[ninurta]

[]DDM, imagine a person has a rare blood type. And there is a gay guy who has that same blood type the person needs, and the blood banks didn't have it. How do you suppose he gets blood?[]I think if it's rare the blood banks would of course warrant the expense. That's just common sense.
Just like it's common sense to exclude common blood form a group more likely to be rejected.

So you think they should bend the rules to save the man and take the gay man's blood or no? Or should the man who needs the blood just die because there are no straight people and lesbians to donate blood?

Also, should blood banks test all samples of blood for deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS automatically?

[DanDaMan]

So you think they should bend the rules to save the man and take the gay man's blood or no? Or should the man who needs the blood just die because there are no straight people and lesbians to donate blood?

Also, should blood banks test all samples of blood for deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS automatically?

Did you take the test in my link above??

I am sure they test for all they can.
And I am sure those tests cost a lot of money.
So naturally they don't want to waste their money testing a group with high rejection rates!

[ninurta]

[]So you think they should bend the rules to save the man and take the gay man's blood or no? Or should the man who needs the blood just die because there are no straight people and lesbians to donate blood?

Also, should blood banks test all samples of blood for deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS automatically?[]

Did you take the test in my link above??

I am sure they test for all they can.
And I am sure those tests cost a lot of money.
So naturally they don't want to waste their money testing a group with high rejection rates!

what percentage of gay men have an STD?

[DanDaMan]

what percentage of gay men have an STD?

I haven't looked it up for the USA but in Britain nearly 50% of all new cases are men that have sex with men.
So you can see why they do not waste their money on that group.
Especially since they are a minority.


I looked it up...

http://www.avert.org/america.htm
Men who have sex with men: At the beginning of America’s epidemic, AIDS primarily affected men who have sex with men (MSM). Today, although there are more high-risk groups, MSM still account for around two-thirds of HIV diagnoses among male adults and adolescents.10 There have been concerns that an increasing number of MSM are having unprotected sex, leading to a rise in the number of new HIV infections among this group.11 The CDC has reported that between 2001 and 2006, HIV and AIDS diagnoses among MSM increased by 8.6 percent.12 It is thought that the availability of antiretroviral treatment may have lessened the fear surrounding AIDS, leading to complacency about using condoms.13

So, if you have a lick of common sense, you can understand why they don't bother with gay men since they make up 66% of the infected!

[Godstud]

So, if you have a lick of common sense, you can understand why they don't bother with gay men since they make up 66% of the infected!

Which would be identified in the questionnaire thus taking out those at risk. Any slipping by would have their blood identified as being "bad" during required screening and be prevented from future donations.
Banning all homosexuals does NOT have any basis in logic. The policy seems to reflect homophobic prejudices, not medical facts.
Fact: A male homosexual who is not sexually active is not more a risk than a male heterosexual who isn't sexually active, so a blanket ban is just plain wrong.

Even a man who has had gay sex only once in his life, perhaps more than 40 years ago, is prohibited from donating blood. Men whose homosexual experience is limited to a few mutual wanks behind the school bike sheds are likewise banned as blood donors, even if their youthful escapades took place in the 1960s (more than a decade before the start of the AIDS crisis!).
Although quick to reject blood from risk-free gay men, the transfusion service happily accepts donations from promiscuous heterosexuals who have lots of unprotected sex with many different partners.
There is no medical or ethical reason why those homosexual males who have long and rigorously practised safe sex, and who have since tested HIV-negative, should be banned automatically from giving blood.
http://www.petertatchell.net/blood%20ba ... phobic.htm
A very good article.

[redcarpet]

Romance is a private matter. The state has no right to discriminate. If GLBTI people can't obtain Civil Union statutes that give full equal rights, but have a chance for 'marriage' by skipping a protracted debate on Civil Union rights, then good. What matters is people can live fairly, they can't if they're not recognised properly by obsolete laws.

[Invictus_88]

Explain your reason(s) for allowing gays to marry.
Then explain why and how that would apply to polygamists.
Then explain why and how that would apply to marriage between family members.

I say marriage is a contract for children.
Perverting marriage for a group that can't have them naturally is unnatural.
The latter two can also be discriminated on, for whatever reason, because I can discriminate.

1) If the marriage is secular then there is no reason on earth why they should not, and so I believe it should be permitted.
2) In precisely the same way as above, if this is what the people wish to do, and all parties are consenting adults capable of making such decisions, then it should likewise be permitted.
Being more than two people, it would function such that in any arrangement of men and women would be permitted, provided those already in the marriage support the inclusion of the individual marrying into it.
3) If the relationship is by blood (or perhaps simply in cases of medically dangerous high cosanguinity) then it should be allowed only on the condition of prior voluntary sterilisation. If the relationship is not by blood and does not conflict with any caregiver/cared relationships within said family, then it should be permitted.

