2011: The Year for Gay Rights?

[Symmetry]

Ridiculous. Why is Symmetry getting so personal now? Why is he taking a public health concern personally?

Also, everyone's been called a "faggot" before. So if anyone says they haven't been called gay, they're lying. The difference is that we heterosexuals usually laugh about it, but gay guys like you prefer to get really offended.

And outside of having sex with other men or wanting to have sex with other men, just about any behavior a man engages in can be construed as being "gay". Ever take a shower at the gym before you go to work? Ever talk about your feelings with another dude, or listen to him talk about his? UH OH! Ever go clothes shopping with another man? I did once, and we laughed about it. He had his car down for the weekend in college and there was a big sale at one of the malls in the suburbs. We both needed some new button-downs. So depending on your definition of gay, we're all kind of gay, it's just a matter of degrees. In the case of the Red Cross, if you're so gay that you have sex with other men, you should refrain from donating blood. It's not a moral judgment! It's nothing personal! It's just a behavior at greater risk of being infected with an STD, the same as prostitution or sharing needles. And people who eat lots of beef in the UK are at a greater risk of having Mad Cow Disease, so they shouldn't donate either. It's nothing personal! We still love you Limeys! You're our greatest ally in the world. But keep your blood to yourselves, thanks.

So your declarations are silly, Symmetry, and are indicative of a desire, on your part, to try to hurt my feelings. Why is that? I'm guessing it's cause I've hurt yours. But it's nothing personal dude. I really don't care about who you love or who you have sex with. I'm not afraid of gay people. I've said this numerous times now in this thread, but you won't let it go. Y u mad bro? Y u no discuss teh ideas?

It doesn't matter what anyone says, you're going to claim up and down it's a sign of repressed homosexuality. Maybe that's just because you have dicks on the mind, bro, and should stop projecting. We're not all like you. And I don't expect you to be just like me. Why do you care so much?

Touching stuff, really, but you're being over-sensitive, and irrationally fearful over the the threat gay people pose to public health. Indeed, you equate it with prostitution and needle sharing.

So here's the basic question- are you afraid that gay people pose a threat to the public?

[BigBallinStalin]

If what I've been told is correct, then anyone frequently engaging in anal sex is denied from donating blood due to the risk of infection. Sure, that restricts gays from donating, but it also restricts a few heterosexuals.

It's a reasonable policy; it's reasonable discrimination--i.e. it's not arbitrary discrimination. The opposition is just being silly. They erroneously perceive it as some slight, but they need to get real. Until I see some facts which strongly support the opposition, then I'll continue to dismiss their social movement.


Furthermore, I don't understand the whine-fest here. The "UR GAY" thing isn't the best way to react to BA and p-diddy. ITT, BA is 99.99% bullshit of varying quality. p-diddy is sincere but with tinges of "har har har."

[Symmetry]

If what I've been told is correct, then anyone frequently engaging in anal sex is denied from donating blood due to the risk of infection. Sure, that restricts gays from donating, but it also restricts a few heterosexuals.

It's a reasonable policy; it's reasonable discrimination--i.e. it's not arbitrary discrimination. The opposition is just being silly. They erroneously perceive it as some slight, but they need to get real. Until I see some facts which strongly support the opposition, then I'll continue to dismiss their social movement.

Furthermore, I don't understand the whine-fest here. The "UR GAY" thing isn't the best way to react to BA and p-diddy. ITT, BA is 99.99% bullshit of varying quality. p-diddy is sincere but with tinges of "har har har."

Let's be really clear on the rules:

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

This isn't just about anal sex, which is of course, not exclusively homosexual, not by any means. The ban was on gay men, regardless of sexual habits. This changed in 2011, toward a more sensible position.

[barackattack]

1 - you're referencing UK policy there, not US.

2 - it says 'men who have sex with other men', which is different to 'homosexual'. The question is not your sexuality but your sexual behaviour.

[Symmetry]

1 - you're referencing UK policy there, not US.

2 - it says 'men who have sex with other men', which is different to 'homosexual'. The question is not your sexuality but your sexual behaviour.

1) Aren't you supposed to be from the UK?

2) So?

[barackattack]

Maaaaan..

1 - i thought you were complaining about US policy?

2 - So the issue isn't homosexuality.

[Symmetry]

Maaaaan..

1 - i thought you were complaining about US policy?

2 - So the issue isn't homosexuality.

Gay rights, right there in the title. Does this mean we're back on topic? Do you think last year was a landmark for gay rights?

[barackattack]

Your article has nothing to do with gay rights in the US. Or even gay rights in the UK.

