US to turn gays away from sperm banks

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vniow, May 20, 2004.

  1. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #1
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&e=1&u=/afp/us_health_homosexuals

    Please tell me this is a hoax.
     
  2. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    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.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  5. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #5
    If Homosexuality is genetic maybe they don't want to pass the genetic defect on to unsuspecting couples?
     
  6. dopefiend macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #6

    Ohhhh true! I remember hearing about some people thinking its genetic!
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    Maybe genetic, but I think Voltroll just called a bunch of people on this board defects.
     
  8. dopefiend macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #8

    **shrug** Could be ;)

    Edit: the genetic part that is, could be a defect. Clear that up a bit :p
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    Hmm. Clear as mud.
     
  10. dopefiend macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #10
    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.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    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.
     
  12. cc bcc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Location:
    nl
    #12
    Just think about it, if homosexuality was genetic those genes would have died out millions of years ago..
     
  13. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #13
    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.
     
  14. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #14
    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? ;)


    thats too much of logic for some... :rolleyes:
     
  15. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #15
    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?
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    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.
     
  17. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #17
    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?
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    Because there'd be nobody left to pay the taxes to support the military (all kneel).
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    I want to be first!
     
  20. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #21
    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.
     
  22. cc bcc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Location:
    nl
    #22
    I agree that I put it a little too simplistic ;-) (Homosexual -> no reproduction -> "gay genes" die out)
     
  23. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #23
    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
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    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:
     
  25. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page