents. Slight logical inconsistency there, I feel. :rolleyes:

[iMeowbot]

What, like on Fire Island? :D
Unfortunately for that argument, though, homosexuality, strangely enough, doesn't arise through heredity: I think you'll find that most homosexuals were born to heterosexual parents. Slight logical inconsistency there, I feel. :rolleyes:
Well... no, not at all. If it was that simplistic, traits like eusociaity would not exist.

People are pretty badly hobbled in trying to figure out why we are constructed the way we are. Having figured out agriculture, medicine and other neat tricks, plus language to keep them going, we inadvertently messed with the simplest form of the natural selection model. Traits with no apparent purpose today still persist, gene combinations that would have resulted in death taken out of the proper environment can now survive because they can be worked around, and there's less need for new traits to become dominant because we can throw tools and technology at the problems.

We really don't know exactly how our distant ancestors lived, or what purpose many traits really had. Simulation after the fact doesn't work out very well, there's the whole "if I knew then what I know now" problem. Was there a prehistoric advantage to having some portion of the population that was unlikely to reproduce? It's possible that something along the lines of worker bees is built into the code. Nobody really knows, and chances aren't bad that we'll never know for certain at this late date.

[skunk]

Having figured out agriculture, medicine and other neat tricks, plus language to keep them going, we inadvertently messed with the simplest form of the natural selection model. Traits with no apparent purpose today still persist, gene combinations that would have resulted in death taken out of the proper environment can now survive because they can be worked around, and there's less need for new traits to become dominant because we can throw tools and technology at the problems.
All those other species which exhibit diverse sexual orientation can also attribute it to agriculture, medicine and other neat tricks, can they?

I notice you refer to homosexuality as a "problem". Who is it a problem for?

[iMeowbot]

All those other species which exhibit diverse sexual orientation can also attribute it to agriculture, medicine and other neat tricks, can they?

Huh? That's pretty much completely backward from what I wrote. What I wrote is that we won't likely be able to figure out why it appears in our own species, because we've long since moved away from the settings our bodies had adapted to cope with.

We can figure out why some of this stuff appears in other species (but not all of them by any means, at least not yet). For ourselves, it's going to be a lot harder to figure out because of the detachment.

I notice you refer to homosexuality as a "problem". Who is it a problem for?

Uh, no. I wrote that we are less likely now to develop new traits, because we have other ways to adapt to problems. I'd file same-sex attraction under the "traits with no apparent purpose today" category. It's there and it's real, but it really doesn't add to or detract from my ability to be productive. Neither do my double-jointed thumbs, now that I think about it.

[Krizoitz]

Huh? That's pretty much completely backward from what I wrote. What I wrote is that we won't likely be able to figure out why it appears in our own species, because we've long since moved away from the settings our bodies had adapted to cope with.

Yeah I have noticed that people tend to read what they want to read to further their own agenda, rather than reading what is actually written. It drives me to frustration sometimes. You hear about miscommunications when people talk, and it makes sense, maybe you hear something wrong, etc. But its a little harder to take when the arguments are written right in front of you and all you have to do is read them, and if you don't understand read them again. :sigh:

[Neserk]

The problem here is you are all guys.

Sexual attraction is a continuum not an either or. Most of us are in the middle and under the right circumstances could swing either way. Only about 4% of the population is 100% gay or straight. This is natures way of allowing for adjustment for the emotional needs that are met through sexual contact. As the world population increases you will see more and more people expressing their "gay" side in order to keep the world from imploding (I hope).

You already see it with a wider accpetance of gays amoung generation Y.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4987495

[skunk]

The problem here is you are all guys.
Speak for yourself! :D


(You're right, of course)

[blackfox]

Good points made in here...although as a metrosexual, I am not sure where I stand...

