Considering she quoted you before, she's clearly not ignoring. Please don't attempt to provoke people.

[quote=Nephythys]WHERE in the world did I say anything about two sets of rules? I said I did not care who got offended- that we should ban anyone who could possibly taint the blood supply.[quote]

But that's the point- the blood supply *isn't* safe if your only test for banning someone is "are you gay?" That's the myth, that gay boys are all infected. They're *not*.

I think the point is that the current rules *don't* actually screen out who is "safe" with any degree of certainty. And they test all the blood, anyway.

Under the current rules, the guy having unprotected sex with prostitutes would be allowed to donate, though he'd be pretty likely to have something. Yet the gay guys in monogamous relationships are banned, though they're as safe a donor as you're going to find.

I agree, that the blood supply should be safe. I have issues with how they determine "safe" donors.

As far as the sperm donation, I think it's trying to keep gay boys from spreading "gay" genes to the next generation. Fear the sperm!!!! Never mind that most of us came from straight people.

soooo, if sperm were gay, would it leave the egg alone, and instead try to fertilize the other sperm? Maybe that is the reasoning for banning gay sperm. so it seems to me they just want to weed out the gay sperm, you can tell which once they are because they are bumping into the other sperms. After all, if the sperm isn't going to cause pregnancy, whats the point...... :p

I'm not ignoring anyone- and I certainly do not have you on ignore.

It's all such a battle of semantics. I say I think when it comes to blood, offense be damned, ban anyone at risk. I can't donate! Due to the cancer....I am out for another 2 years. I've been fine for over 2 years but they have a rule...and so I accept it.

Honesty is a far more rare commodity than people seem to believe. Someone can SAY they are monogomous and may not be- again- better as safe as possible than sorry.

Considering the entire questioning system is based on the honor system, why not scrap it and test the hell out of all blood and sperm? It's not like the donated blood isn't tested already.

Personally, I'd rather receive blood from a monogamous gay person then a promiscuous heterosexual person.

and I agree- but my point was just that when it comes to the safety of the blood supply in this country I am not in the least concerned about who it offends.

But how do you define "at risk"? Defining "gay people" as an "at risk group" is about as scientifically accurate as defining "people" as an at risk group. If you're going to ban gay people regardless of whether they are in a monogamous relationships, than by the same logic, you have to ban all heterosexual people as well, because the risk factor is the same. "Gay people are more likely to have AIDs" is a myth in today's world and having the FDA regulate based on myths is scary and puts us all at far greater risk.

The approach needs to be intelligent. Risky behaviors such as promiscuity, drug use, and unprotected sex are prevelant among ALL people, regardless of sexuality. They should be screening based on risky behavior, not poorly correlated sub-groups of the population.

I never said I disagreed- did I?

I ONLY said I don't care who we offend in order to keep it clean. Plus we can't perform a polygraph every time someone donates. So they find it easier to blanket the rules- they should cover more IMO.

I think you guys are WAY to used to seeing me as an adversary. Even when I am not fighting you-

Hey, now thems fightin words....... :p :evil: