In the name of preventing the accidental transmission of HIV, the FDA is recommending sperm banks should screen out gay donors. Gay rights groups are challenging the rule as bigoted and not based on science; they point out that HIV is increasingly transmitted via het sex, and that the HIV screening already in place is sufficient to keep the bank "accounts" safe.
Meanwhile, this could be both hard to swallow for the sperm banks, and a major blow for a core group of donors. The FDA defines "gay" as having engaged in homosexual activity in the preceding five years. If that includes either "fraternity initiation rites" or "that time at summer camp," tens of thousands of college students are gonna have to earn beer money somewhere else.
Gay Groups Assail Sperm Bank Rule [wash post, via slate]
"Meanwhile, this could be both hard to swallow for the sperm banks, and a major blow for a core group of donors"
Did you just use the words "swallow", "sperm" and "blow" in one sentence?
If it's ok to deny rental cars to those under 24 because they stastically have a higher accident rate then what's wrong with this?
Yeah, maybe we ought to eliminate everyone who has touched a doorknob or a toilet seat in the last 5 years, too.
*sigh* how many more years of Bush are we stuck with?
Don't you mean how many more years of Reagan? He was very late in responding to the AIDS crisis which was perceived as a gay disease. Now here we are, reliving the bigotry of the 1980s.
If AIDS is such a concern with sperm, why don't they do a blood test on donors? Oh, wait, they do? Then why exclude disease-free gay men? Could it be that neocons know homosexuality is genetic and they want to do anything they can to scrub the world of their fears?
Gee, I'm glad I avoided the vitriol by taking out the line about some administration appointee screening out gay sperm because he didn't have enough faith to believe that gayness is just a "lifestyle choice."
Dan, I understand you don't like gay people any more than you like gay penguins. Fine. I get it. Just a heads up, though: gay dads exist. I know some. And I know plenty of gay people who'd be hella better parents than some of the straight idiots I see out there.
So I'm gonna keep posting things that I think are useful and relevant to dads--gay and straight--and that acknowledge gay people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's not gonna change, Reagan, Bush, Rove, or Gannon.
Now that that's clear, I'm damn sure not gonna justify every remotely gay-related post, or have them be turned into bigoted, homophobic, cynical, and non-reality-based ad hominem attacks on the existence of gay people.
As for the substance of your car rental analogy, those policies are not decided by the federal government, but by individual companies, based on their own cost-benefit analysis. There are companies that DO allow Gee, I'm glad I avoided the vitriol by taking out the line about some administration appointee screening out gay sperm because he didn't have enough faith to believe that gayness is just a "lifestyle choice."
Dan, I understand you don't like gay people any more than you like gay penguins. Fine. I get it. Just a heads up, though: gay dads exist. I know some. And I know plenty of gay people who'd be hella better parents than some of the straight idiots I see out there.
So I'm gonna keep posting things that I think are useful and relevant to dads--gay and straight--and that acknowledge gay people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's not gonna change, Reagan, Bush, Rove, or Gannon.
Now that that's clear, I'm damn sure not gonna justify every remotely gay-related post, or have them be turned into bigoted, homophobic, cynical, and non-reality-based ad hominem attacks on the existence of gay people.
As for the substance of your car rental analogy, those policies are not decided by the federal government, but by individual companies, based on their own cost-benefit analysis. There are companies that DO allow
If your point is that gay sperm donors have a higher statistical likelihood of carrying HIV, that may be true. Or it may not. I'm sure there's some data somewhere on it. That misses the point, though, which is that HIV infection and straightness are dangerously NOT mutually exclusive, far from it.
According to the studies cited by those protesting the FDA policy, the best way to significantly reduce the threat of HIV transmission is not to screen donors for based on their willingness to admit to man-on-man action, but to test the donors, and even the samples themselves for HIV, which already happens.
As a Dan, who is a Dad, and posts here sometimes, I hereby propose that homophobe Daddy Dan should have his Dan name rights revoked. Maybe we should call him Santorum or something.....
Here is what I find odd about this anti-gay sperm donation deal- Why aren't swingers excluded from donating? My wife and I are swingers, and while it is true that the swinging community is sadly homophobic when it comes to Man-Man sex (but not girl-girl sex, of course), it is still true that active swingers have sex with a lot of people, yet we're not singled out as a prohibited group.
FYI, most swingers DO NOT use condoms for oral, but most DO use them for intercourse.
Are not accurate aids blood screening tests available? If not, why aren't behavior screens applied evenly, without regard to sexual orientation? *cough* *&^damned republicans *cough*
Signed,
The Real Daddy Dan
You say FYI, I say TMI. Let's call the whole thing off.