»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
FDA To Implement Gay Sperm Donor Rules
| The Alley |
|
FDA To Implement Gay Sperm Donor Rules |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_sperm_donors I think you all know how I'm going to react to this, but I'll share my thoughts anyway. This is ridiculous, not to mention discriminating. Aren't they supposed to just check ALL the sperm donations? Check to see if there's any problem with any of them, such as sexually transmitted diseases and such? Definitely my most Ridiculous Item of the Day! The FDA has certainly sunk to new lows as of late, first with Vioxx and now this. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts and opinions please? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
They need to get out more. I've yet to see any conclusive proof of a 'gay' gene. So far, all the research has been done by *surprise* gays trying to validate their life choice to better rationalize their inner guilt and turmoil. The FDA doing this is daft beyond measure. I mean, really....what does the Food and Drug Administration have to do with sperm donation?! Wait...I really don't want to know. One would think, well, at least I would, that this would fall under the auspices of the CDC. Even then, this is a dang fool notion! What a waste of money! |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
Well I know several men & women whom are gay and I also know their familes, and in most cases everyone but them were straight as a stick... not meaning that as a pun but I find this absulutely stupid at the least. And though I do not agree with being gay, I do not judge people. I figure that it's their life, and I would be even guiltier in God's eyes If I judged them for being the way they are. And? Speaking from a mother's point of view. IF my children grow up to be gay, I ain't gonna like it, and I sure ain't gonna tell them that they became just what I wanted them too... BUT I will still love them. Their sexual preference will not change the fact that they are my children. Just came back to add.... if you go through a sperm bank one would hope you have done your research and then you KNOW that being gay is not genetically passed down. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Right, and lemme say I'm not homophobic. Some of my best friends were gay, with one in particular being a right flamer. Heh, very white, red-headed Irish American who thought he was a ghetto born African American. That was trippy, but he was fun. He and one of my childhood friends (an African American gay) lived with me for a while. And they were fiercely protective of their straight friend, even going so far as to threaten GBH to a chickenhawk they knew about. For those who don't know, GBH is grievious bodily harm, and a chickenhawk is normally slang for a gay child predator, but also for one who sees it as his crusade to 'convert' and 'indoctrinate' as many males as possible. |
||
|
SEA
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
the FDA is a joke....  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
The question about a higher chance for carrying AIDS/ARC for gay men may be a valid concern, but I was under the assumption all donations were screened for pathogens after the massive outbreak of AIDS during the 80's. The FDA does some good though, quite aside from normally silliness. They are the primary organization which enforces cleanliness standards, safe food handling, and hygeine, from restaurants to slaughterhouses. They hold workshops to teach people the hazards of salmonella, trichinosis and botulism, and how to properly create, store and handle home canned goods and how to destroy pathogens commonly found in some foods. They attempt to educate the masses about the hazards of cross-contamination in the kitchen, and the simple steps to avoid it. The role of the FDA is to create a safer environment for Americans regarding food and medicines. Most of what they do is good. It's just the hairbrained ideas like the sperm donation ban that mess up that good work. If it is a valid concern, that should be handled by the CDC, not the FDA. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Recently, I've been lead to believe that the FDA may quite possibly be in my mind the single greatest social institution in need of reform right now. Earlier I felt the FDA struck me nowadays as a small lobbyist interest group. Now, after hearing this, I fear it just may be worse than that; it may even be a small politically-minded lobbyist interest group. Sexual activity period is really how sperm should be evaluated, and I believe ALL sperm should be screened or tested this same manner. I've personally come to believe myself that it is incredibly misleading to generalize gays as being most particularly HIV positive in sperm results. These new rules are just discriminating to me. My only brother, Larry, is gay. I'm not, but I've always been close to him and have never wished for anything but for him to be happy. And it breaks my heart to see many civil liberties deteriorating as it is, but especially toward gays and lesbians and two other co-cultures; the homeless and Arab-Americans/Muslims/Islamists. I believe this is just one of many recent negatively-minded gestures to te gay and lesbian community. Recently in Texas they passed this bill to make it illegal for gays to be foster parents, and even takes away children from those gay citizens who are already parents. There's similar negative advances happening elsewhere. And some of it isn't even merely discriminating to me, it's hatred as well.  Regardless of what your personal opinion is on same sex marriage (I am for it, but am patient understanding that many others aren't so), I believe there exists a dangerous anti-gay vibe in our culture right now that I find very saddening. That's why I brought up this topic, because I believe there's a dimension to this beyond merely the idea that this is just a waste of time and pointless. It seems to indicate to me the FDA itself is being influenced by this vibe somehow. I don't know what else to say here, I'm shocked and I'm speechless, and I feel for my brother very much and his boyfriend Colin. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Giving blood on a regular basis, I can say the restrictions for giving blood are even more restrictive than sperm banks, not only in relation to male sex, but in regards to any number of high risk factors for Aids or any number of diseases. I don't know that the Red Cross is particularly homophobic, but I suspect they are somewhat leary about their blood supply. When you give blood, they go to great lengths to not embarrass anyone and in keeping matters discreet. In fact, you can go ahead and give blood and secretly ask it not be used so no one will no you were disqualified for any reason including the people taking your blood. They are not to keen on accepting blood from those who have sex with prostitutes, tattooed people, people who have travelled to any number of countries. Any number of diseases disqualify you from giving blood. I do not believe it is an accepted practice to transplant organs from males engaging in sex with males within the last five years as well as any other number of reasons. I do believe the testing for HIV is accurate to 99%+ but is not totally accurate and I also believe it is a concern that HIV is transmittable in the incubation period during which the test will still be negative. Overreaction, possibly, but not necessarily homophobic. I read somewhere where intravenous drug users of illicit drugs and prostitutes also object to being discriminated against in giving blood. If it is a question of saving lives or being labeled homophobic, I suspect the FDA and Red Cross would side with the saving lives side of the equation. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, there's a few thing you might oughtta know about Texas. It has the most churches/mosques/synagogues per square mile than any other state, and it isn't called the 'Buckle of the Bible Belt' simply for alliterative purposes. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I understand that Texas and Oregon are themselves unique, differing cultures from one another. Oregon and Washington are the two states with the least churches in the nation, while Texas has the most. Still, I'm lead to believe that surely anyone should just find it heartbreaking that even existing gay families are about to be torn apart because of this new law there. And I've understood going to church much as I was growing up that the family is the single most essential institution in our culture today and must be maintained, and I find this sort of legislation just runs against that value. I feel that homophobic vibe is resonating behind that piece of legislation, and I swear I'm going to pay for an airplane ticket and fly to Denver just to hug my brother in heartbroken empathy if that same sort of legislation is introduced and passes in Colorado, as he desires to have a child or two in the near future. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
That's where more traditional values collide with current views. Like it or not, such values are often taught to children as part of their rearing, that male and female is the proper and right way. And so there is the presumption that a male/male or female/female couple will teach any children they adopt or acquire via surrogate that male/male or female/female is the proper and right way. Truthfully, I really don't have a View about this part one way or the other, since gay adults have come from straight parents. It's entirely possible that straight adults will come from gay parents, much to their chagrin. *chuckle* One thing this does bring up, which first reared its head during the gay marriage fiasco this past November, is the rights of polyigomists. They counter that if it's ok for gays to wed and be recognized by the state, that it's ok for them to wed and be recognized by the state. Believe it or don't, but polyigomist activist groups were watching the gay marriage movement closely for their own constitutional rights. |
||
|
timothysangel1973
since 2001-12-03
Posts 1725Never close enough |
I wish life weren't so complicated sometimes. I try EXTREMELY hard not to judge others except in which case we are discussing child molestors, predators, and wife beaters. Those subjects will never get a positive reveiw from me, I don't care how much time they have 'paid' into the system. As far as this goes. First of all I find it ignorant for one to think that the gay gene is passed down. I beleive that is a choice you make, not a cell that is passed to you from your parents. Second, to take children from gay parents to me is a horrible thing to do to the children. I agree with you Noah that family should be what we focus on, and when personal veiws are excercised, it is more often than not that the children pay the price. While personally I do not agree with homosexuality, or same sex marriage... I simply choose to keep to myself on the subject because it is NOT me. Nothing more irritating to me than a homophobe that claims to be 'open-minded'. The two don't even go together. As far as the FDA is concerned, heck anyone could argue that this is discrimination and probably win. But, the weight factor comes into play when its ONE man against an institution this large. Being gay doesn't mean that you don't know how to love, it just means that you don't practice love or life in the traditional manner. )))hugs((( Tima |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You bring up strong points, Alicat. And I understand the fear and anxiety of letting many children of tomorrow to be cared for in the hands of opposite-sex parents, since there isn't a lot of well-publicized previous account detailing the utmost success of gay parenting. I do believe it's a natural process of human behavior for someone to be afraid of or uncertain of something like this to begin with, but once such a thing is demonstrated and there's no harm done, it becomes culturally acceptable in time. I believe the gay rights debate is just the latest