And no, I don't. In the UK (at least) the landmark was 1967. All else is irrelevant.

[Symmetry]

Your article has nothing to do with gay rights in the US. Or even gay rights in the UK.

And no, I don't. In the UK (at least) the landmark was 1967. All else is irrelevant.

It's not an article, it's a positional statement from the organisation that deals with blood donation referring to a change in British law.

In 2011.

Try again.

[barackattack]

A positional statement that is not to do with homosexuality.

An incredibly minor positional statement.

[Symmetry]

A positional statement that is not to do with homosexuality.

An incredibly minor positional statement.

You'll have to explain that one, as it seems to outline a change in policy from men who have had sex with men being banned from donating blood.

[barackattack]

Gay virgins were still entitled to give blood.

If you're about to try and get me to argue about this policy in-depth then just read dave's longer posts. I agree with him.

[Symmetry]

Gay virgins were still entitled to give blood.

If you're about to try and get me to argue about this policy in-depth then just read dave's longer posts. I agree with him.

Of course you do.

[BigBallinStalin]

If what I've been told is correct, then anyone frequently engaging in anal sex is denied from donating blood due to the risk of infection. Sure, that restricts gays from donating, but it also restricts a few heterosexuals.

It's a reasonable policy; it's reasonable discrimination--i.e. it's not arbitrary discrimination. The opposition is just being silly. They erroneously perceive it as some slight, but they need to get real. Until I see some facts which strongly support the opposition, then I'll continue to dismiss their social movement.

Furthermore, I don't understand the whine-fest here. The "UR GAY" thing isn't the best way to react to BA and p-diddy. ITT, BA is 99.99% bullshit of varying quality. p-diddy is sincere but with tinges of "har har har."

Let's be really clear on the rules:

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

This isn't just about anal sex, which is of course, not exclusively homosexual, not by any means. The ban was on gay men, regardless of sexual habits. This changed in 2011, toward a more sensible position.

And it was overturned... Ok then, end of debate.

Yet, in the US, and (to my knowledge there's no specific ban on homosexuals from donating blood), there's a loud B&M movement about a policy which doesn't explicitly target them. The policy is reasonable, the opposition isn't.

Anything which you'd like to say on that? You've avoided pimpdave's position on this by ducking out and rolling with a "ur gay" response.

[Symmetry]

If what I've been told is correct, then anyone frequently engaging in anal sex is denied from donating blood due to the risk of infection. Sure, that restricts gays from donating, but it also restricts a few heterosexuals.

It's a reasonable policy; it's reasonable discrimination--i.e. it's not arbitrary discrimination. The opposition is just being silly. They erroneously perceive it as some slight, but they need to get real. Until I see some facts which strongly support the opposition, then I'll continue to dismiss their social movement.

Furthermore, I don't understand the whine-fest here. The "UR GAY" thing isn't the best way to react to BA and p-diddy. ITT, BA is 99.99% bullshit of varying quality. p-diddy is sincere but with tinges of "har har har."

Let's be really clear on the rules:

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

This isn't just about anal sex, which is of course, not exclusively homosexual, not by any means. The ban was on gay men, regardless of sexual habits. This changed in 2011, toward a more sensible position.

And it was overturned... Ok then, end of debate.

Yet, in the US, and (to my knowledge there's no specific ban on homosexuals from donating blood), there's a loud B&M movement about a policy which doesn't explicitly target them. The policy is reasonable, the opposition isn't.

Anything which you'd like to say on that? You've avoided pimpdave's position on this by ducking out and rolling with a "ur gay" response.

What is his position? Do I really need to provide evidence that gays aren't a threat to the Red Cross? Or blood donation?

[BigBallinStalin]

If what I've been told is correct, then anyone frequently engaging in anal sex is denied from donating blood due to the risk of infection. Sure, that restricts gays from donating, but it also restricts a few heterosexuals.

It's a reasonable policy; it's reasonable discrimination--i.e. it's not arbitrary discrimination. The opposition is just being silly. They erroneously perceive it as some slight, but they need to get real. Until I see some facts which strongly support the opposition, then I'll continue to dismiss their social movement.

Furthermore, I don't understand the whine-fest here. The "UR GAY" thing isn't the best way to react to BA and p-diddy. ITT, BA is 99.99% bullshit of varying quality. p-diddy is sincere but with tinges of "har har har."

Let's be really clear on the rules:

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

This isn't just about anal sex, which is of course, not exclusively homosexual, not by any means. The ban was on gay men, regardless of sexual habits. This changed in 2011, toward a more sensible position.

And it was overturned... Ok then, end of debate.

