FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex

judyjudyjudy

CAGiversary!
Feedback
35 (100%)
Here's the article on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/gay.donor.ap/index.html
FDA wants sperm banks to bar donors who've had gay sex

Thursday, May 5, 2005 Posted: 6:39 PM EDT (2239 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.

The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.

"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," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, California, that seeks gay sperm donors.

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.

Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.
Behavior vs orientation

The practical effect of the provision -- part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 -- is hard to gauge. It is likely to affect some lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man's sperm for artificial insemination.

But it is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, has called it "policy based on bigotry."

"The part I find most offensive -- and a little frightening -- is that it isn't based on good science," Cathcart said. "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."

In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors -- gay or straight -- would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or "an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship."

But an FDA spokeswoman cited FDA documents suggesting that officials felt the broader exclusion was prudent even if it affected gay men who practice safe sex.

"The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors," said one document.

Many doctors and fertility clinics already have been rejecting gay sperm donors, citing the pending FDA rules or existing regulations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

"With an anonymous sperm donor, you can't be too careful," said a society spokeswoman, Eleanor Nicoll. "Our concern is for the health of the recipient, not to let more and more people be sperm donors."
'Directed' donors

However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed gay donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying gay men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.

Gay men are a major donor source at Traiman's Rainbow Flag sperm bank, and he said that practice would continue despite the new rules.

"We're going to continue to follow judicious, careful testing procedures for our clients that even experts within the FDA say is safe," said Traiman, referring to the six-month quarantine.

The FDA rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as "directed" sperm donors. If a woman wishing to become pregnant knows a gay man and asks that he provide sperm for artificial insemination, a clinic could provide that service even if the man had engaged in sex with other men within five years.

However, Traiman said some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child, and would thus prefer an anonymous donor.

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."

So does that mean they usually don't screen the sperm in sperm banks or something? This seems incredibly discriminatory, but maybe I'm lacking some knowledge behind the procedures.
 
Yeah I read this, it's complete bullshit and I hope they all die from AIDS.

Anyways the thing that confuses me is what is there meaning of "gay sex"?

I don't want to sound like Clinton but when Sodomy laws were repealed in the 13 states that still had them, nine of the states had them again straight coubles that had "gay sex".

Gay sex in sodomy laws were ANYONE who had anal or, and this is the kicker, oral sex. To them oral sex was considered gay. So the question araises, do these dumbasses think that "gay sex" is oral sex too?
 
It seems to me that the biggest problem here is lack of clear terminology.

"Being gay" should not be discriminated against, but "having gay sex" is a high risk activity with problems that these banks should protect their clients from.
 
[quote name='chunk']It seems to me that the biggest problem here is lack of clear terminology.

"Being gay" should not be discriminated against, but "having gay sex" is a high risk activity with problems that these banks should protect their clients from.[/QUOTE]

Having sex with a female prostitute is a "high risk activity." Hell, having sex at all can be considered "high risk." This is simply another form of discrimination. As long as the person tests clean, then why should they not be able to donate? Because they have anal intercourse? What about all the straight people who have anal intercourse? Are they banned as well? The only thing unclear about the terminology is that they just aren't flat-out saying "we hate gays."
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Having sex with a female prostitute is a "high risk activity." Hell, having sex at all can be considered "high risk." This is simply another form of discrimination. As long as the person tests clean, then why should they not be able to donate?[/QUOTE]

Because there is no test that is 100%. The more potentially positive people you have taking the test the greater the chances for a false negative. If the patients aren't prescreened on some basis then the whole thing would be unsafe. You may not like it, but it is either this, or there can't be any sperm donations at all.
 
