FDA To Ban Gay Sperm Donation

[PanzerJaeger]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050505/D89TAFB00.html

I cannot find a negative in this. And if, as some of the homosexual apologists claim, its all in the genes; its great that theyre keeping them out of the gene pool.

[Ja'chyra]

How do you know if the sperm are gay? Are they pink or something?

[Adrian II]

"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years."

Yup, another triumph for junk science.

[Lazul]

so.... if its in the genes and the sperm, that mean the gayness is natural... and if it is natural, then its nothing we can do about it. So, whats so bad about it then!? if its natural?
Couse, if it isnt natural, and not in the genes and sperm, there is no need to ban gay sperm since then there is nothing like gay sperm!?

[bmolsson]

How do you know if the sperm are gay? Are they pink or something?

I guess you ask them, since it's after all their choice......

[Beirut]

"Jones! The bio-sexo-molecular-differentiator is broken. You'll have to sort the samples by taste test again!"

"Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!"

[Beirut]

I got a job at the FDA
I gotta keep the bad sperm away
If I find out that your shmoo is gay
You’ll be told that you cannot stay

Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
I do it in the heterosexual way
While I’m working at the FDA

I got a job at the FDA
Where conservative views hold sway
And if you spank to magazines that are gay
You cannot donate to the bank today

Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
Oh yes I’m working for the FDA
I do it in the heterosexual way
While I’m working at the FDA

I lost my job at the FDA
‘Cause I thought of the boss night and day
His cute buns made my emotions sway
I fell in love with him I gotta say
While I was working at the FDA… da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da

Oh I got fired from the FDA
Oh I got fired from the FDA
I did in the homosexual way
I’m not working at the FDA

[bmolsson]

Rofl !!!

[Ja'chyra]

lol

[Gawain of Orkeny]

so.... if its in the genes and the sperm, that mean the gayness is natural... and if it is natural, then its nothing we can do about it. So, whats so bad about it then!? if its natural?

Not this silly talk again. So is murder natural so I guess theres nothing wrong with it. This is still a silly law as has been said how do you know thier gay unless they tell you?

[English assassin]

This is still a silly law as has been said how do you know thier gay unless they tell you

Simple. Tell them they get a free CD for donating. The ones who choose the Village People are gay.

This would also enable you to throw away the samples from Metalica fans...

Beruit, you are Tom Lehrer in disguise, right?

[JAG]

Beruit - very good and very funny, nice job.

And this law shows just how much the US is driving itself into the social gutter.

[A.Saturnus]

The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus.

Black people have also a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS. Will the FDA have the balls for consitency?

[ichi]

New Fox TV reality show "Queer Eye for the Straight Sperm"

sort of adds new meaning to the phrase "coming out of the closet"

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

now that's funny

[Ser Clegane]

Hmm ... in this context I would like to mention that AFAIK the Red Cross in Germany does not accept blood donations from homosexual men.

Even if this FDA regulation might appear silly at the first glance, the rationale seems to be the same as for the Red Cross.

So while some people might argue that this is an over-reaction by the FDA (and the Red Cross), it would be wrong IMO to consider this case as some sinister plot of the US administration to discriminate gays.

EDIT: personally, I rather have a problem with statements of this kind:

its great that theyre keeping them out of the gene pool.

as they eerily remind me of something...

[Lazul]

Not this silly talk again. So is murder natural so I guess theres nothing wrong with it. This is still a silly law as has been said how do you know thier gay unless they tell you?

you know Gawy, murder hurts people, being gay doesnt (unless your Very sensitive or homophobic) ... huge diff.

[Navaros]

this is the first time in history that the evil entity called FDA has ever done anything right

but even with this, they didn't do it right since the ban is only retroactive for 5 years. instead, it should be an all-encompassing ban.

[Byzantine Prince]

you know Gawy, murder hurts people, being gay doesnt (unless your Very sensitive or homophobic) ... huge diff.

I don't think he wants to accept the difference.

[Redleg]

Beruit - very good and very funny, nice job.

And this law shows just how much the US is driving itself into the social gutter.

This law does no such thing - however if you want to show where the United States is driving itself into the social gutter pick something better.

This law is just an over-reaction to a health risk - however I do believe that the freezing process of the sperm for storage would kill the virus.

However if you want to go down that road of social gutter - I can just as easily point out laws and ideas in England that is leading your nation down the social gutter. Ie racism is more on the raise in Europe then the in the United States. (And a few other social ills.)

If your going to start on how the United States is going into the gutter socially - point out the lack of proper parenting, the raise in youth gang violence, and several other indiciators of massive social upheavel. This particlur law is a nothing law by an organization that habitually makes such legal medical rulings.