Yet, in the US, and (to my knowledge there's no specific ban on homosexuals from donating blood), there's a loud B&M movement about a policy which doesn't explicitly target them. The policy is reasonable, the opposition isn't.

Anything which you'd like to say on that? You've avoided pimpdave's position on this by ducking out and rolling with a "ur gay" response.

What is his position? Do I really need to provide evidence that gays aren't a threat to the Red Cross? Or blood donation?

Gays aren't. I'd imagine having frequent anal sex increases your chances of contracting a disease which the Red Cross doesn't appreciate in its blood supply. Filtering out these unnecessary risks by framing questions which tend to deny nearly all gays from donating is an acceptable form of discrimination because the policy is based on arbitrary reasons.

If you agree with me, then you'd have to generally agree with pimpdave. *Generally because pimpdave was mistaking a few gay protestors as representative of all/most gays and their position on the US blood ban issue.

[Symmetry]

If what I've been told is correct, then anyone frequently engaging in anal sex is denied from donating blood due to the risk of infection. Sure, that restricts gays from donating, but it also restricts a few heterosexuals.

It's a reasonable policy; it's reasonable discrimination--i.e. it's not arbitrary discrimination. The opposition is just being silly. They erroneously perceive it as some slight, but they need to get real. Until I see some facts which strongly support the opposition, then I'll continue to dismiss their social movement.

Furthermore, I don't understand the whine-fest here. The "UR GAY" thing isn't the best way to react to BA and p-diddy. ITT, BA is 99.99% bullshit of varying quality. p-diddy is sincere but with tinges of "har har har."

Let's be really clear on the rules:

http://www.blood.co.uk/can-i-give-blood/exclusion/

This isn't just about anal sex, which is of course, not exclusively homosexual, not by any means. The ban was on gay men, regardless of sexual habits. This changed in 2011, toward a more sensible position.

And it was overturned... Ok then, end of debate.

Yet, in the US, and (to my knowledge there's no specific ban on homosexuals from donating blood), there's a loud B&M movement about a policy which doesn't explicitly target them. The policy is reasonable, the opposition isn't.

Anything which you'd like to say on that? You've avoided pimpdave's position on this by ducking out and rolling with a "ur gay" response.

What is his position? Do I really need to provide evidence that gays aren't a threat to the Red Cross? Or blood donation?

Gays aren't. I'd imagine having frequent anal sex increases your chances of contracting a disease which the Red Cross doesn't appreciate in its blood supply. Filtering out these unnecessary risks by framing questions which tend to deny nearly all gays from donating is an acceptable form of discrimination because the policy is based on arbitrary reasons.

If you agree with me, then you'd have to generally agree with pimpdave. *Generally because pimpdave was mistaking a few gay protestors as representative of all/most gays and their position on the US blood ban issue.

Nah, sorry to be defensive about this, but PimpDave just kicked me out of a usergroup unrelated to this topic because I questioned his stance on the subject.

Might be awkward to ask you this again, BBS, but what is his position? Sorry, the one I need to respond to. What's his position?

[Aradhus]

but PimpDave just kicked me out of a usergroup unrelated to this topic because I questioned his stance on the subject.

Maybe the usergroup has some rules to protect it from potential harm. Have you had anal sex in the past year maybe?

[Symmetry]

but PimpDave just kicked me out of a usergroup unrelated to this topic because I questioned his stance on the subject.

Maybe the usergroup has some rules to protect it from potential harm. Have you had anal sex in the past year maybe?

Nobody ever asked, although it would be kind of and odd reason to exclude someone,

[BigBallinStalin]

but PimpDave just kicked me out of a usergroup unrelated to this topic because I questioned his stance on the subject.

Maybe the usergroup has some rules to protect it from potential harm. Have you had anal sex in the past year maybe?

Nobody ever asked, although it would be kind of and odd reason to exclude someone,

Well, if it's for the safety of the usergroup, then a prohibition on frequent anal sexists is reasonable--even though it does filter out most homosexuals.


Regarding p-diddy's stance, it's buried somewhere a few pages past, but I don't care enough to find it. <shrugs> =D

[PLAYER57832]

Nah, sorry to be defensive about this, but PimpDave just kicked me out of a usergroup unrelated to this topic because I questioned his stance on the subject.

Might be awkward to ask you this again, BBS, but what is his position? Sorry, the one I need to respond to. What's his position?

Since I weighed in back there.. he claimed that there is a large homosexual movement to boycott the American Red Cross blood drives, referring as evidence to 2 colleges in PA and such. He claimed that these protestors were seriously endangering the Red Cross Blood supply.

