Keep Your Sperm You Gays

The BBQ Pit
1

I really do not understand the hatred this country has towards those who are engaged in a homosexual lifestyle. I mean, there are so many more simple ways of preventing the spread of disease than by excluding a whole segment of the population. Not to mention that it is OK for a heterosexual man to go around and be a man-whore and expose himself to any one of numerous diseases and pass it along.

Is this really going to solve anything? First, anyone can just lie. What are they going to do? Hire PI’s to look into your sexual background. Second, if they are not screening for disease then any hetero man can pass something, of course you know they would just blame “those Godless faggots”.

This policy is nothing more than just blind ignorance from a government that feels its own morality and belief in a mythical being should trump an individual’s rights and sound medical practices.

Full story here.

2

Yup, and in Britland the blood transfusion service won’t accept donations from anyone who’s practiced faggotry in however many years, maybe ever. Go figure. Must be their religious sensibilities, oops…

. It’s not like they’d have any other reason.

3

What other reason are you suggesting?

4

The agreement that yes, homosexuality is genetic, and this is one more way of trying to selectively breed out the faggots?

Just a guess.

-Joe, thought the word “faggotry” is funny

5

One possible reason for this is to prevent disease – AIDS, that is. But this begs two questions for which I have no factual answers:

  1. Is The Gay still a high risk factor for HIV the way it used to be? More than in the hetero population?
  2. Does HIV survive the sperm storage process?

If both answers are yes, I suppose I could see some small justification for this.

6

Suggesting that the health risk is the major factor in the decision, as it is with our blood transfusion service; rather than this being merely a wanton attack on gay rights.

Yes, I think the word “faggotry” is funny, or I wouldn’t have used it. I’ve given up on “faggot” itself since being told of its associations with gay-bashing, but I refuse to take “faggotry” seriously.

Breed out the gay gene? That’s not going to work, is it, if it perpetuated itself quite adequately before sperm banks existed. It’s damned hard to breed out a recessive gene, even if anyone wanted to.

7

Ahh…so they think all gay sperm is infected with AIDS. For a second there I thought they might have been behaving based on irrational, knee-jerk prejudice. Of course, it is impossible for heteros to get the virus, so we don’t have to worry about them.

(You know, it is possible to test potential donors for HIV, if that’s really an issue…and not just for homosexuals).

8

And I hope the nice wizard gives the man of straw a brain. Dio, you can and sometimes do debate better than that. Of the demographics of HIV and other semen-transmissible diseases by sexual orientation in the US I know remarkably little, but if the incidence appreciably higher in gays than in straights then excluding gays from the process is a cheap and effective way to cut down on the health risks. Which again, citing our own bigoted blood transfusion service (and mentioning it has reminded me to book myself an appointment to be siphoned), is the reasoning they presumably employ.

It’s probably possible to test blood donors similarly; but it’s more expensive, I should think.

Yanno, it’s not my place to rigorously defend the FDA’s reasoning - I’m just saying that to knee-jerkingly attribute it to homophobia is premature.

9

Would you rather receive sperm from a monogamous (or celibate) gay man, or a straight guy who engages in unprotected promiscuity? Sexual orientation isn’t a rational criterion; behavior is.

10

Let me preface my statements by saying that I disagree with many, many of the policies and attitudes regarding gay, lesbian and transgendered folks. I’m firmly in the live-and-let-live camp.

Having said that, the reason gay men are excluded as sperm donors is because they’re still the largest segment of the population with AIDS. See this excerpt from a report by the Centers for Disease Control: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) continued to account for the largest proportion of diagnoses - 44 percent of all HIV diagnoses during the four-year period, and 61 percent of diagnoses among men.

‘Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since HIV/AIDS was first recognized and it’s simply unacceptable that so many people continue to be infected by this virus,’ said CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. ‘We are making progress in our fight but many challenges lie ahead.’" Full article here.

There was a study a couple years back that showed 77 percent of gay and/or bisexual men who were infected with the AIDS virus didn’t know it. The study also indicated a rather large rise in sexually transmitted diseases, primarily among gay men. I can’t find the study at the moment, but I posted a thread about it here - some excerpts from the study and news stories are included in the thread.