[|OCS|Virus]

I would like to see more scientific proof that gay men will have gay chilren. If this guy is 6'1" and 220 lbs body builder, and happens to be gay, I say let him donate, I think this is far more effective in securing healthy gene lines, and producing healthy children. Because I don't think being gay is genetic, although I would consider the possibility if someone could show some evidence.

[hrvojej]

And if, as some of the homosexual apologists claim, its all in the genes;

I don't think that the argument was that it's genetic, or at least I haven't heard any serious evidence that it is genetic. Rather, the argument was that it can be developmental - as in, it occurs/can occur during the development of the fetus, regardless of its genetic makeup.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I thought the consensus was that it was mostly hormonal, with some environmental influences.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I would like to see more scientific proof that gay men will have gay chilren.

Wait a minute here. This law has nothing to do with genetics or gays passing their genes onto others. Its about stopping aids. Their not worried about more gay people bieng born. Where did you guys come up witht this ides?

Probably from this post

so.... if its in the genes and the sperm, that mean the gayness is natural... and if it is natural, then its nothing we can do about it. So, whats so bad about it then!? if its natural?
Couse, if it isnt natural, and not in the genes and sperm, there is no need to ban gay sperm since then there is nothing like gay sperm!?

It is about there being a chance that the aids virus is in their sperm , its not about stopping the spread of homosexuality.

[BDC]

Wow, pseudoscience is gradually clawing more and more into the mainstream.

[Fragony]

Yup, another triumph for junk science.

Awww AdrianII, we ban gays from blood-donorship for exactly the same reason.

[Lazul]

It is about there being a chance that the aids virus is in their sperm , its not about stopping the spread of homosexuality.

oh, so they dont normally test sperm for AIDS? I mean, hetro-sperm can very well have AIDS as well.
So maybe, they shouldnt ban gay-sperm, but start testing all sperm for AIDS.

[Fragony]

oh, so they dont normally test sperm for AIDS? I mean, hetro-sperm can very well have AIDS as well.
So maybe, they shouldnt ban gay-sperm, but start testing all sperm for AIDS.

But the chance is a lot lower, and there are a lot of sexual diseases we don't know enough about. And gays are more likely to develope mystery meat, it is not a nice gesture towards gays, but let's think of the children first.

[Beirut]

It is about there being a chance that the aids virus is in their sperm , its not about stopping the spread of homosexuality.

This is completely true. I find it incredibly selfish of gay men, who, especially at the height of the AIDS crisis, insisted that their rights to be donors, be it blood or sperm, outweighed the potential risks to the recipients.

We're not discussing whether they can use a public toilet or get into their favorite restaurant, or be eligible for insurance, we're talking about donating bodily fluids that can pose a dangerous health risk to the recipient. There is no inherent right to (a) be a donor, or (b) force someone to accept what is donated.

If they refuse me because I smoked pot once (cough-cough), do I have the right to force them to take my precious bodily fluids and then force them to give them to either an aspiring mother or a sick person? I think not.

Now, if gay men were denied the right to receive blood, that is an entirely different matter. As for gay men receiving sperm, I have never to my knowledge heard that that is a problem whatsoever.

[Adrian II]

Awww AdrianII, we ban gays from blood-donorship for exactly the same reason.

No, we don't engage in junk science in this respect. Sanquin, the Dutch national 'bloodbank', asks potential donors a series of questions about their lifestyle, including sexual behaviour. It is the responsibility of the donor to be truthful when filling out the form. It doesn't ask about sexual preference. And rightly so, because sexual preference as such is not a risk factor; certain behaviour is, whether engaged in by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

[Devastatin Dave]

This is completely true. I find it incredibly selfish of gay men, who, especially at the height of the AIDS crisis, insisted that their rights to be donors, be it blood or sperm, outweighed the potential risks to the recipients.

We're not discussing whether they can use a public toilet or get into their favorite restaurant, or be eligible for insurance, we're talking about donating bodily fluids that can pose a dangerous health risk to the recipient. There is no inherent right to (a) be a donor, or (b) force someone to accept what is donated.

If they refuse me because I smoked pot once (cough-cough), do I have the right to force them to take my precious bodily fluids and then force them to give them to either an aspiring mother or a sick person? I think not.

Now, if gay men were denied the right to receive blood, that is an entirely different matter. As for gay men receiving sperm, I have never to my knowledge heard that that is a problem whatsoever.

Well said. Sometimes you have to use common sense instead of political correctness. This should not be consider gay bashing, liberal vs conservative, etc. Much like if a sperm bank wanted to get sperm for make future NBA players, I doubt they would want mine since I'm short.