Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i don't understand

is it supossed to be a way to reduce number of homosexualists? with assuming it has genetics causes

yes thats the purpose of it...
and I dunno... I guess they should be able to but the clinic should tell the women who want sperms which men are gay and which arent
Im not sure though...

what a joke

Originally posted by PVS
what a joke

I was going to say that too, somewhy I didnt

wait u edited!!

whats really f**ked up is that the FDA obviously refuses to screen sperm specimens and promiscuous heterosexual donors. so those who would be artificially inseminated are at risk of getting aids. it would be like having unprotected sex with a complete stranger.

but at least they are working hard to avoid responsibility while alienating gays as a scapegoat. way to go FDA!!!

Originally posted by IceWithin
wait u edited!!

im in a rush today and pulled a 'JM' and didnt read to know the reason they're banned gays from being donors. my bad

Originally posted by PVS
im in a rush today and pulled a 'JM' and didnt read to know the reason they're banned gays from being donors. my bad


but Im sure its not because of AIDS, I bet they simply dont want any more gay ppl in the world

It's confusing to say the least. Especially since gay men are not the highest risk factor for HIV. In actuality it is African-American men.

Isn't there a way to test it for AIDS?

There is. However its not 100% effective and it is ripe with defects and time-costly machinations.

Originally posted by DarkCrawler
Isn't there a way to test it for AIDS?

blood tests

what?
he asked I answered cry

He's referring to the issue itself. Not your comment.

oh

Originally posted by IceWithin
oh


























j/k

ppl with their stupid wtf smilies!! crybaby
they're so mean!!

This is idiotic...

Just do a simple test... Banning gays from giving sperm is sick and insane...

Ahahahahahaha!!

I love the irony! The same people who claim that homosexuality is a ''choice'' are the same people who don't want to let gay men donate sperm.

yea that part about high risk for AIDS is why they won't let gay men donate is balony. People with mutiple sex partners period have a risk of getting AIDS. even further more if you have had sex in this last 4 years PERIOD you are in risk of HIV to whatever degree. Should you limit donors to virgins only??
Stupid

What should be done is this:

1. All potential donors should be required to fill out an extensive questionnaire regarding family history, high-risk sexual behavior, and sexuality.

2. The sperm is donated and then the review process begins. If the testers deem that there is significant "at-risk" behavior happening, the "donation" should either be disposed of or subjected to testing.

3. When a couple wishes to retrieve a "donation", they should be informed of the donor's family history and sexuality. (The donor's name would be kept anonymous, of course.)

4. The couple can decide from that information if they want to utilize a particular "donation".

And why the screening for sexuality? Most people don't consider that to be a genetic disorder--and I am certainly not going to get into THAT hornet's nest--but it is a genetic aberration. Thus, just as if the donor had Parkinson's, the information should be disclosed to the family.

look at the poll......
would anyone like to speak up for their decision of saying that gay men shoudn't be alowed to donate sperm. I am interested in their reasoning.

Someone mentioned above that African-American men are more likely to contract AIDS than homosexuals.

Can you imagine the uproar if the FDA decided to ban anonymous African-American donors?

This is just another example of how the Bush administration is wrongfully discriminating against homosexuals.

They wont let them marry, or become foster parents, the Bush appointed head of PBS wont run the cartoon episode where Buster the bunny visits a loving lesbian couple, now they cant donate sperm.

Its really a shame in this instance, seeing as gay people have the best genes and physical features. policecaptain

Clearly proven by the smilies

Originally posted by moviejunkie23
look at the poll......
would anyone like to speak up for their decision of saying that gay men shoudn't be alowed to donate sperm. I am interested in their reasoning.

I will, in 2 very short, to the point reasons.

1) Anonymity? To extend that to ANYONE at all is wrong. Everyone's background information should be disclosed when you're about to make a baby for someone else.

2) Perhaps those sperm recipients that think homosexuality is genetic (haha) don't want a homosexual child? Is that a crime?

Those good enough?

I think you should be able to choose.
Sperm donated by gays or by hetrosexuals.

Don't you think 99% would choose the hetro sperm?
This is a business, sperm banks want to make money.

When most people want a normal child and they start wonder if they are being dupped into recieving sperm by a gay man, they will be less likely to go to a sperm bank.

Is banning them wrong? no, just smart.

Foolishness. I'll be back to comment on this, rest assured.

****ing stupid people. All the more reason I should never be elected ruler of the world. Straight people wouldn't stand a chance.


You go girl....

well do u guys think that if gay ppl can donate sperm they'd have to state that they're gay??

Most people don't want gay kids, wrong or not...offensive to you or not, it's the truth.

If I could choose, I certianly wouldn't ask for a gay son or daughter.

Dude are you an idiot...its not aboot a gay son or daughte (even thought that should be perfectly fine, and I wonder how you want to make sure that your children turn out gay :rolleyes but having a gay parent doesn't mean that the kid will be gay too....now seriously...why should it



Originally posted by Tex
This is just another example of how the Bush administration is wrongfully discriminating against homosexuals.

Congressman: There is no just cause for the war in Iraq
Peter: That mayb be true, but what we forget is that anyone who doesn't go to war is gay....
Congresmen: I want to go to war.

...speaking aboot homophobia ...anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude are you an idiot...its not aboot a gay son or daughte (even thought that should be perfectly fine, and I wonder how you want to make sure that your children turn out gay :rolleyes but having a gay parent doesn't mean that the kid will be gay too....now seriously...why should it





Congressman: There is no just cause for the war in Iraq
Peter: That mayb be true, but what we forget is that anyone who doesn't go to war is gay....
Congresmen: I want to go to war.

...speaking aboot homophobia ...anyways.

but, seeing that homosexuality is genetic there's a high chance the genes will pass to ure kids, right?

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I will, in 2 very short, to the point reasons.

1) Anonymity? To extend that to ANYONE at all is wrong. Everyone's background information should be disclosed when you're about to make a baby for someone else.

2) Perhaps those sperm recipients that think homosexuality is genetic (haha) don't want a homosexual child? Is that a crime?

Those good enough?

So why would banning be allowed then?

If you don't want gay sperm then check the info that comes with the person and see if he's gay or not. Thats a lot easier to do then just banning them all from giving sperm... One simple question could have stopped all those problems...

Originally posted by IceWithin
but, seeing that homosexuality is genetic there's a high chance the genes will pass to ure kids, right?

Seeing that its not....no

Originally posted by IceWithin
but, seeing that homosexuality is genetic there's a high chance the genes will pass to ure kids, right?

Hmm no... If that was the case then anybody with gay children would be gay themselves...

Now i don't know many people with gay kids but those that i do are not gay themselves... So no the kid won't turn out gay just because there dad is gay

Originally posted by Tex
Someone mentioned above that African-American men are more likely to contract AIDS than homosexuals.

Can you imagine the uproar if the FDA decided to ban anonymous African-American donors?

well, its africans who are more at risk, not afro-americans. but a good point regardless.

all points aside, has anyone even touched on the issue of just how out of touch the FDA is with reality? its FACT that heteros contract and spread aids as well. i will accept that gays are MORE at risk, but isnt the goal to ELIMINATE risk rather than just reduce it a bit and be done with it?

if it was impossible to eliminate the risk, that would be another issue....but IT IS POSSIBLE and they refuse to make the effort. thus, would-be recipients and their would-be offspring are at risk of getting HIV....and the FDA doesnt give a shit. if they did, there would be an actual effort to solve the problem rather than just scapegoat.

whatever side of this debate you are on, surely you must agree with this.

Yeah there just trying to annoy gays with idiotic points that make no sense, they should be doing things that will actually work, but this is more fun for them to do.

Originally posted by Fishy
Hmm no... If that was the case then anybody with gay children would be gay themselves...

Now i don't know many people with gay kids but those that i do are not gay themselves... So no the kid won't turn out gay just because there dad is gay

good point!!
Im so stupid I didnt think of that... I apologize for my stupidity

so yeah basically bush is willing to annoy the hell out of gays just cuz they voted against him

No, it shouldn't matter if your kid turns out gay or straight, but I'd assume the parents would want to make that choice, and shouldn't be subjected to having a child with random sexuality possibly enhanced by someone elses genetics. Isn't the cry from homosexuals in situations like this usually something along the lines of "who would WANT to be gay"?

Originally posted by Fishy
So why would banning be allowed then?

If you don't want gay sperm then check the info that comes with the person and see if he's gay or not.

You can't, if they donate anonymously. That's the whole reason I'd be for the ban. There wouldn't BE any info.

Originally posted by IceWithin
but, seeing that homosexuality is genetic..

Prove it.

What bothers me more than anything is reading that women/lesbians are seeking out gay sperm? How could someone be so selfish as to throw their kid into that situation? Why not take what you can get, let genetics take their course, and stop playing god with their sexuality. In cases like that, where they WANT a gay baby, I hope it backfires.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
No, it shouldn't matter if your kid turns out gay or straight, but I'd assume the parents would want to make that choice, and shouldn't be subjected to having a child with random sexuality possibly enhanced by someone elses genetics. Isn't the cry from homosexuals in situations like this usually something along the lines of "who would WANT to be gay"?



You can't, if they donate anonymously. That's the whole reason I'd be for the ban. There wouldn't BE any info.



Prove it.

What bothers me more than anything is reading that women/lesbians are seeking out gay sperm? How could someone be so selfish as to throw their kid into that situation? Why not take what you can get, let genetics take their course, and stop playing god with their sexuality. In cases like that, where they WANT a gay baby, I hope it backfires.

I have nothing to back it up, I admit it
but u dont have prove either

Then either don't take anomous sperm or make it required for people to fill in a stupid form about it...

Thats a lot less discriminating then simply banning gays....

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
No, it shouldn't matter if your kid turns out gay or straight, but I'd assume the parents would want to make that choice, and shouldn't be subjected to having a child with random sexuality possibly enhanced by someone elses genetics. Isn't the cry from homosexuals in situations like this usually something along the lines of "who would WANT to be gay"?



You can't, if they donate anonymously. That's the whole reason I'd be for the ban. There wouldn't BE any info.



Prove it.

What bothers me more than anything is reading that women/lesbians are seeking out gay sperm? How could someone be so selfish as to throw their kid into that situation? Why not take what you can get, let genetics take their course, and stop playing god with their sexuality. In cases like that, where they WANT a gay baby, I hope it backfires. First you say that if the parent wants to choose whether the child is gay or not they should be able to and shouldn't be subject to the "gay gene" in the gay man's sperm... then when it comes to parents who may want their kid to be gay you act as if they are bad people. So basically a parent should be able to choose the kid's sexuality as long as they choose for it to be straight?

oh and cine, if straight parents would like their kids to be straight
why cant gays want their kids to be gay??

This is ridiculous. Its like playing "lurgy" in the playground. Some people need to grow up big time. I'm horrified the FDA doesnt ask people to take blood tests before donating sperm... i guess i never really gave it much thought. It should be compulsary -it makes them banning gays from donating due to risk of HIV even more ridiculous. Also, if being gay was genetic there wudnt be very many gays....

Originally posted by naybean
. Also, if being gay was genetic there wudnt be very many gays....
I've heard enough people use that bullshit line around each other without a proper responce.
You know as well as I do more than the majority of gays have sex more than once and with more than one person of the opposite gender.
Less now than when being gay meant outcast, but still more than the majority.

If you want to get technical, homosexuality is just basically a extreme degree of a chemical imbalance.
A chemical imbalance is technically a mental disorder, aren't doners with mental disorders banned as well? Yes, they are.

Originally posted by long pig
I've heard enough people use that bullshit line around each other without a proper responce.
You know as well as I do more than the majority of gays have sex more than once and with more than one person of the opposite gender.
Less now than when being gay meant outcast, but still more than the majority.

If you want to get technical, homosexuality is just basically a extreme degree of a chemical imbalance.
A chemical imbalance is technically a mental disorder, aren't doners with mental disorders banned as well? Yes, they are.

This is probably the most stupid and ignorant thing I have ever heard.......you can't seriously compare homosexuality with a mental disorder.

Originally posted by long pig
I've heard enough people use that bullshit line around each other without a proper responce.
You know as well as I do more than the majority of gays have sex more than once and with more than one person of the opposite gender.
Less now than when being gay meant outcast, but still more than the majority.

If you want to get technical, homosexuality is just basically a extreme degree of a chemical imbalance.
A chemical imbalance is technically a mental disorder, aren't doners with mental disorders banned as well? Yes, they are.

A chemical imbalance? Could you point me towards some sort of scientific study that says that being gay is a chemical imbalance? Maybe I could just stand on my head, and then I'll start being attracted to girls.

Gay this, homosexual that, you can complain all you want but theres nothing that you can do to change that stupid monkey president of ours opinion.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
A chemical imbalance? Could you point me towards some sort of scientific study that says that being gay is a chemical imbalance? Maybe I could just stand on my head, and then I'll start being attracted to girls.

I so can understand if you would want to cut straight peoples balls off

It's common wisdom, It's been shown for years that homosexuality is a chemical imbalance, if your too far stuck up your own beliefs to see it as a fact, I can't help you.


-sigh- we get it, you're gay. I don't care.
You have no kind of pull in this debate,
being gay kind of leaves you in a biased spot don't you think?
You defending everything that is "gay" is just you defending yourself, making everything you say worthless and unbelievable in this type of discussion.


Really? most stupid huh? You must not ever talk to anyone other than people who agree with you.
To dismiss a fact that has been used to defend homosexuality as a non-choice, kind of makes you look silly and homophobic to me.

Well if saying that gay peopel don't have a mental disorder is homophobic...I guess I'm a homophobe then.

No seriously if you would argue that it is genetic or whatever thats fine with me I don't agree but its ok...just your whole tyope of argueing and pretending everythign you say...would actually be a fact (even though it even lacks basic evidence) is just stupid.

I've heard people say they think it's a chemical imbalance before... it's not that rare of a theory. It's not a fact because they can't prove it so far.. but it's certainly nothing new.

Originally posted by long pig
It's common wisdom, It's been shown for years that homosexuality is a chemical imbalance, if your too far stuck up your own beliefs to see it as a fact, I can't help you.


-sigh- we get it, you're gay. I don't care.
You have no kind of pull in this debate,
being gay kind of leaves you in a biased spot don't you think?
You defending everything that is "gay" is just you defending yourself, making everything you say worthless and unbelievable in this type of discussion.


Really? most stupid huh? You must not ever talk to anyone other than people who agree with you.
To dismiss a fact that has been used to defend homosexuality as a non-choice, kind of makes you look silly and homophobic to me.

Then, by all means, show me evidence that what you say is useful and believable. If me being gay is a chemical imbalance, then post a link to a study. Post a link to a page that isn't funded by the christian right or motivated by their agenda. Show us why what you have to say IS worthy and believable. It sounds to me that you have no use for my point of view, others would disagree.

No, being gay doesn't make me biased. What makes me biased is hatred of ignorance. And, if you had any sort of insight into my views, which are scattered all over this forum, you would know that I don't support all issues that are "gay". Before you open your mouth and make an ass of yourself, I suggest you do a bit of research. I don't defend gay rights. I think the idea of gay rights is ridiculous. If you want to attack someone's credability, then you should know why you're attacking them. And it should be for reasons beyond their sexuality.


So, once again, I ask you: "Where is your scientific evidence?"

I know it's hard to understand that this whole big "equal gay rights" subject is mostly just the resort of a chemical imbalance.
Don't shoot the messenger people.

I understand you don't want to offend your gay friends who believe themselves to be naturally gay, if I had tons of gay friends I wouldn't say it outloud either.

Hard to swallow facts are still facts, you can't go your entire life saying "I don't like it so I refuse to believe it", because that, my friend would be "just stupid".

Actually, it does.
You're the equivalent to a a black man or a white man defending his own race. You're biased and give nothing to this discussion that I wouldn't hear from any other homosexual.


Name a few non-radical gay issues you don't support.
Hell, name any gay issues you don't support.
Were you the the one saying "for every gay man that is murdered 2 straight men should be murdered"? You're biased AND radical. Neither make you any help in a discussion.



You say you're against equal rights for gays? Are you just insane or are you a self hating homosexual?
Everyone deserves rights, stop trying to appeal to me by pretending to agree.


I'll throw you a bone when I get time.

Dude I don't know one person in real life that is gay...the only one here I know who is gay is Capt Fantastic.........and even if he wasn't here I would just think it to be a good idea to get some scientific proof....you know what that is right? Like a study of real scientists ....better even more than one....you coul for examnple post a web site that has some proof...plus even than gays wouldn'*t be stupid but psychologically different...like authistic people maybe.....plus equal rights are necessary none the less.

Well long pig...you are heterosexual right...so you can't really say anything aboot peoples rights anyway cause you are biased right....actually all the amendments to the constitution...you can't say anything aboot them since you are to closely involeved ...they are aboot you...you are biased.

Originally posted by long pig
I know it's hard to understand that this whole big "equal gay rights" subject is mostly just the resort of a chemical imbalance.
Don't shoot the messenger people.

I understand you don't want to offend your gay friends who believe themselves to be naturally gay, if I had tons of gay friends I wouldn't say it outloud either.

Hard to swallow facts are still facts, you can't go your entire life saying "I don't like it so I refuse to believe it", because that, my friend would be "just stupid".

If these are such widely accepted 'facts', then you should be able to provide some references. As it is, you dig yourself deeper into a hole by side stepping my request. You can get as personal as you like, no one reading this expects anything more from you.

I don't choose my words with anyone other than myself in mind. In case you hadn't noticed, there aren't too many gay people on this board, at least not many who will actually admit it. Most likely because they don't want to deal with people like you. But, I'm not intimidated by your backwards thinking...or your willingness to openly express it. You can attack me because I'm gay and then hide it behind "hard to swallow facts" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you refuse to provide any facts to back up your claim. And like Afro Cheese said, it isn't a new idea, so you should be able to substantiate it.

Oh, and most of my friends are straight.

Originally posted by long pig
Actually, it does.
You're the equivalent to a a black man or a white man defending his own race. You're biased and give nothing to this discussion that I wouldn't hear from any other homosexual. So according to that logic, MLK brought nothing to a discussion about civil rights seeing that he was directly involved and therefore obviously biased.

Really?
Not homophobic at all are we? Please.


Of course you know he's gay, he says it in every post he makes.


Being sexually attracted to the same gender is the epitomy of being psycologically different.

I'll show you the evidence, give me time kiddo.

Originally posted by long pig
Actually, it does.
You're the equivalent to a a black man or a white man defending his own race. You're biased and give nothing to this discussion that I wouldn't hear from any other homosexual.

