From AOL News
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: From AOL News |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Saturday, May 7 2005 17:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:Thats not good. Every-one deserves some pleasure in life. I think that the rules preventing people who have had gay sex in the past 5 years is a bit to harsh. Maybe they should bring it down to about 2. People on here are welcome to tell me why or why not they agree, if they do. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, May 7 2005 19:09
Profile
Homepage
Do Catholics really frown on IVF? I'd think that babies without the shame of sex would be popular. It ensures that all the sperm can be put to good use, too. Spring, the stated purpose of the rule isn't to make gays suffer. The rule is intended to ensure more certainty that the sperm donations from gays are not HIV-positive since gay men are an especially high risk group. Making the period 2 years makes the system that much less useful. My view, however, is that the system isn't useful. Yes, the statistics support it, but from a social standpoint the rule can only serve to reinforce negative stereotypes that not all gays deserve. In fact, most don't deserve it. I also worry that heterosexuals will get less scrutiny, and there are certainly plenty of HIV-positive heterosexual men who could donate sperm. Basically, if the 5 year rule makes sense for gay men, it also makes sense for straight men. It's absurd either way. Careful screening is as effective, or almost as effective, and far less stigmatizing. —Alorael, who has always considered the immaculate conception the world's first example of in-vitro fertilization. If God did it, shouldn't it be acceptable? Or is it only morally right when performed the old-fashioned, miraculous way? Does that make God a Luddite? Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 7 2005 21:20
Profile
Homepage
quote:I was surprised too, but apparently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has officially ruled that IVF is unacceptable under all circumstances. I can try to dig up the reference for you if you want. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Saturday, May 7 2005 23:24
Profile
Homepage
Isn't it because the leftover embryoes get flushed or something? On the other hand, I have already demonstrated a lousy understanding of Catholic theology, so hey. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 00:39
Profile
Homepage
quote:It's partly that but not entirely -- the Congregation's verdict was that the procedure would be inherently contrary to human dignity even if it were completely safe for all the embryos involved. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 00:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:Sex within marriage is a blessed and wonderful thing, according to the modern doctrine of the Mother Church. While its intent should be procreation, the Church swears by the rhythm method if both it and abstinence are mutually impractical. See, that's what I like about Catholic doctrine: even though it's based on fundamentally incorrect principles, it's at least based on a healthy respect for the faculty of reason. Also: think to yourself about a religion which claims a sixth of the Earth as members, based principally on the uniqueness of a woman giving birth to a child conceived without the intercession of man. From such a perspective, IVF is naturally a terrifying and undignifying idea; it's seen as the sort of hubris God is on record as officially punishing. [ Sunday, May 08, 2005 00:59: Message edited by: Custer XVI ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
It's worth noting that the rhythm method is only acceptable if the intention is to space out the timing of births a little better, not to prevent procreation altogether. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4637
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 01:00
Profile
Homepage
So, will gay people fight for their sperm-donating rights? That's a very important issue! (sarcasm) Or is it for the simple fact that gay people are being discriminated? Many homosexuals claim that it's a genetic thing. I don't think that's proven, but if it were right then I can see a good reason to reject gay sperm. Just as you would understand why someone with Down SYndrome would be refused. You could say that homosexuality is not a desease or a behaviour deviation, but that's a controversial issue, not to be discussed here. Anyway, the donator's profile should register the fact that the donator is gay. Those who will get the sperm will choose. Or do you think that gay people has the right to impose their sperm without the "host"'s knowledge and consent? -------------------- Visit the Blades of Avernum Center and the Beta Testing Center -------------- "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9 Posts: 483 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 01:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:Because clearly homosexuality represents a vile, debilitating defect which the human race would be better without. All right. 1) Being as how you're operating under the above assumption, I'm not even sure how to put the facts on the matter to you. 2) You will find that plenty of homosexuals have children by whatever means (often while living in the closet), who are not overwhelmingly likely to be homosexual themselves (as is the case with Down's etc.). 