[skunk]

Good points made in here...although as a metrosexual, I am not sure where I stand...
Somewhere on the Subway, I guess. :)

[iMeowbot]

Sexual attraction is a continuum not an either or. Most of us are in the middle and under the right circumstances could swing either way. Only about 4% of the population is 100% gay or straight.
4 per cent looks suspiciously like it came from a Kinsey-esque survey. Those surveys are all fraught with problems, and shouldn't be taken at face value. That's not to say that they're entirely useless, just that they're unsuitable for application to sound bites.
This is natures way of allowing for adjustment for the emotional needs that are met through sexual contact. As the world population increases you will see more and more people expressing their "gay" side in order to keep the world from imploding (I hope).
That is an interesting line of speculation, and in many ways it is appealing. The problem with these numbers is that they're measurements of things we really don't know how to measure. They're based on asking people about their histories and feelings, and if there's one thing we do know for certain, it's that people don't always answer questions truthfully. Most such surveys also tend to blur the differences between behavioral history and orientations (for one example, the combination of youth and Southern Comfort can make all of this irrelevant).
You already see it with a wider accpetance of gays amoung generation Y.
There's another place where we don't really know what to measure. Is it that more people are adopting different feelings, or that more people feel safe telling the truth? We can observe effects, but causes are still murky territory.

[skunk]

Those surveys are all fraught with problems, and shouldn't be taken at face value. That's not to say that they're entirely useless, just that they're unsuitable for application to sound bites.
Are you suggesting that it isn't a continuum, or just that the figures are moot?

[zimv20]

You already see it with a wider accpetance of gays amoung generation Y.
There's another place where we don't really know what to measure. Is it that more people are adopting different feelings, or that more people feel safe telling the truth? We can observe effects, but causes are still murky territory.
the article has some details about the studies

[iMeowbot]

Are you suggesting that it isn't a continuum, or just that the figures are moot?
Yep, that the numbers don't really tell us anything. There is behavior all over a spectrum, but we really don't know how much there really is, much less why.

I really do believe (obviously I suppose, since I won't shut up about it) that it's important to acknowledge what we don't know, especially for those of us whose rights are at stake in this dialogue. My reason for that is very simple: if a promising possibility is presented as fact, and that possibility later turns out to be inaccurate, it provides opponents with something to debunk, and weakens related arguments by association (even if otherwise they could stand alone). It's the difference between "we don't have a valid reason to prohibit this" and "we have an invalid reason to allow this."

[blackfox]

Yep, that the numbers don't really tell us anything. There is behavior all over a spectrum, but we really don't know how much there really is, much less why.

I really do believe (obviously I suppose, since I won't shut up about it) that it's important to acknowledge what we don't know, especially for those of us whose rights are at stake in this dialogue. My reason for that is very simple: if a promising possibility is presented as fact, and that possibility later turns out to be inaccurate, it provides opponents with something to debunk, and weakens related arguments by association (even if otherwise they could stand alone). It's the difference between "we don't have a valid reason to prohibit this" and "we have an invalid reason to allow this."
excellent point/reasoning...unfortunately, this leaves an grey area, which many are uncomfortable with in an age of pat, black-and-white answers...on a related note, there is an excellent documentary entitled "Stupidity" playing around the US right now, which examines the fact that most people do not acknowledge the fact that what we don't know plays as important a role in human affairs, as what we do...and it is important to address the reality of both in intelligent assessments...do check it (the movie or the concept) out...

[skunk]

Yep, that the numbers don't really tell us anything. There is behavior all over a spectrum, but we really don't know how much there really is, much less why.
We don't really need to know how much there is, just to acknowledge that a rigid, binary interpretation of sexual orientation is not valid. Therefore, in order to give people the liberty to express themselves sexually over that acknowledged spectrum without discriminatory penalties, we should admit, as you say, that "we don't have a valid reason to prohibit this"

[iMeowbot]

the article has some details about the studies
That article quotes some numbers from surveys regarding acceptance, which does matter but leaves a lot of shaky ground. Public opinion can turn on a dime, so it's important that it isn't built on bad information.

[iMeowbot]

We don't really need to know how much there is, just to acknowledge that a rigid, binary interpretation of sexual orientation is not valid. Therefore, in order to give people the liberty to express themselves sexually over that acknowledged spectrum without discriminatory penalties, we should admit, as you say, that

When it comes to political arguments, bisexuality is really annoying :D It's the strongest case for "it's a conscious choice, therefore it's a moral issue," it's also right in the territory blackfox mentioned that people try to ignore because it requires thought, and thinking is hard.

In a way, that might be okay. If research highlights people who peg the gay-o-meter right into the iridescent pink zone, there are fewer variables to examine and a stronger case can be made that same-sex attractions are the real deal. If that can be strongly established, then "it's a choice" will have been successfully discredited, and we'll also have a starting point for understanding the people somewhere in between the extremes.