Ya, I think they (the FDA) are looking at more of the economic concern rather than the ethical. Why pay for screening when you don't have to? It's thinking like that which will ultimately be hurtful to everyone, not just gays.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Ya, I think they (the FDA) are looking at more of the economic concern rather than the ethical. Why pay for screening when you don't have to? It's thinking like that which will ultimately be hurtful to everyone, not just gays.[/QUOTE]


You know what, I'm not going to scan people's blood anymore either. You know, I'm the leader of the FDA and see no need in it. I rather take the money being saved and give myself a raise. I mean what problems could ever come up from not scaning? Oh yeah AIDS.

I have had "sex" with two guys, that's it, both were/are clean. I know this for a fact, but because these people are dumbasses I can not give sperm, not that I was planning on it, but that's not the point. Some hetro jackass whore can sleep with 10,000 people and give as much as he wants.

And zionoverfire brings up a good point. How the yell would they know? If I want to I'll just lie, they want to be bitches, I'll be a liar.
 
[quote name='chunk']Because there is no test that is 100%. The more potentially positive people you have taking the test the greater the chances for a false negative. If the patients aren't prescreened on some basis then the whole thing would be unsafe. You may not like it, but it is either this, or there can't be any sperm donations at all.[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile lots of straight people who shouldn't be able to will slip through. That's asinine. this is discrimination, there's no other way to call it.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Meanwhile lots of straight people who shouldn't be able to will slip through. That's asinine. this is discrimination, there's no other way to call it.[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with gay or straight. Straight people that have had "gay sex" can't give sperm either. Anyway, it really doesn't matter who slips through as long as there aren't too many positives. Excluding groups which have a high percentage of positives reduces the probability of having too many positives. Of course it doesn't guarantee that there will be fewer positives, but the actual tests that they do on the fluids are statistical anyway, so it is supplemented well by a lowering the probability of having too many positives.

Whats next, should I demand that my type B+ blood be give to type O patients? [sarcasm] Its my goddamn right. I don't care if the patient will die. I was born that way and you can't discriminate against people with B+ blood![/sarcasm]
 
[quote name='chunk']It has nothing to do with gay or straight. Straight people that have had "gay sex" can't give sperm either. Anyway, it really doesn't matter who slips through as long as there aren't too many positives. Excluding groups which have a high percentage of positives reduces the probability of having too many positives. Of course it doesn't guarantee that there will be fewer positives, but the actual tests that they do on the fluids are statistical anyway, so it is supplemented well by a lowering the probability of having too many positives.

Whats next, should I demand that my type B+ blood be give to type O patients? [sarcasm] Its my goddamn right. I don't care if the patient will die. I was born that way and you can't discriminate against people with B+ blood![/sarcasm][/QUOTE]

So wait a minute, we're supposed to say that all anal sex is "gay sex." That, if you didn't notice, is discriminatory language. You're sarcastic example only serves to illustrate the bias evident in this rationale. Whether or not someone has had "gay sex" is not genetic, which blood type is. Whether or not someone has a disease is not dependant on sexual orientation or preference. Maybe homosexuals have a higher rate of a certain disease, but so do African-Americans. Are you going to discriminate them because they have "African sex?"
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']So wait a minute, we're supposed to say that all anal sex is "gay sex." That, if you didn't notice, is discriminatory language. You're sarcastic example only serves to illustrate the bias evident in this rationale. Whether or not someone has had "gay sex" is not genetic, which blood type is. Whether or not someone has a disease is not dependant on sexual orientation or preference. Maybe homosexuals have a higher rate of a certain disease, but so do African-Americans. Are you going to discriminate them because they have "African sex?"[/QUOTE]

I wasn't talking about all anal sex. I was talking about men having sex with other men. Believe it or not, there are men who consider themselves homosexual, but have not had sex with men and men who consider themselves heterosexual, but have had sex with men (both willingly and unwillingly). Although I wouldn't be surprised if the regulations target anal sex also (either under the heading of "gay sex" or under another heading). I'm not sure what you are calling "discriminatory language" or what you mean by that term, so perhaps you could elaborate.

I fail to see how my sarcastic example illustrates any bias, unless you are saying there biased towards discriminating against physical traits, while behavioral traits get an easier ride. Seems kind of backwards to me though. I think if, in a given situation, discriminating on physical traits (such as blood type) is justified then discriminating on behavioral traits (such as sexual behavior) should also be justified.

How is not using fluids from african americans, homosexuals, or people with B+ blood any different? Should we be outraged if a doctor chooses to replace the liver of an african man with another african liver instead of a caucasian liver even though the african liver only has a statistical advantage of not being rejected over the caucasian liver? What if an extra million dollars could ensure that the caucasian liver would work as well as the african liver, should we waste that money just to ensure that both african livers and caucasian livers are chosen equally?

This isn't like the disgusting racial screening they do at airports. No one has a right to donate sperm, blood, body parts, or anything else. If there is enough sperm available and they can make it cheaper/safer by rejecting people with blond hair then so be it.
 
The problem is that this DOESN'T make things safer/cheaper/whatever - its simply based on the stereotype that gay men go around humping anything that moves. Quoting from the original article...

In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors -- gay or straight -- would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or "an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship."

THIS sort of screening is both useful and non-discriminatory. If someone is engaging in risky sexual practices, it doesn't matter if its gay risky sexual practices or straight. Under the FDA's idea, the straight guy who's banging hookers right and left is apparently just fine as a potential donator, while the gay guy who's been in a monogamous relationship for 20 years is far too 'risky'.

The guidelines are completely not-useful in making America's critical semen supply safer, and at the same time based on shallow stereotypes of gay behavior. When something is both useless and insulting, I fail to see any real reason to go with it, especially when useful non-insulting options are available.
 
[quote name='chunk']I wasn't talking about all anal sex. I was talking about men having sex with other men. Believe it or not, there are men who consider themselves homosexual, but have not had sex with men and men who consider themselves heterosexual, but have had sex with men (both willingly and unwillingly). Although I wouldn't be surprised if the regulations target anal sex also (either under the heading of "gay sex" or under another heading). I'm not sure what you are calling "discriminatory language" or what you mean by that term, so perhaps you could elaborate.

I fail to see how my sarcastic example illustrates any bias, unless you are saying there biased towards discriminating against physical traits, while behavioral traits get an easier ride. Seems kind of backwards to me though. I think if, in a given situation, discriminating on physical traits (such as blood type) is justified then discriminating on behavioral traits (such as sexual behavior) should also be justified.

How is not using fluids from african americans, homosexuals, or people with B+ blood any different? Should we be outraged if a doctor chooses to replace the liver of an african man with another african liver instead of a caucasian liver even though the african liver only has a statistical advantage of not being rejected over the caucasian liver? What if an extra million dollars could ensure that the caucasian liver would work as well as the african liver, should we waste that money just to ensure that both african livers and caucasian livers are chosen equally?

This isn't like the disgusting racial screening they do at airports. No one has a right to donate sperm, blood, body parts, or anything else. If there is enough sperm available and they can make it cheaper/safer by rejecting people with blond hair then so be it.[/QUOTE]

You do realize you just backed up my point, right? And why is men having sex with men any different from men having anal sex with women? A butt it a butt.
 
This country sucks.

Wait, I take that back. Sucking is "gay sex" so that would be out of the question too.

While we are at it let's ban women from giving blood. Girls I went to high school with are sluts, they sleep with any guy, anytime, anywhere, including after school in the bathrooms. They give blowjobs out like the were candy. They are a "high risk" group so it's time to ban them too.
 
[quote name='David85']This country sucks.

Wait, I take that back. Sucking is "gay sex" so that would be out of the question too.

While we are at it let's ban women from giving blood. Girls I went to high school with are sluts, they sleep with any guy, anytime, anywhere, including after school in the bathrooms. They give blowjobs out like the were candy. They are a "high risk" group so it's time to ban them too.[/QUOTE]

Ok. You have the freedom to leave for any country you want (although in some cases it might be a bit hard getting back).
 
I love how people say "don't like it leave the country". It's not that fucknig easy, anyone with a brain sees that.

I plan on moving to Canada within the next ten years, only problem is that this country sucks so much there is a waiting list to get into Canada.
 
[quote name='defender']What do they do with all that sperm anyways?[/QUOTE]

Artificial insemination and/or any kind of research that would require the study of zygote activity. But I get the feeling you said that with at least some sarcasm, which makes me wonder why I bothered to type out this response to begin with. ;)
 
[quote name='defender']What do they do with all that sperm anyways?[/QUOTE]

I would guess that they mix it with small amounts of yogurt to make it look better on film. Of course, knowing all of the secrets behind the movie magic removes the mystique, doesn't it :twisted:
 
[quote name='David85']I love how people say "don't like it leave the country". It's not that fucknig easy, anyone with a brain sees that.

I plan on moving to Canada within the next ten years, only problem is that this country sucks so much there is a waiting list to get into Canada.[/QUOTE]

Whatever you do, don't go near alberta. It's often called "a colony of texas" and with good reasons, you even see u.s. flags on canadian cars and houses sometimes. The governor was threating to ignore any federal law which legalized gay marriage nationwide. They also kill rats on the spot (including domestic ones) which, since I own pet rats, makes it even worse to me. Toronto would be good, wasn't really an uproar when gay marriage was legalized there, and I think support for it is around 80% or so (saw a poll a while ago), may be higher now. Not saying there still aren't bigots, but it probably has one of the lowest percentages you'll find.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Whatever you do, don't go near alberta. It's often called "a colony of texas" and with good reasons, you even see u.s. flags on canadian cars and houses sometimes. The governor was threating to ignore any federal law which legalized gay marriage nationwide. They also kill rats on the spot (including domestic ones) which, since I own pet rats, makes it even worse to me. Toronto would be good, wasn't really an uproar when gay marriage was legalized there, and I think support for it is around 80% or so (saw a poll a while ago), may be higher now. Not saying there still aren't bigots, but it probably has one of the lowest percentages you'll find.[/QUOTE]

You own pet rats???

Regardless, I can say that Toronto was nice, but y'all need to do something about the bum problem.
 
[quote name='camoor']You own pet rats???

Regardless, I can say that Toronto was nice, but y'all need to do something about the bum problem.[/QUOTE]

Rats wait and beg to be taken out, are very social, follow you whenever you're near the cage, can learn their name and tricks, and don't run away from you when out of their cage. No other pocket pet does those things. They're close to dogs in intelligence, enough so that some rats are smarter than some dogs according to studies I've seen (one of my rats I'm pretty sure is smarter than my dog, though my dog seems kinda dumb and this rat seems particularly smart). They also seem to spend half their day cleaning themselves, and I have never been bitten by a rat (had them for about 10 years and had 13 different rats).

Though I love how people complain about homeless people being visible, what do you want to do arrest them? They have it hard enough it is, why do you want to make it illegal for them just to be there? There are less homeless people per capita than in boston, which is probably why there is much less shelters (an abundance of shelters seems to be one of the reasons homeless in boston don't seem as destitute as chicago, toronto etc.). Job training needs to be expanded, mental health treatment needs to be improved, drug rehabilition needs to be expanded and improved (sweden has a high success rate, they let anyone come regardless of the level of commitment they've shown, this allows them to recieve help whenever they are truly ready. Most countries reject many people who sincerely want treatment), and benefits to those who are poor, families who are poor etc. in areas such as education, food and housing need to be expanded.

Of the major cities I've been to (boston, chicago, new orleans, toronto, ottawa), chicago is by far the worst, then toronto, in terms of the conditions homeless people are in (boston being the best). Something needs to be done to help them, and if that's what you meant then I'm sorry, but most people mean toronto needs to make them invisible, and aren't concerned with actually helping them.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Whatever you do, don't go near alberta. It's often called "a colony of texas" and with good reasons, you even see u.s. flags on canadian cars and houses sometimes. The governor was threating to ignore any federal law which legalized gay marriage nationwide. They also kill rats on the spot (including domestic ones) which, since I own pet rats, makes it even worse to me. Toronto would be good, wasn't really an uproar when gay marriage was legalized there, and I think support for it is around 80% or so (saw a poll a while ago), may be higher now. Not saying there still aren't bigots, but it probably has one of the lowest percentages you'll find.[/QUOTE]


Thanks, I'm staying the hell away from there.

I don't liek rats, but killing a creature just because I don't like it is wrong, even if it is wild.
 
[quote name='Drocket']The problem is that this DOESN'T make things safer/cheaper/whatever - its simply based on the stereotype that gay men go around humping anything that moves. Quoting from the original article...



THIS sort of screening is both useful and non-discriminatory. If someone is engaging in risky sexual practices, it doesn't matter if its gay risky sexual practices or straight. Under the FDA's idea, the straight guy who's banging hookers right and left is apparently just fine as a potential donator, while the gay guy who's been in a monogamous relationship for 20 years is far too 'risky'.

The guidelines are completely not-useful in making America's critical semen supply safer, and at the same time based on shallow stereotypes of gay behavior. When something is both useless and insulting, I fail to see any real reason to go with it, especially when useful non-insulting options are available.[/QUOTE]

Here is how it makes things safer/cheaper. Lets say your test has a 10% false negative rate. Lets also say that 5% of the population has hiv, while only 4% of people that have not had gay sex have hiv. By simply excluding those that have had gay sex you reduce your false negatives from .5% down to .4%. That means that you saved 1/1000 from getting hiv, simply by rejecting gay donors. Sure you could achieve similar results with more rigorous screening procedures, but that costs more money.

I seriously doubt that the guidelines are based on shallow stereotypes of gay behavior. Rather, I would expect that they are based on hard numbers. All risky means is that it has a higher probability and so gay sex is riskier than straight sex. It doesn't mean "OMG teh g4yx0r have STDZ!!!11!".

How do you know that the suggested alternative solution is more useful? Have you looked at the statistics and the costs for implementing the alternative solution?

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']You do realize you just backed up my point, right? And why is men having sex with men any different from men having anal sex with women? A butt it a butt.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't have to be different. As long as one group has a statistical advantage over the other it is safer to exclude the riskier group (see above).

These policies are not meant to be a political statement or a statement of scientific truth. They simply meant to implement the cheapest, safest solution possible.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It shouldn't matter who you've been with, if you're clean you're clean.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, but it is impossible to be 100% sure. You have to settle for 99.999% sure. One way to get that sure is play the statistics game and exclude certain demographics. The other way is to spend tons of money on better testing procedures. Why waste the money?
 
[quote name='chunk']Here is how it makes things safer/cheaper. Lets say your test has a 10% false negative rate.[/quote]
Except that the false negative rate of the most commonly used HIV test is 0%. Yes, that is correct - 0% - at least if you've been infect for more than 3 months. Its takes up to that long for the virus to become apparent. Other tests exist to detect HIV earlier, but they do have a false negative rate. By excuding everyone who's had unsafe sex in the past year, though, you immediately have a 0% chance for having infected semen enter the system.

(Side note: The key problem with the test is that it has a relatively high false positive rate (on the order of 2%), which is why its rarely used alone to disagnose someone with HIV. Considering that we want to play it safe and still save money, though, we can just skip retesting people for the purposes of donating semen and simply say 'too bad' to the occasional false positive.)

