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.
"The part I find most offensive, and a little frightening, is that it isn't based on good science," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, "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."
Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, CA elaborated, "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."
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."
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;
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.
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.
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 😎
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. What the f**k?
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...???