Actually, no there’s not. Quarantine is the simplest method of preventing the spread of disease. It’s not always the most effective, but it is the simplest.

Yeah, that’s possible. But what sort of lowlife would you be if you did something completely voluntary, knowing there was a possibility that you could infect someone with a disease, and didn’t warn people ahead of time?

Actually, I think some, if not all, of the clinics have screening procedures in place – at least one clinic mentioned in the article you link does so, and I’d guess the rest of them do too. Not screening would open them up to a massive lawsuit. Unfortunately, there’s not a 100 percent effective test for AIDS.

Finally, I note that the article says this FDA ban will apply only to anonymous sperm donors. If a couple or a woman wants a friend who is gay to donate sperm for them/her, that’s perfectly fine.

11

Personally I’d rather not receive sperm from anyone, thankyouverymuch.

12

Ah, someone got there before me :wink:

The Blood Transfusion service in the UK does refuse transfusions from many people, not just solely homosexual men.

13

On the other side of the pond, the American Red Cross won’t take my blood any more. After donating in 1998, my blood tested positive for Hepatitis C, which concerned me more than a little bit. I had four separate blood tests for Hep C over the next year by doctors, all of which came back negative. This cuts zero ice with the ARC, though – once I tested positive, they’re not gonna accept my blood. Frustrating.

14

To be exact, they exclude you not if you’re homosexual but if you have had sex with another man - defusing one of panache45’s silly whinges; similarly, they don’t exclude prostitutes but ‘those who have received money or drugs for sex’. (I always like it when they ask me that question. It allows me to look glum and accurately state that I can’t even remember the last time I was bought a drink for it.)

15

(Could be worse, Sauron. I’m just glad on your behalf that you ain’t got Hep C. :eek: )

16

So does the American Red Cross in the United States. Among others, they refuse to accept blood donations from anyone who’s spent more than 6 months total, I think, in the UK during the past 10 years.

Out of curiousity, since over half the heterosexual men in some African countries have AIDS, are former residents of those countries also not permitted to donate sperm?

CJ

17

You ain’t just shitting “Dixie.” I had a bad two days after getting the letter. I was relatively certain I didn’t have Hep C – no intravenous drug use, no risk factors, nothin’ – but still.

I dunno what-all the guidelines for sperm donation are, but if they’re anything like the Red Cross’, then yes, they exclude residents of those countries.

18

I just gave blood to the local blood bank this morning.
I’m quoting from the “Educational Handout” pamphlet handed to me

Do not donate if you:

  • Have AIDS or ever have had a positive HIV test
  • Have ever used needles to take drugs, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
  • Are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
  • Have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977
  • Have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
  • Have had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months.

So its OK if you’re gay, but only if you haven’t gotten laid in the last 28 years.

19

I’ve been asked if I have ever paid for sex.

My reply, “Hell yes, I pay all of my money for sex. I’m married”

20

I’d like to reemphasize this point.

You can donate blood if you’re a man who had sex with a heroin-using prostitute a year ago… but only if it’s a FEMALE heroin-using prostitute. If you’re a man who messed around with your best friend in high school in 1978 because you were curious and horny and couldn’t get chicks, but have had a completely unremarkable hetero sex life since then, you can’t donate blood. Ever.

I think it’s a very good idea to be more cautious with the blood of sexually active gay guys in general than with sexually active straight guys in general. That just makes SENSE, given that HIV is still more prevalent among gay people than straight, and that anal sex is higher risk for transmission than vaginal. But a lifetime ban for anyone who’s had sex with another man since 1978 is mind-bogglingly dumb. It doesn’t protect anyone any more than, say, a five-year ban would. (A 5-year ban still wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.) It turns away a lot of good donors, or gets people to lie because they’d never be able to donate otherwise. Now, that’s not so damaging if we’re able to keep up a good blood supply otherwise… but its role in perpetuating LITERAL homophobia and the view of gay men as “tainted” can’t be fixed just by straight people donating more.

If anyone knows of a blood bank in the US or Canada that DOESN’T have a lifetime ban for anyone who’s had m/m sex since 1978, let me know. My iron’s generally a little too low, but for a non-stupid blood bank, I’ll feast on liver and spinach until it’s high enough for them to take my tasty, tasty O+ blood.