FDA to ban gay sperm donors
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7749977/

:rolleyes:

Spout off all you want about a higher percentage of homosexuals having AIDS (while we breeders seem to be doing our darndest to catch up), this sentence says it all...

Word.

Gag me.

I'd be safer talking to my gay friends who I know they've been with their partners for years than most any straight man out there!!
What the h?

Thats ridiculous. Though, I dont think the blood bank will take you if you've had more than one partner in the last year, or sex for pay/hire regardless of your preference.

No words. I have no words.

But remember -- being gay is a *choice*! No biology involved! :rolleyes:

Methinks the FDA would like to have its cake and eat it, too.

Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to our government. Nothing at all.

Well, I have one word: AWFUL.

This is just awful.

Is this an issue with blood donors, as well?

I have visions of bible belt senators stocking up on 100% gay-free blood.

(of course, I'm not particularly in favor of sperm and egg donation regardless, a position guaranteed to piss off everyone!)

This type of logic is what keeps me from being surprised.

I assume that was from the same article. Sorry, I just skimmed GD's post and didn't read the entire thing. Obviously.

Goodness. Just...goodness.

Is it OK to donate sperm if a straight guy has poked a straight girl in the butt? If so, then what's the difference.....stupid govt......

From my local blood bank:

I see that it does not say more than one partner in the past year, but I know I've been asked that.... odd.

We are still allowed to post on the internet, huh? Electrons can't be gay, can they? Or is it just if my electrons touch your electrons? I"m confused.

Can I still do charity work if I want to? I might sweat on somebody. Bill Frist sez you can catch AIDS that way (Keep in mind... that fool's a doctor!). I wouldn't wanna give anybody AIDS.

Ooooo Maybe we'll get special stores to shop in eventually after we can't go in the regular stores anymore.

Since my money is gay money(Sorry, I touched some of it. I'll try not to do that any more), do I still have to pay taxes?

/overblownsarcasmoff

Why did I read this?

I am simultaneously preaching to the choir and beating a dead horse, but I've always liked to multi-task.

I can't leave this bit of faulty logic alone. It just eats at my brain and makes me want to scream.

So, which sector of the population has the fastest growing rate of HIV infection? Because I'm pretty sure it's not men. Do the standard HIV tests used by the rest of us not work for gay men? Was I the only promiscuous straight person in the 90s?

The sperm thing though -- can sperm even be infected with HIV? I actually don't know this. Can you get HIV through IVF? Or is it actually, as I suspect, an attempt to prevent gay sperm from making gay babies?

To that, I add this article of a student who asked Ann Coulter a very similiar (though less politely worded question) - NOT SAFE FOR WORK - Student Is Arrested For Asking Ann Coulter an "Offensive" Question

Mmmm, that's some good crazy! Coulter is quite the nutjob.

Alas, she didnt answer the question.....
inquiring minds want to know the answer. Is that wrong of me?

With blood- is it really so horrible to be overly safe than possibly sorry? Come on- rant all you want about donating sperm, but blood is used to save lives- and should be as carefully watched as possible- no matter who it pisses off.

Sorry, but to specify that homosexual sex disqualifes you while the population of heterosexual males with AIDS is growing at an alarming rate is completely unscientific and based on false fears.

No one was trying to say that its wrong in regards to blood donation. There was a question and statement earlier in the thread that lead to the wonder of if the regulations were as strict for blood donation.

I'm saying I agree or disagree with you, merely trying to point out that we were not complaining about the blood rules.

clearly someone has complained about the blood rules-

Posted again for Neph to read:

Well, here is the problem. I'm not promiscuous. I'm in a long-term monogamous relationship. I've been tested and am safe. I would love to give blood because I think it is important to do so. I could lie, I suppose, but that doesn't seem appropriate.

Meanwhile, people that I know that sleep with multiple partners, have never been tested, and don't know what they do or do not have, can give blood simply because they are straight. So let me ask you, given a choice between someone like me or someone like I described, who would you rather get blood from?

Let's re-write the list:

You have engaged in drug use for any reason since 1977 (AIDS doesn't know that drug use for money and drug use for recreation is different)
You have had anal sex since 1977 (AIDS doesn't know the difference between a man or a woman)

AIDS doesn't know the difference between straight, gay, bi-sexual, male or female. It doesn't know the difference between black, white, Hispanic, Asian or any other race. AIDS is an equal opportunity disease. It doesn't know where you lived, or what reasons you've done drugs or had sex for. And it doesnt' care. It doesn't discriminate.

Probably thought up by someone who didn't like going on the shopping trips for - um - "assistive literature."

What's so hard about buying a couple Better Homes and Gardens?

Thought it said, "Better Hornes and Gardens." :smirk:

As a purveyor of Universal Hand Symbols, I love this guy!

Yes- I understand. So ban them too. When it comes to blood I don't give a damn about offending someone. It should be safe.

safety is a myth.