phase in that. There's just a lot of culture shock here. Devoted religious believers fear their traditional doctrines will be warped and all by allowing this. I just happen to believe the gay and lesbian community is basically a sub-culture in our society today and they just need to acculturate and form some sort of Third Group is all. I believe understanding leads to trust, and there just isn't enough of that cross-culturation education happening. And you're right about the concern among polygamists. That is a pickle among the whole civil-rights-to-the-fullest debate. I personally don't believe in polygamy at all, for in my experience I find that it happens not for the good of family or such but rather for fulfilling passionate needs or such, as I believe a vast majority don't, but I guess I'm just a softy too and don't want to appear brutally intrusive to that minority. Perhaps when that issue gains momentum in the future, then we can get to really having dialogue there. But at this time, I believe polygamy is very unpopular and it isn't like there's any constitutional amendment banning it right now. Gay rights are a lot more controversial and divisive right now and I believe it's desperate for dialogue. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Polygomy is illegal currently, both federal and state. Keep in mind though that homosexuality, and sexual acts traditionally associated with homosexuality, were illegal by federal and state laws. And within a week of that rash of gay marriages, before those were declared null by courts and voters, polygomists were already making noise about discrimination. Times have changed, and it's not just old-school Mormons wanting recognition, but also Africans, Arabs, Asians and Polynesians where such marital behavior is normal and expected as a symbol of prosperity, as well as being religiously sanctioned. At least by some sects of Islam and Hinduism. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Times are changing, and what troubles me most of all is that no one in Washington seems to want to stand up for the gay community at all. Bush won't do it. Kerry said in Baton Rouge over the weekend that he believes its a mistake for the Democratic Party to mention gay marriage and such. Republicans in general won't do it period, and Democrats in general either won't do likewise or are hiding their opinions and are afraid to come out of the closet. Meanwhile, the FDA already has a number of skeletons in its closet as it is, from Posilac to Vioxx to their general unilateral bow to pharmaceutical corporations than average American patients and their health themselves. But this remains very unsettling to me that they're not only big-business edged, they are also to some degree politically-edged as well. As Alicat specified some examples how, the FDA does some good too in the more outreach sectors of the organization. So much of the FDA is indeed a joke right now though. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Nobody needs Washington on their side, Noah. Nobody needs a politician from any party on their side. All anyone needs is a judge on their side. Judges decide what the Constitution means, or what they think it should mean, and issue rulings accordingly, regardless of the clear intent of the legislature and the expressed will of the people. The judiciary has become the supreme ruler of the land. They are no longer co-equal with the other two branches of government. They have set themselves above, and the other two branches have not been courageous enough to check them on this usurpation of power, of legislating from the bench, of fabricating rights not found in the Constitution and ignoring rights that are in the Constitution. All three branches are equally guilty of destroying "The Grand Experiment." It looked good on paper but couldn't survive the corruption, I suppose. Question put to Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving Independence Hall at the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin’s answer: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” We couldn't. Sorry Ben, but thank you to you and the others for your sacrifices and efforts on our behalf anyway. It was a noble idea, even if it was destined to fail. "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." Aristotle |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." Oscar Wilde Even if you could convince me what you say is true, Denise, I would have to insist the blame should be laid at the feet of those most at at fault. That's not the judges. They only do what you and I have asked them to do, either by direct vote or, more often and indirectly, through appointments and confirmations by others for whom we voted. I think the system works remarkably well, especially considering the many who still vote for bread and circuses, more interested in advancing their own causes than in protecting ideals. Whether you are right, however, or I am right, in either case, we have exactly what we deserve. "It is simply untrue that all our institutions are evil, that all politicians are mere opportunists, that all aspects of university life are corrupt. Having discovered an illness, it's not terribly useful to prescribe death as a cure." George McGovern |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Cynical? Perhaps, Ron. But I know and respect the value of life, and the value of properly interpreting the Constitution as it relates to our God-given rights, which is more than I can say for far too many politicians and judges. As I see it we vote them in and we vote them out, or vote in those who select the judges, and vote them out. That's the extent of our power. What they do in the meantime is out of our control. Too many politicians aren't walking their campaign talk, aren't faithfully representing their constituents. The blame isn't ours, it's theirs, unless we re-elect them. I'm not advocating death. That's already occurred to our representative republic, in my opinion. And a rebirth would seem in order. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