It doesn't have to be different. As long as one group has a statistical advantage over the other it is safer to exclude the riskier group (see above).
That doesn't answer why they aren't excluding black people then. The African-American population has an 8 time higher infection rate than homosexuals.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Except that the false negative rate of the most commonly used HIV test is 0%. Yes, that is correct - 0% - at least if you've been infect for more than 3 months. Its takes up to that long for the virus to become apparent. Other tests exist to detect HIV earlier, but they do have a false negative rate. By excuding everyone who's had unsafe sex in the past year, though, you immediately have a 0% chance for having infected semen enter the system.[/quote]

That is bull. There is no such thing as a scientific experiment with exactly 0% error. It is theoretically impossible. At best your accuracy is only as good as your measuring device.

Also, safe sex doesn't guarantee 0% chance of HIV. Finally, what's to say you can successfully exclude everyone who's had unsafe sex. Perhaps people who have gay sex are more likely to admit it and, therefore, easier to exclude? I don't know, but I assume the FDA has done their homework. I mean, there is at least someone there who gets paid to figure this stuff out.

[quote name='Drocket']That doesn't answer why they aren't excluding black people then. The African-American population has an 8 time higher infection rate than homosexuals.[/QUOTE]

Your right. That doesn't answer the question. Why aren't they excluding black people? Probably because of pressure to be politically correct from people like those in this thread. Its a shame when political correctness gets in the way of making safety more efficient isn't it?
 
[quote name='chunk']That is bull. There is no such thing as a scientific experiment with exactly 0% error. It is theoretically impossible. At best your accuracy is only as good as your measuring device.[/quote]
That is, never-the-less, what the error rate for false negatives for the test are considered to be. Very well, if you don't like it, then how about 'so small we can't even measure it, to the degree that, even though literally hundreds of MILLIONS of people have been tested, not one single solitary false negative has ever been found'? Is that description better or can we just call it 0% for short?

Also, safe sex doesn't guarantee 0% chance of HIV. Finally, what's to say you can successfully exclude everyone who's had unsafe sex. Perhaps people who have gay sex are more likely to admit it and, therefore, easier to exclude? I don't know, but I assume the FDA has done their homework. I mean, there is at least someone there who gets paid to figure this stuff out.
Because, of course, government employees are perfect.

Your right. That doesn't answer the question. Why aren't they excluding black people? Probably because of pressure to be politically correct from people like those in this thread. Its a shame when political correctness gets in the way of making safety more efficient isn't it?
Or perhaps its because racial discrimination is heavily discouraged, while discrimination based on sexual orientation is barely considered worth a mention, and is, in fact, considered entirely appropriate in many groups?
 
[quote name='chunk']Absolutely, but it is impossible to be 100% sure. You have to settle for 99.999% sure. One way to get that sure is play the statistics game and exclude certain demographics. The other way is to spend tons of money on better testing procedures. Why waste the money?[/QUOTE]

Because this method is discriminatory.
 
There's no argument to be made for this that isn't strictly anti-gay discrimination. That quarantine period they talked about in the article? Where they freeze the sperm? Yeah, that kills all the HIV. HIV is a pathetic virus outside of the human body. It dies after a few minutes outside of it's host. A guy who's spent his entire life having sex with HIV infected people and is so riddled with it the HIV actually controls his body directly could donate and his evil seed would come out clean by the time it was allowed to go hunting for the dread ovary, terror of the uterine sea. So this is purely eugenics. There's no other reason to bar gays than you don't want their [non-recognized] queermo genes passing on.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']FYI, virii are inorganic, so they don't "die", they are just destroyed or decomposed.[/QUOTE]

What's a virii?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Plural of "virus".[/QUOTE]

Nuh-uh, girlfriend. "Viruses."

edit: P.S. no one disagrees about it. Viri is already the plural of men and virii would be the plural of virius if there were such a word which there is not.
 
[quote name='David85']Thanks, I'm staying the hell away from there.

I don't liek rats, but killing a creature just because I don't like it is wrong, even if it is wild.[/QUOTE]

It's basically an attempt to keep rats out of the province, it's been somewhat succesful (they have a hotline to call if you see a wild rat, they then come and kill them). Only labs and universities can have rats. Thing is, a domestic rat can only survive a few days in the wild, so it's no threat to stay around and reproduce.
 