Actually read what I said. I never said I wasn't biased. But, it isn't being gay that makes me biased, it is your ignorance.


Originally posted by long pig
Name a few non-radical gay issues you don't support.
Hell, name any gay issues you don't support.
Were you the the one saying "for every gay man that is murdered 2 straight men should be murdered"? You're biased AND radical. Neither make you any help in a discussion.

I do not support gay rights at all. I support human rights. To request "gay rights" only serves to widen the gap between heterosexual and homosexual. Oh yes, I am very much radical. It's time to get radical. I don't see the benefit of "asking" straight people for rights. If we ask, and do not recieve the same consideration as any other group of human beings, then maybe it's time to change the way we operate.

You say you're against equal rights for gays? Are you just insane or are you a self hating homosexual?
Everyone deserves rights, stop trying to appeal to me by pretending to agree.

I do not support gay rights at all. I support human rights. To request "gay rights" only serves to widen the gap between heterosexual and homosexual. Oh yes, I am very much radical. It's time to get radical. I don't see the benefit of "asking" straight people for rights. If we ask, and do not recieve the same consideration as any other group of human beings, then maybe it's time to change the way we operate. Look up any one of my posts, and you'll find I've been talking about this for a very long time. I have no intrest in appealing to you...and I certainly do not agree with you.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
So according to that logic, MLK brought nothing to a discussion about civil rights seeing that he was directly involved and therefore obviously biased.
MLK didn't bring anything new to the civil rights argument, he simply gave it a media boost.
Civil rights has been discussed in northern states for over one hundred years before MLK.
As much respect as I have for the Dr., he only made alreadly prevalent veiws more noticable. And you know this.
g2g, when I get back.

Originally posted by long pig
Of course you know he's gay, he says it in every post he makes.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=185149

There you go, every one of my posts for the last few months.

Well I consider myself not homophobic...but I dont care....I really don't know anyone Gay to be honest in real life (except for friends of my parents) maybe because I'm 18 but whatever...that has nothing to do with anything...

Well I know Cap_F tells openly that he is gay and that is the only proof I got that he is....so whats your point

Well actually its not....its bhappens a lot in the animal kingdom and it used to be common in earlier times...actually I belive to some extend we all are attracted to the same gender.....but that aside....it just isn't that strange at all


And yes your evidence would be greatly appreciated

Originally posted by long pig
MLK didn't bring anything new to the civil rights argument, he simply gave it a media boost.
Civil rights has been discussed in northern states for over one hundred years before MLK.
As much respect as I have for the Dr., he only made alreadly prevalent veiws more noticable. And you know this.
g2g, when I get back. Of course he gave it a media boost. How? By making the arguments more convincing, and by delivering them in more effective ways. That's bringing something new to the table.

Just because the issue has been discussed before doesn't mean he didn't do anything new in his way of discussing it.

the heart of the issue is $$$$

its doesnt cost a dime to blame gays, but it costs plenty for HIV tests.
so rather then assure the safety of sperm recipients the FDA chose to
blame gays.

when i think of it now, homophobia has little influence on their decision.
however, the USE of homophobia to deflect any demands for aids screening is everything. and we all play into it. rather than see it for what it is, we citizens just go on yet another endless debate on pro/con homosexuality and they keep doctors'/insurance company's overhead down with no questioning.

bottom line-its all about nickels and dimes.

Originally posted by IceWithin
I have nothing to back it up, I admit it
but u dont have prove either

I never claimed it to be genetic or learned in this thread, either.

Originally posted by Fishy
Then either don't take anomous sperm or make it required for people to fill in a stupid form about it...

Thats a lot less discriminating then simply banning gays....

Don't have to tell me.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
First you say that if the parent wants to choose whether the child is gay or not they should be able to and shouldn't be subject to the "gay gene" in the gay man's sperm... then when it comes to parents who may want their kid to be gay you act as if they are bad people. So basically a parent should be able to choose the kid's sexuality as long as they choose for it to be straight?

I never said they should be able to choose. I said they have to ability to chose, it's their choice, but ultimately, something that should be left up to nature. Parents who want their children to be gay ARE bad people. Parenting doesn't entitle you to determining someone elses sexuality. So, basically, a parent shouldn't choose their kids sexuality PERIOD. Like I said, parents that genetically engineer their kids to be homosexual deserve to have it backfire. How ****ing irresponsible, ludicrous, and selfish.

Originally posted by IceWithin
oh and cine, if straight parents would like their kids to be straight
why cant gays want their kids to be gay??

They can, obviously, although IMO, that's the farthest thing from being a "loving parent" other than abandoning them. Yeah, I want a gay kid, so he can suffer through all the same shit as me! Hooray! I love playing God with my kids sexuality!