I personally do not support all of these things, but then nor do I support things like overcooked steak, Damien Hirst or the Green Party, and I don't believe any of the above should be outlawed.

Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it on grounds that do the miracle of human intellect a profound disservice.

[PBVBROOK]

This whole debate about blood donation is simply a red herring proposed by homophobes who have no real argument. It is absurd and unrelated to the issue at hand. You do not see them advocating banning from marriage those who ate meat in Great Britian during the 80's and they are also banned from giving blood. Or perhaps we should ban from marriage those who have hepetitis. They are banned from giving blood too.

This natering on about HIV simply harkens to these homophobes looking for some way to characterize homosexuality as somehow disreputable. Clearly if they make that assertion outright they will be proving their bigotry with an argument that is not supportable with any facts at all.

Why debate with people who are clearly homophobic and bigoted? At least if they made a religious argument they would have a leg to stand on. This issue, not so much.

Gays should be allowed to marry because they want to. That some claiming to be libertarian oppose this proves they are just about as libertarian as neo-cons are conservative. Now doubt they bought that "compassionate conservative" bullshit a few years ago. If they were old enough to remember it.

[ninurta]

[]what percentage of gay men have an STD?[]
I haven't looked it up for the USA but in Britain nearly 50% of all new cases are men that have sex with men.
So you can see why they do not waste their money on that group.
Especially since they are a minority.

Wow, 50%, you must have alot gay brits over there because 50% of all STD cases being with straight men, thats a high, nearly unbelievable number. Or did you look up HIV/AIDS and ignore my question?

I looked it up...
[] http://www.avert.org/america.htm
Men who have sex with men: At the beginning of America’s epidemic, AIDS primarily affected men who have sex with men (MSM). Today, although there are more high-risk groups, MSM still account for around two-thirds of HIV diagnoses among male adults and adolescents.10 There have been concerns that an increasing number of MSM are having unprotected sex, leading to a rise in the number of new HIV infections among this group.11 The CDC has reported that between 2001 and 2006, HIV and AIDS diagnoses among MSM increased by 8.6 percent.12 It is thought that the availability of antiretroviral treatment may have lessened the fear surrounding AIDS, leading to complacency about using condoms.13[]

So, if you have a lick of common sense, you can understand why they don't bother with gay men since they make up 66% of the infected!

My question was not about AIDS/HIV, re read my post. Or you can just quick search herpes and other STD's individually, and the statistics for other sexually transmitted diseases that can be transmitted through blood and find out who has more, straight men or gay men. This isn't a nonissue, there is a point.

[ninurta]

From:
http://www.globalherbalsupplies.com/herpes/stats.html
Herpes Statistics
One out of five of the total adolescent and adult population is infected with genital herpes.

Infection is more common in women (approximately one out of four women) than in men (almost one out of five).

Male-to-female transmission is more efficient than female-to-male transmission.

One in five Americans have genital herpes (yet at least 80 percent of those with herpes are unaware they have it).

About 80 percent of American adults have oral herpes (cold sores).

An estimated 25 percent of American adults have genital herpes.

Genital herpes affects approximately one in six Australian adults

Approximately two-thirds of people who acquire STDs in the United States are younger than 25.1,3

About one in five people in the United States over age 12 (approximately 45 million individuals) are infected with HSV-2, the virus that causes genital herpes.2

According to the A.H.M.F. (Australian Herpes Management Forum) genital herpes is under-diagnosed — of people with genital herpes simplex virus infection only 1 in 5 are diagnosed and, up to 80% of cases of genital herpes are not recognized as such by clinicians.

At least one in four Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives.

Up to 1 million new HSV-2 infections may be transmitted each year in the United States.1

Costs associated with genital herpes totaled approximately $237 million in 1994.3

Genital herpes infection also is more common among African Americans (45.9%) than among White Caucasian (17.6%).

Since the late 1970s, the number of Americans with genital herpes infection has increased 30%.

The largest increase of genital herpes is among young White teenagers.

Genital herpes infection is now five times more common in 12- to 19-year-old White adolescents.

Genital herpes is twice as common among young adults ages 20 to 29 than it was 20 years ago.

By your logic DDM, people with the healthiest blood, those who are younger than 25, should not donate blood because they are at a really high risk of getting STD's.

Approximately two-thirds of people who acquire STDs in the United States are younger than 25

[DanDaMan]

By your logic DDM, people with the healthiest blood, those who are younger than 25, should not donate blood because they are at a really high risk of getting STD's.