3) A rudimentary understanding of genetics will tell you that homosexuality, if genetic, is therefore obviously a recessive trait, and trying to prevent them from breeding (it isn't so pretty in that light, now is it?) is not going to eliminate the presence of gay gene carriers, who are likely to dramatically outnumber the numbers of gay gene expressors. Think hair color - someone can inherit it from a grandparent, even if it's different from both of their parents. Getting rid of gays won't prevent homosexuality - if that's what you're after, which I find intensely disturbing to begin with. 4) If homosexuality is not a genetic factor, your arguments have no actual merit; it makes as much sense as denying people access to sperm banks because they happen to enjoy interracial. I'm curious where exactly you draw the line on refusing to allow the 'undesirable' to donate sperm, or failing that why you feel what a man does on his leisure time should affect his ability to biologically father a child at all. The mother isn't asking for a father figure, so sociological flabbling like 'well he won't provide an acceptable role model' won't fly. This basically amounts to an absurd and unwarranted attempt by an abusive religious elite to discriminate against an essentially defenseless minority group. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 02:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:It's generally already the case that a wide variety of information about donors is available -- not enough to identify them by name, but plenty of personal information nonetheless. In any case, confidentiality isn't the primary issue here: if homosexuals are going to be banned from donating in the first place, the issue of whether prospective sperm bank customers should be able to know which donors are homosexual becomes a moot point. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 04:35
Profile
There are numerous counterarguments about homosexuality being genetic. People don't fall into either being gay or not gay a lot of the time. There are people who are bisexual-- who because of social pressure will identify as being gay or not gay. This would automatically cause lots of trouble for this kind of ruling. They are not going to identify themselves. Also many people who claim to be heterosexual occasionally step outside what they are supposed to do. Kinsey uses a scale of sexual preference-- being more or less inclined toward either sex-- it varies hugely. Another problem is cultural. In Brazil for example the guy who is on top; acting dominantly is often not considered homosexual. This is a sophism. Also in the mind of some people if they guy dresses up as a woman -- they just consider him to be a woman. Another sophism. So it would be very hard to enforce this. It may be genetic for different people to have a different range of preferences. People will hate me for this, but the gay not gay thing is very cultural. The Spartans had families with children but preferred men for example. This was also true of certain groups of Athenians. No, not a psychology student, I just read a huge amount about everything. [ Sunday, May 08, 2005 05:32: Message edited by: Duke of Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 04:49
Profile
Homepage
First referencing Maslow and now Kinsey... you a psychology student or something, Toast? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 06:25
Profile
Homepage
Toast, the same thing goes on in Turkey. For humor's sake: http://www.fratbeat.com/ -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 12:53
Profile
Homepage
TM, I would click on that link, but after the last one you posted I'm not so sure. Thankfully the description was enough so I didn't click on the link to that paticular website. On topic: If gays want to donate sperm, but have had gay sex in the last five years, they should be tested for HIV. All people should be tested for HIV if they want to donate sperm. I probably havn't though the above thing through, but I don't have time to re-write it. Enjoy. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 13:32
Profile
I followed the link. It's not that bad. Some of the hazing techniques are…..odd. I have little to say about this topic as I feel that our generally homophobic society is just looking to another reason to discriminate against others. If the person is HIV negative their sexual preferences should be irrelevant. If being homosexual were genetic in the physical or hormonal sense, it seems nature would cause those people to also be infertile so as not to pass on a gene that discourages procreation. I think of it more or less as a product of who they are, not who they are born to, that is to say their soul or karma. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 15:42
Profile
Homepage
Please read the above discussion of how such a gene can in fact be a desireable one. —Alorael, who would recap if it weren't perfectly capped already. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 16:01
Profile
Homepage
As I said, homosexuality is, if genetic, highly recessive; it doesn't prevent procreation, in fact less so than other inherited genetic factors (seminal plasma hypersensitivity) which do not affect fertility at all. Mutations don't necessarily have to be active 100% of the time; if they were, a lot of the nasty ones would no longer exist. They can be carried without activity. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 23:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:They're ALREADY tested for HIV. That's just common sense. The problem is that HIV tests aren't 100% reliable; they can still return a negative result even several months after someone's actually contracted HIV. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 23:35