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say. You said "it shouldn't matter if your kid turns out gay or straight, but I'd assume the parents would want to make that choice." Is that or is it not defending the parents right to make the choice?

I don't agree with genetically engineering your kid to be gay either, but I don't see how purposely getting sperm from a gay guy to increase the kid's chances of being gay (though there's no evidence this works) is any worse than purposely excluding gay men's sperm to increase the kid's chance of being straight. They are both playing god with the kid's sexuality, are they not?

The choice of gay or straight sperm, not the child's sexuality. It shouldn't be left up to a random donor, which makes me wonder, why would anonymous donors of any background be accepted, why wouldn't their info be disclosed, and why the hell would anyone take such a chance?

As for the 2nd part, tell that to the lesbians who are actively seeking out gay sperm! Is it that they are naive, partial, selfish, or just plain stupid?

Originally posted by PVS
the heart of the issue is $$$$

its doesnt cost a dime to blame gays, but it costs plenty for HIV tests.
so rather then assure the safety of sperm recipients the FDA chose to
blame gays.

when i think of it now, homophobia has little influence on their decision.
however, the USE of homophobia to deflect any demands for aids screening is everything. and we all play into it. rather than see it for what it is, we citizens just go on yet another endless debate on pro/con homosexuality and they keep doctors'/insurance company's overhead down with no questioning.

bottom line-its all about nickels and dimes.

They have to test any bodily fluid that is passed on to another human being. They are already spending the money to test for HIV, that's a bit of a moot point. Another mot point is the idiocy that gay sperm donners are going to produce gay children. I do believe that homosexuality is a genetic trait, but as was said in the 'genetic or chosen' thread, homosexuality is a series of genes that turn on and off. To assume that the parents of gay children are also gay is to assume that my mother is gay. She may be a tough *****, but she's no dike. In fact, I can't recall her owning any plaid shirts.

I'd also like to point out that the last study I read, and it was a few years ago, was that the demographic with the highest increase of new HIV cases is young women between 18 and 25.

Who voted yes? This is the most bullshit thing I've heard about in a long time.

sparn? what do you have against 'sparn'?

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
Being that I do not argee with the whole sparn thing anyway I say yes they should be ban.jm
yes!!! YES!!!! I HAVE HEARD THE CALL AND FOLLOW!!!!

DOWN WITH SPERM!!!!!

DOWN WITH SPERM!!!!!

DOWN WITH SPERM!!!!!




or is that 'sparn'?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
They are already spending the money to test for HIV, that's a bit of a moot point.

then i'm confuzzled...why the ban then? if they test every sample then there is no risk of HIV regardless.

It is not that I am againt it I just do not like how it is used for someone to get a baby out of someone's else sparm it to me is againt my belief.JM

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
It is not that I am againt it I just do not like how it is used for someone to get a baby out of someone's else sparm it to me is againt my belief.JM

yes, it is disgusting how a woman gets pregnant from someone elses sperm!!! FERTILIZATION IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by PVS
yes, it is disgusting how a woman gets pregnant from someone elses sperm!!! FERTILIZATION IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by PVS
then i'm confuzzled...why the ban then? if they test every sample then there is no risk of HIV regardless.

Because it's not about AIDs, it's about being gay.

i dont see the problem with gay men being sperm donors....its just pathetic to say they shouldnt be allowed....why do ppl have such a problem with others being gay?

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
Being that I do not argee with the whole sparn thing anyway I say yes they should be ban.jm

OMG!...there is sooo much wrong with you. Does your mother know you're alive?

So what you are saying is that you don't like the idea of getting pregnan with bought sperm of a total stranger?.....well I guess I can see your point although I can't agree.

i like this idea, it could really help control the population of the gay kingdom

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
i like this idea, it could really help control the population of the gay kingdom

You havn't read a single post in this thread have you?

From what I've seen on this thread so far: The people who support gays being banned from being sperm donors are ironically the same people who believe homosexuality is a choice....yet they fear that the "gay gene" will spread this way.

Best of both worlds, you can disagree with somebody's choice and hate them because of it. But attacking something that somebody can't do anything about is bad of course.

Then when they don't want gays to do anything cause they hate them it switches to genetic because its useful for them at that time...

Originally posted by Draco69
From what I've seen on this thread so far: The people who support gays being banned from being sperm donors are ironically the same people who believe homosexuality is a choice....yet they fear that the "gay gene" will spread this way.

whatever is convenient in bashing gays it seems.

Originally posted by PVS
whatever is convenient in bashing gays it seems.

Aye. Hypocrites they be.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
As for the 2nd part, tell that to the lesbians who are actively seeking out gay sperm! Is it that they are naive, partial, selfish, or just plain stupid?

