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.
plus even than gays wouldn'*t be stupid but psychologically different...like authistic people maybe
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.[/B][/QUOTE]
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.
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 pigOf 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.
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. 🙂
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.
Re: Gay Men Banned As Anonymous Sperm Donors
Originally posted by Draco69
New Rules to Bar Gay Men as Anonymous Sperm Donors
By DAVID CRARY, APNEW YORK (May 6) - To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.
Talk About It
· Chat | Post Messages
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. Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.
"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,'' said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Traiman said adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine and testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases.
Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.
The practical effect of the provision - part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 - is hard to gauge. It is likely to affect some lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man's sperm for artificial insemination.
But it is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, has called it "policy based on bigotry.''
"The part I find most offensive - and a little frightening - is that it isn't based on good science,'' Cathcart said. "There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool.''
In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors - gay or straight - would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or "an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship.''
But an FDA spokeswoman cited FDA documents suggesting that officials felt the broader exclusion was prudent even if it affected gay men who practice safe sex.
"The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors,'' said one document.
Many doctors and fertility clinics already have been rejecting gay sperm donors, citing the pending FDA rules or existing regulations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
"With an anonymous sperm donor, you can't be too careful,'' said a society spokeswoman, Eleanor Nicoll. "Our concern is for the health of the recipient, not to let more and more people be sperm donors.''
However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed gay donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying gay men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.
Gay men are a major donor source at Traiman's Rainbow Flag sperm bank, and he said that practice would continue despite the new rules.
"We're going to continue to follow judicious, careful testing procedures for our clients that even experts within the FDA say is safe,'' said Traiman, referring to the six-month quarantine.
The FDA rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as "directed'' sperm donors. If a woman wishing to become pregnant knows a gay man and asks that he provide sperm for artificial insemination, a clinic could provide that service even if the man had engaged in sex with other men within five years.
However, Traiman said some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child, and would thus prefer an anonymous donor.
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.
"This rule will make things legally more difficult for them,'' she said. "I can't think of a scientifically valid reason - it has to be an issue of discrimination.''
DISCUSS.
Being that I do not argee with the whole sparn thing anyway I say yes they should be ban.jm 😎
Re: Re: Gay Men Banned As Anonymous Sperm Donors
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 😎
DOWN WITH SPERM!!!!! 😠
DOWN WITH SPERM!!!!! 😠
DOWN WITH SPERM!!!!! 😠
😆
or is that 'sparn'?
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!😠