Profile
Homepage
Damn...every post so far of mine has been shot down rather fast, so I'll just say my two cents: In the original post, where it says: 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, I agree, but if the person donating has contracted HIV and it didn't show up in the test, they should test the sperm that has been quarantine to see if the sperm has shown the HIV. However, in the freezing process, the cold may have prevented the HIV to show up. I will just stay out of this topic pretty much now, but since a lot of people are saying you are born gay, I'll say my opinion. I think that homosexuality is a choice. I think that its a choice because I don't really think there is any specific gene that makes you gay, but you just rather men than women. If there is scienific evidence, then I will think differently. -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 8 2005 23:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:This would work well enough; the problem is that storing all sperm for 6 months before it could be used would be a considerable added expense for sperm banks, especially since a significant proportion of donors would likely fail to show up for the retest and so their sperm would have to be discarded. [ Sunday, May 08, 2005 23:42: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Monday, May 9 2005 00:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:Maybe the person meant gays only, and straights could pull their pud and donate as much as they want. [ Monday, May 09, 2005 00:16: Message edited by: Sprung Spring ] -------------------- I'll put a Spring in your step. Polaris Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, May 9 2005 03:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:Have you ever considered reading the first post I made in this thread? In review: * Homosexuals have clear, biological indicators of pre-partum formative discrepancies, ie. the social part of the brain being unusually enlarged * Homosexuality is a population control mechanism, as testosterone-replacing hormones are produced by mothers in stressful environments * Identical twins have higher odds of becoming homosexual than non-identical twins Do I need to spell this shit out for you? -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, May 9 2005 04:49
Profile
I wonder how much of all that sperm is even used at those sperm banks anyway. Outside of the top ten supermen (who likely only vary for preferences of race or hair color), there'd be little to no demand out there for anyone else. I reckon it must be the case that some guys out there have "fathered" far more children than they'd ever know about. As for testing, I think it's a good idea for everyone who's at all "active" - though the chlamydia and gonorrhea test is a bit brutal. Nevertheless, it's worth it to know. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Monday, May 9 2005 09:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is a bit along the same way as my thinking. There's a gradient between homosexual and heterosexual and most people are somewhere in the middle but they may not even realize it because of their upbringing and culture. It is often reffered to as 'sexual preference', comparing it to other preferences, my favorite color is purple but I still like red and blue alot while I don't like yellow or brown much at all. My favorite food genre is Chinese but I really like the meat and potatoes type, too, and could live without seafood altogether. So do I have genes that pre-determine what colors I'm going to like and what food I think will taste good or is it all from circumstance, culture, and the way I was raised? Some men have this pre-disposition towards homosexuality becuase of their enlarged social brain but a disposition isn't a final deciding factor, it just means they're more likely to be gay (like one is more likely to smoke if both of your parents do?). But what really swings them one way or the other? What gives them the preference for other males? And are there similar studies for what's different in the female lesbian's pre-partum formation? -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, May 9 2005 14:08
Profile
Homepage
You know there are genes that don't just produce on-off phenotypes, right? If sexual orientation is a polygenic trait, there could be a wide continuum based on several genes. That's also assuming that it's still something as simple as a single trait expression and ignoring the effects of social pressures on sexual orientation. I doubt anyone has mapped aesthetic preferences to genes. Identical twins separated at birth tend to have similar preferences, though, which suggests some correspondance. I think you've got cause and effect mixed up. Being gay means you have a greater chance for greater social "ability" (or so I've also heard, although not from reliable sources), but it could easily be pleiotropy (one gene causing the two effects), adjacent chromosomes (so the traits tend to be transmitted together), or something else. A bigger "social" brain doesn't make you gay. —Alorael, who would guess that one's sexual identity is determined overwhelmingly by genes and pre-natal development. However, those who are to some degree bisexual are likely to think of themselves as and act as heterosexuals because it is so much easier in most societies. Would you choose to be gay given the rampant homophobia you would have to deal with? Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2