I think Adam_PoE just pointed out the point to that comment, which is one I was surprised no-one replied to in the first four pages. Which was;



To me, that makes perfect sense.

I'm not entirely sure why you think it's justified to call them stupid to not want the sperm of somebody who could easily be a violent homophobe...

I'm not entirely sure it adds up that way Trickster but I agree with you that it makes perfect sense. Not to allow this comes across as serious discrimination, purely hypothetical it could be (I don't know so I wrote could be) that AIDS is still more frequent among gay men than among heterosexual men, and if the FDA refuses to screen the sperm for AIDS I can understand it A TINY LITTLE BIT. But that still does not make it any less discriminating

Originally posted by Draco69
From what I've seen on this thread so far: The people who support gays being banned from being sperm donors are ironically the same people who believe homosexuality is a choice....yet they fear that the "gay gene" will spread this way.

The trick is not to biased either way in the origins of homosexuality since neither is proven. So, I don't fall in that cute little classification of irony.

Originally posted by Trickster

I'm not entirely sure why you think it's justified to call them stupid to not want the sperm of somebody who could easily be a violent homophobe...

What difference does it make who they get it from. It's been donated. It's not like the straight guy is informed that a couple of lesbians took his sperm, and then he wants it back. It belongs to the bank. The donor will probably never know, much less care. There's always the possibilities of hidden agendas with recipiants, too.

I wasn't calling anyone stupid, either. I was questioning peoples motivations, which nobody can ever know for sure. That goes for any recipiant.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
OMG!...there is sooo much wrong with you. Does your mother know you're alive?

Why are you so bitchy when it comes to people expressing thier opinion?

I'm just wondering...

Do Sperm Banks give recipients information about the physical appearance of their donors?

I know they can't give out personal information like name, address, etc.


But for example could they tell a recpient that the donor was black? or very tall? Genetics is still a roll of the dice, but I'd think that a recipient would get atleast some information regarding the sperm that was about to be injected into them.

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
Being that I do not argee with the whole sparn thing anyway I say yes they should be ban.jm
What the hell is this?

Actually, they are probably taking this more from a eugenics standpoint: can't let the subhumans pass their genes on.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
I'm just wondering...

Do Sperm Banks give recipients information about the physical appearance of their donors?

I know they can't give out personal information like name, address, etc.


But for example could they tell a recpient that the donor was black? or very tall? Genetics is still a roll of the dice, but I'd think that a recipient would get atleast some information regarding the sperm that was about to be injected into them.

I think so Link not sure tho. (I think the donor needs to give permission too)

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
What difference does it make who they get it from. It's been donated. It's not like the straight guy is informed that a couple of lesbians took his sperm, and then he wants it back. It belongs to the bank. The donor will probably never know, much less care. There's always the possibilities of hidden agendas with recipiants, too.

I wasn't calling anyone stupid, either. I was questioning peoples motivations, which nobody can ever know for sure. That goes for any recipiant.

No, you said they were either naive, partial, stupid or selfish. (Sorry, selfish, or just plain stupid.)

So you called any lesbian couple who'd prefer to have a gay man's sperm for their baby stupid. I think it goes by morals. If, say, a black woman and her white husband wanted a baby, they'd probably prefer the donor was not a member of the Ku Klux Klan...
After all, they are buying the sperm. If it was compared to any other product (using the example of trainers), people boycotted Nike because they were using slave labour. That didn't mean Nike were making inferior inferior trainers or that other companies' were better manufacturers, it was simply based on personal like or dislike of the company's practices.

Maybe it wasn't a very good example, but it works.

sexuality and ethnicity are not the same.
bad comparison there.

as far as KKK members, a recipient would not know that regardless. also with the "KKK baby" such a racist a product of social engineering, not genetics. so it wouldn't matter anyway.

a lesbian couple seeking a gay man's sperm is ok by me, so long as they are not attempting to control the kid's sexuality. maybe they just like the temperament of a gay man better than a straight man...???

could be, heck I even heard ppl screening candidates from height, weight, colour of eyes and hair. So why not sexuality?

Originally posted by PVS
sexuality and ethnicity are not the same.
bad comparison there.

as far as KKK members, a recipient would not know that regardless. also with the "KKK baby" such a racist a product of social engineering, not genetics. so it wouldn't matter anyway.

a lesbian couple seeking a gay man's sperm is ok by me, so long as they are not attempting to control the kid's sexuality. maybe they just like the temperament of a gay man better than a straight man...???

No, the point is that they'd rather have a father they could trust in to be more lenient toward the same-sex marriage. They're not trying to control how the kid turns out, it's more of a emotions thing. Just look at it like this, if you were gay would you like the idea of bringing up the kid of a homophobe? Not because the kid theirself is homophobic, just the father is. So in fact the KKK one is similar - it's not about how the kid turns out, it's about how the biological father would feel toward the mother if they knew who she was.

