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.
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🤺
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.
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 🙄) 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 🙄) 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? 🤪
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.
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.