[scem0]

now gay people are going to donate sperm just to rebel and i don't blame them one bit :p ;).

scem0

[Neserk]

When it comes to political arguments, bisexuality is really annoying :D It's the strongest case for "it's a conscious choice, therefore it's a moral issue," it's also right in the territory blackfox mentioned that people try to ignore because it requires thought, and thinking is hard.

In a way, that might be okay. If research highlights people who peg the gay-o-meter right into the iridescent pink zone, there are fewer variables to examine and a stronger case can be made that same-sex attractions are the real deal. If that can be strongly established, then "it's a choice" will have been successfully discredited, and we'll also have a starting point for understanding the people somewhere in between the extremes.

For the sake of argument lets say it *is* a choice. So what? The only thing that makes it "wrong" is religious opinion which isn't even consistent. There are at the very least Jews & Christians who *don't* believe it is wrong. Plus, this brings us back to the matter that relgion does not and should not dictate law.

[Voltron]

For the sake of argument lets say it *is* a choice. So what? The only thing that makes it "wrong" is religious opinion which isn't even consistent. There are at the very least Jews & Christians who *don't* believe it is wrong. Plus, this brings us back to the matter that relgion does not and should not dictate law.
There are also additional health risks.
I don't know I would think they would have increase hemroid problems, impacts, diarea, plus the other well known diseases.
I don't recall anyone sticking a cliterous back there? Though there was that one movie about a girl who had one in her throat?
And basically the bodies just don't fit quite right in that position compared to the traditional male/female positions.

As far as Christian. I'm no expert but I think you are right with a few exceptions in the bible I think generally its considered no more wrong than having sex outside of marriage, thievery, eating pork, etc.

[Neserk]

There are also additional health risks.
I don't know I would think they would have increase hemroid problems, impacts, diarea, plus the other well known diseases.
I don't recall anyone sticking a cliterous back there? Though there was that one movie about a girl who had one in her throat?
And basically the bodies just don't fit quite right in that position compared to the traditional male/female positions.


You are assuming that all gay males engage in anal sex. That isn't true. And there are plenty of problems with heterosexual intercourse, too.


As far as Christian. I'm no expert but I think you are right with a few exceptions in the bible I think generally its considered no more wrong than having sex outside of marriage, thievery, eating pork, etc.

The bible has very little to do with Christianity, especially Fundamentalism. As a religion it isn't even recognizable from a biblical standpoint. If it were you wouldn't have people like Georgie claiming to a be a Christian and then going to another country and killing people.

[LethalWolfe]

And basically the bodies just don't fit quite right in that position compared to the traditional male/female positions.


2 Q's
What position do you invision when you think of two men having anal sex and what, may I ask, do you consider the "traditional male/female positions?"


Lethal

[Voltron]

2 Q's
What position do you invision when you think of two men having anal sex and what, may I ask, do you consider the "traditional male/female positions?"


Lethal
I'm not going there on this pg-13 site.

[pivo6]

And basically the bodies just don't fit quite right in that position compared to the traditional male/female positions.

I'm not going there on this pg-13 site.

Then why did you bring it up? (pun not intended ;) )

[Neserk]

PG-13?

I wouldn't let a 13 year old of mine here! I doubt they could understand 90% of the discussion anyway.

[skunk]

And basically the bodies just don't fit quite right in that position
Perhaps you should try a different one :D ;) :rolleyes:

[iMeowbot]

For the sake of argument lets say it *is* a choice. So what? The only thing that makes it "wrong" is religious opinion which isn't even consistent. There are at the very least Jews & Christians who *don't* believe it is wrong. Plus, this brings us back to the matter that relgion does not and should not dictate law.

It shouldn't dictate law, but so often it does exactly that. That's why arguments opposing that viewpoint benefit from sticking to facts as much as possible. Since DoMA, dozens of states chimed in with discriminatory statutes. That's all within this decade, so it's pretty clear that these prejudices still have currency.

[iMeowbot]

I don't recall anyone sticking a cliterous back there?
It's called a prostate gland.
Though there was that one movie about a girl who had one in her throat?
I'm jealous :)
And basically the bodies just don't fit quite right in that position compared to the traditional male/female positions.
What position would that be? There really aren't any ergonomic issues :D If you're going by what you may have seen in nekkid movies, keep in mind that the people on screen are contorting themselves for the benefit of the camera.