I think the product one is better, though.

Originally posted by Trickster
Just look at it like this, if you were gay would you like the idea of bringing up the kid of a homophobe? Not because the kid theirself is homophobic, just the father is. So in fact the KKK one is similar - it's not about how the kid turns out, it's about how the biological father would feel toward the mother if they knew who she was.

I think the product one is better, though.

yes in fact, i would PREFER in fact. what would be more beautifully poetic than to raise a child of someone intolerant to be tolerant of those different? it would please me to know that he knew and couldnt stand the idea (although hypothetical, since its strictly confidential)

racism and intolerance is not hereditary, so to allow that to influence who's child you would want is not better than a racist or homophobe imo.

Really? But say they met in the street (the woman and the donor in an extremely unlikely situation) and the donor yelled abuse at you... Would you then expect the woman to wat the sperm of that donor?

I guess it's a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by PVS
sexuality and ethnicity are not the same.
bad comparison there.

as far as KKK members, a recipient would not know that regardless. also with the "KKK baby" such a racist a product of social engineering, not genetics. so it wouldn't matter anyway.

a lesbian couple seeking a gay man's sperm is ok by me, so long as they are not attempting to control the kid's sexuality. maybe they just like the temperament of a gay man better than a straight man...???

I'm aware that sexuality and ethnicity are not the same. Who said I was drawing a comparison between the two?

I asked because I wanted to know if anyone knew the degree to which these donors are "anonymous." Could you imagine thinking you were going to have a white child...only to have a black child 9 months later when you gave birth to him/her?

Though I can see why you went ahead and said "bad comparison." Ethnicity and physical characteristics are inherited...sexuality is not.

Originally posted by Trickster
Really? But say they met in the street (the woman and the donor in an extremely unlikely situation) and the donor yelled abuse at you... Would you then expect the woman to wat the sperm of that donor?


i would expect her to understand that the potential child would be completely independant in thinking and that it really didnt matter. in the unlikely situation where i would have abuse being shouted at me, i would inform the man that i would allow HIS child to make his/her own choices. if they were to fall in love with a black person for example, i would support them and gleefully send pictures to the father of his beautiful newborn half-black grandchild.

but thats me...like i said, i love poetic justice

Originally posted by Linkalicious
I'm aware that sexuality and ethnicity are not the same. Who said I was drawing a comparison between the two?

i was resonding to Trickster's post, not yours. and i dont think he was drawing a direct comparison either. but i argue that there is absolutely no comparison.

Oh sorry...i probably would have caught that, except I stopped reading when I saw the words "Klu Klux Klan" in his post...

Being a member of "the clan" is a personal preference that the individual made at one point during his life. An off-spring, of that person, would have no affiliation, connection, or even desire to join the clan until something in the environment he grew up in introduced him to the world of white bigotry.

I wasn't trying to compare the two as such - more try and provide a grounds on which people could see the point of view of a lesbian mother.

I'm not actually sure how you define ethnicity - I always thought it was the social group one was in. Like ethnic groups, which can include people of different physical characteristics. As opposed to something which you are born into, and stay in for the rest of your life.

Yes, and the influence which made that person a white bigot is similar to the influence which makes somebody homophobic.

That was the point I was making, I think...

Originally posted by KidRock
Why are you so bitchy when it comes to people expressing thier opinion?


Because I'm so good at it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Because I'm so good at it.

*ahem*

....*snap* *snap* diva

Don't forget the fact that what she said made no ****ing sense.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
Oh sorry...i probably would have caught that, except I stopped reading when I saw the words "Klu Klux Klan" in his post...

Being a member of "the clan" is a personal preference that the individual made at one point during his life. An off-spring, of that person, would have no affiliation, connection, or even desire to join the clan until something in the environment he grew up in introduced him to the world of white bigotry.

The point I was making is that homophobes also have that environment. The comparison of ethnicity and sexuality was not actually comparing the two, just the situations.

I can understand why they'd prefer somebody sympathetic to them.

"anonymous sperm donor"

The operative word seems to be anonymous. How do they find out these things? Polygraph tests before the "contribution"? Trial by fire maybe? Or do they just have to say "I promise"?

It's possible. I just jerked off it to a wash cloth, and I can assure you, no one asked for my cedintials.

*sits back and watches*

the thread's hilarious I literaly LMAO when I read KidRock's post...
and JM talking out of her ass when it comes to serious discussions

Its the woman right not to have gay sperm to make there kid, get over it

What attributes were they warned about originally?

Originally posted by Napalm
Its the woman right not to have gay sperm to make there kid, get over it

And its her right to use gay sperm...

So why ban one and allow the other?

exactly I think that ppl should put thier sexual orentation in the form hospitals ask