I stated that the blood supply is at risk for MANY reasons, and also that there just is no ban on homosexuals giving blood. There IS a voluntary request that people engaging in various activities known to have a higher incidence of blood born diseases including HIV, but more actually Hep B and the various other Hepatitis strains. (along with stuff like Malaria). He responded with, basically that I did not know of what I spoke. Except.. well, I do. (in this case).

[saxitoxin]

he claimed that there is a large homosexual movement to boycott the American Red Cross blood drives, referring as evidence to 2 colleges in PA and such

Below are the results of about 3 minutes of searching on bing-dot-com. How many results would I get if I spent just 30 minutes?

2003: Southern Oregon University - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... oddrive19m

2003: University of Vermont - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/scho ... s-1.582542

2007: Iowa State University - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... 5c2d9.html

2008: Sonoma State University - homosexual faculty member proposes ban on blood drives
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall

2008: San Jose State University - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/02/06 ... ts_blo.php

2009: UCLA - homosexual student group encourages protest of blood drive events on campus
http://www.uclgbtia.org/kblood.html

2010: Keene State College - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
http://www.keeneequinox.com/news/pride- ... -1.2187207

2011: Queens College - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
http://www.free-press-release.com/news- ... 75220.html

there just is no ban on homosexuals giving blood

BLOOD DONOR REQUIREMENTS, SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK
DO NOT DONATE BLOOD IF YOU:
- Have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test
- Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
- Are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
- Have ever taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977
- Have hemophilia or another blood clotting disorder and received clotting factor concentrate
- Have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
- Have had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months
- In the last 12 months, have been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours
- Have received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom from 1980 to the present

http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/donate ... ONOTDONATE

[PLAYER57832]

he claimed that there is a large homosexual movement to boycott the American Red Cross blood drives, referring as evidence to 2 colleges in PA and such

Below are the results of about 3 minutes of searching on bing-dot-com. How many results would I get if I spent just 30 minutes?

2003: Southern Oregon University - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... oddrive19m

2003: University of Vermont - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/scho ... s-1.582542

2007: Iowa State University - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... 5c2d9.html

2008: Sonoma State University - homosexual faculty member proposes ban on blood drives
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall

2008: San Jose State University - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/02/06 ... ts_blo.php

2009: UCLA - homosexual student group encourages protest of blood drive events on campus
http://www.uclgbtia.org/kblood.html

2010: Keene State College - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
http://www.keeneequinox.com/news/pride- ... -1.2187207

2011: Queens College - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
http://www.free-press-release.com/news- ... 75220.html

That translates into a handful of protests across the country. Compare that to thousands of drives every day, all over the country and it really is a pittance.
It definitely is not a major reason for a decline in blood donations in this country. Evem those protests are highly localized to specific areas, such as universities.

there just is no ban on homosexuals giving blood

BLOOD DONOR REQUIREMENTS, SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK
DO NOT DONATE BLOOD IF YOU:
- Have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test
- Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
- Are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
- Have ever taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977
- Have hemophilia or another blood clotting disorder and received clotting factor concentrate
- Have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
- Have had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months
- In the last 12 months, have been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours
- Have received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom from 1980 to the present

http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/donate ... ONOTDONATE

#1 Its a voluntary question. A lot of people just plain lie.
#2. I believe that is the old question form. Now it says "have you had sex with a male who might have had sex with another male since 1977). Its more comprehensive, includes females, but does not include a monogamous male.
#3. It is based on risky behavior, not who a person is.
#4 . You omitted had a high fever in the past 2 weeks, and a few other issues, such as having been in certain parts of Africa, etc.

[pimpdave]

#1 So Player, you're saying all homosexuals are liars... That's pretty bigoted. Please self-ban for 3 days.
#2 No, that's the right question.
#3 You're confirming the entire point.
#4 What was omitted isn't pertinent to the argument that homosexuals are up in arms over nothing and are bullying a good organization for no good reason. If they want to engender sympathy for what they're demanding elsewhere, they should back off on this issue.

[PLAYER57832]

# #4 What was omitted isn't pertinent to the argument that homosexuals are up in arms over nothing and are bullying a good organization for no good reason. If they want to engender sympathy for what they're demanding elsewhere, they should back off on this issue.

I have no objection, AT ALL, to the actions of the Red Cross in this. It is based on evidence, not stereotypes and prejudice. That said, it is a request, not a legal ban. It relies entirely upon people voluntarily coming forward to answer questions, which was my point.

That said, the protests you see just are not that widespread. It has been a pittance here and there. Nor are the protestors truly representing the homosexual community, which is another issue I had with your statements.