Approximately two-thirds of people who acquire STDs in the United States are younger than 25

Thank the modern Liberal agenda of liberal sex for that.

More proof that modern Liberals, and their inability to judge bad behaviors as bad, are just poisoning and infecting society with death and disease.

Now you see the stupidity of Liberal logic..
They need national health care to care for the infected society they created!

[Invictus_88]

Dan,

I think you might've missed my response there.

[jaycola]

I have attended gay weddings, I have gay friends who have adopted children.
One of my wife's brides maids was gay, I even have gay Muslim friends who attend temple regularly.

I do think that they should be allowed to marry. By far the majority of the homosexuals I know are in long term comitted relationships. In some cases they have children from previous marriages living with them. The often own property together and share living expenses. If one were to get ill, it would be the other who would take care of them just as in any traditional heterosexual marriage.

There are social and economic reasons, for protection of property and benifit of children for example, why legalizing gay marriage is necessary. Legalizing marriage is only catching up with the reality of life in the gay community.

Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for a number and it has not changed the nature of our society nor the marriage I have with my wife.

[ninurta]

[]By your logic DDM, people with the healthiest blood, those who are younger than 25, should not donate blood because they are at a really high risk of getting STD's.

Approximately two-thirds of people who acquire STDs in the United States are younger than 25[]
Thank the modern Liberal agenda of liberal sex for that.

More proof that modern Liberals, and their inability to judge bad behaviors as bad, are just poisoning and infecting society with death and disease.

Now you see the stupidity of Liberal logic..
They need national health care to care for the infected society they created!

DDM, Liberals won't even take advice from liberal libertarians, what makes you think that I, a conservative libertarian, is going to be making the agenda or agreeing with the agenda of Liberals? You are most likely closer to Liberalism than I am.

Okay, on a more serious note, let's not use the "liberal agenda excuse", seeing that it's not just liberals who want gays to be allowed to marry.

[PBVBROOK]

Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for a number and it has not changed the nature of our society nor the marriage I have with my wife.

Correct. Right in the mark.

I have listened to the drivel and misdirection that the opponents of gay marriage have posted here and find most of them based upon ignorance, homophobia and outright malice. They are the arguments of not very smart people by and large. That or people so frightened that they are seeking any place to hide.

I can't for the life of me figure out why some people live in abject terror of gay people. Their fear is laughable to anyone secure in his/her own sexualtiy. One can only conclude that they "protest to much".

We are talking here about the ultimate in comitted monogamous relationships - marriage. And somehow some people here think that gay marriage offers some risk to the STD rate? That is just stupid. It makes no sense. They argue against themselves. News flash for those who are not smart enought to figure this out by themselves: People in comitted monogamous relationships are at virtually no risk of either acquiring or spreading a STD. So. Now pay attention students:

If you want to cut the STD rate in any community gay or straight you would favor that relationships be comitted and monogamous. And that could be marriage.

So lets fight the spread of STDs in the gay community. Join me in favoring that gays do what you tell your Christian children to do......wait until they are married to have sex.

Consider thinking rather than talking for a change.

[DanDaMan]

I do think that they should be allowed to marry. By far the majority of the homosexuals I know are in long term comitted relationships. In some cases they have children from previous marriages living with them.

How wonderful!
You hold up, as an example, parents that gave their children broken homes and blended families.
I could go into how wrong that is for the children but that would just go over the forums head.

[Dave]

Romance is a private matter. The state has no right to discriminate. If GLBTI people can't obtain Civil Union statutes that give full equal rights, but have a chance for 'marriage' by skipping a protracted debate on Civil Union rights, then good. What matters is people can live fairly, they can't if they're not recognised properly by obsolete laws.

Romance is not a private matter as it has social effects. This is one of many reasons why nearly every known society has seen fit to regulate romance. "Fairness" is only the concern of liberal psychopaths seeking to use such positive feeling buzzwords to mask their aggression against the traditional order of mankind. They will never be satisfied until they have destroyed everything and as such should simply be ignored.

[DanDaMan]

Romance is not a private matter as it has social effects. This is one of many reasons why nearly every known society has seen fit to regulate romance. "Fairness" is only the concern of liberal psychopaths seeking to use such positive feeling buzzwords to mask their aggression against the traditional order of mankind. They will never be satisfied until they have destroyed everything and as such should simply be ignored.

True.
But you make it sound like a malicious intent by Liberals!
The reality is a pursuit of Utopia where no one can do no wrong.
Basically their good intentions are the road to Hell.

[Invictus_88]

Er. Dan?

[DanDaMan]

This explains my position on modern Liberals in America.