So would you agree that a set of guidelines that apply to everyone would be fine? Or would you prefer a separate set of guidelines for those who are gay and those who are straight?

Initially, my blood kind of boiled when I first heard this news story. But then, I really had to sit back and think for a moment. I thought of a couple of things:

1. This is an important issue to me how? So I don't get to sell my spunk to a bank. Big deal. The government is forcing me yet again to feel apathetic about one more thing. 'Okay, don't take my sperm.' But at the same time, I do get to say, 'But if I need it to impregnante my surrogate mom, you better let us make a withdrawl.' It's the same thing with me not being able to donate blood. It's like I'm being forced to say, 'Fine don't take my blood. But if I need it, you better bleed for me.' And saddest of all, with the military I say, 'I can fight like the rest, but fine don't recruit me. But do die FOR me. Thanks.' It's an infuriating thing, but if the government wants it that way, fine.

2. Why is this issue in the media? They tend not to report on how someone is profiting from huge gas prices, they don't talk about big corporate entities not paying a whole lot of taxes nor do they discuss that we Americans are working harder and longer than before for less money. But we're talking about gay sperm. Yes, from a civil rights standpoint, it's hugely important. (I mean, who gets to decide if you're a queen or not? Some desk clerk with keen gaydar? Or will we be forced to wear pink triabgles?) But my point is is that any gay issue right now is a heated wedge issue and hugely distracting from other important issues that this administration doesn't want us to pay attention to.

3. What most people should be concerned about it the really backward thought the FDA has on this matter. What scientific proof do they have that taking the gay sperm out of the equation will make us safer? Nada. Zip. Zilch. And why doesn't the FDA have the capability to identify sperm infected with HIV? The scientific process does exist. But there's no profit for this administration in investing money into any sort of AIDS research, so it doesn't get done.

So, ultimately, this one is not my fight because there are places who do accept gay sperm regardless of what the FDA says. AND, if I really wanted to donate sperm to some woman that needs it all she needs to do is ask. I may be queer but I got the tools to get the job done.*


*This isn't an actualy offer to anyone I know, but you get my joke right?

Just for the record, semen carries the virus, sperm doesn't. As far as I know, artificial insemination involves sperm, not semen.

I think I was perfectly clear.

I think the safest thing to do would be just ban everyone from giving blood and sperm. Problem solved.

Or we could look at it logically, but that seems to be too much trouble.

ALL people have the potential for being a risk to the system, not just gay people. I think that is the point.

So monogamous gay men are still banned?

Maybe to yourself. I'm trying to get clarification. To me it sounds like you want to separate sets of rules, where promiscuous heterosexual men (and women) can donate blood but monogamous homosexual men can't.

Back to the sperm topic,

Does anyone else think this is a way to try and stop people who are gay from having children via a surrogate?

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. I have zero clue where you pull out me wanting two sets of rules.

Tell you what- if someone feels the need to set me up as the opposition even when I have said NOTHING that leads to such a conclusion- don't.

Hmm, I think she's got me on ignore. Anyone want to repost my post for me? :D

That would include you, me, Mel Gibson, the Pope, pretty much everyone.

I'm assuming this doesn't affect people making private arrangements of the "I want to get pregnant using this man's sperm" variety, just the standard and anonymous Klassy mag + cash = genetic deposit sort.

Then again, I don't think people have a "right" to their own genetic offspring anyhow.

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:

It lowers the risk- just as keeping promiscuous straight people out would as well.

...and it is about offense- too many people are getting their knickers in a twist over the rules.

At the moment the rules are based upon false logic and allow some of the very people who can taint the blood pool to donate while keeping others who can contribute to the blood pool out based solely by their sexuality. Change the rules and I know I'd untwist my knickers. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I kinda enjoy my knickers being in knots, gives me a special feeling in that special place.

That sounds like a personal problem... :p

But that's the problem, it DOESN'T lower the risk. That's the myth. Blanketing like that removes viable doners just as it removes at risk ones. So they've done nothing other than fool people into THINKING they've lowered the risk, which serves no purpose but to increase the risk in the long run.

I can't help but wonder if these 'rules' are thought up by the same people that that developed the new air travel regulations, zero tolerance public school rules, and the IRS.
I mean, really- all a person has to do is lie about their lifestyle, if they are that desperate to donate. Our local blood bank pays for 'deposits', and the usual group congregated outside it's doors bears little resemblance to what the rules would lead one to believe a typical donor looks like. The city had to order the nearby shops to stop selling fortified wine to these guys.....:rolleyes:

It's nice to know that as a single Gay man, I fall into the same category as a promiscuous straight person.

Which, apparently, is somewhere below boozehound.

Wish I was gettin' some.

And that, my friend, is the gist of why this whole conversation annoys me so. It feels like a second class status has been placed upon a class of people who didnt ask to be classified.

ack.. I broke my own rule and went into a thread that aggravates me.

Boozehound.... interesting word.