In the English language, the normal plural of "virus" is "viruses". This form of the plural is correct, and used most frequently, both when referring to a biological virus and when referring to a computer virus. The forms "viri" and "virii" are also used as a plural, although less frequently. There is disagreement over whether these forms should be considered correct.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virii
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']In the English language, the normal plural of "virus" is "viruses". This form of the plural is correct, and used most frequently, both when referring to a biological virus and when referring to a computer virus. The forms "viri" and "virii" are also used as a plural, although less frequently. There is disagreement over whether these forms should be considered correct.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virii[/QUOTE]

Er...

[quote name='wikipedia']Virii describes the combined set of computer viruses, worms and trojans. Loosely this category can be thought of as malware, but some viruses and worms are not malicious, hence they are not malware.

The word "virii" has nothing to do with Latin or the plural of virus. The plural of virus is viruses.[/quote]
 
[quote name='jmcc']Er...[/QUOTE]

Wait, wtf?

No way, I copied and pasted that!

[edit] you can edit entries? wtf? Is it just for you or does everyone see it?
 
You may wish to investigate what exactly the Wikipedia is, and reconsider using it as a source of information. Oh, and virii is not an accepted plural of virus according to dictionary.com (an actual source of real information.)
 
[quote name='chunk']That is bull. There is no such thing as a scientific experiment with exactly 0% error. It is theoretically impossible. At best your accuracy is only as good as your measuring device.

Also, safe sex doesn't guarantee 0% chance of HIV. Finally, what's to say you can successfully exclude everyone who's had unsafe sex. Perhaps people who have gay sex are more likely to admit it and, therefore, easier to exclude? I don't know, but I assume the FDA has done their homework. I mean, there is at least someone there who gets paid to figure this stuff out.



Your right. That doesn't answer the question. Why aren't they excluding black people? Probably because of pressure to be politically correct from people like those in this thread. Its a shame when political correctness gets in the way of making safety more efficient isn't it?[/QUOTE]



and thats the damn truth.
 
Why does sperm need to be gathered in such great quantities that saving money by discrimination is even an issue? Am I missing something? Maybe it's the special ingredient in corn flakes?

At this point, the discussion of made up words like virii and how exactly to reverse-engineer them to latin words is more compelling.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Wait, wtf?

No way, I copied and pasted that!

[edit] you can edit entries? wtf? Is it just for you or does everyone see it?[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah. That's wikipedia's thing. It's user maintained. I'd check the changelog for the entry. Either someone is working to further my arguments (which is unneeded, since I'd have linked to the Straightdope on the word) or it's just a funny coincidence. Either way, if it was a change to stick it to you it should be back to normal by now. People are pretty good about keeping stuff accurate.
 
[quote name='Drocket']That is, never-the-less, what the error rate for false negatives for the test are considered to be. Very well, if you don't like it, then how about 'so small we can't even measure it, to the degree that, even though literally hundreds of MILLIONS of people have been tested, not one single solitary false negative has ever been found'? Is that description better or can we just call it 0% for short?

Because, of course, government employees are perfect.

Or perhaps its because racial discrimination is heavily discouraged, while discrimination based on sexual orientation is barely considered worth a mention, and is, in fact, considered entirely appropriate in many groups?[/QUOTE]

Ok. Point taken. However, it still doesn't matter because donating sperm is not a constitutional right.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Because this method is discriminatory.[/QUOTE]

So what? You have a right to discriminate as long as you aren't violating that person's rights. I have a right to refuse to date white women or gay asian men. Is it discrimination? Hell yes, but its perfectly legal because no one has a right to date me. Likewise, there isn't a right to donate sperm. So there is no problem discriminating on any basis because it doesn't violate anyone's rights.

[quote name='Drocket']You may wish to investigate what exactly the Wikipedia is, and reconsider using it as a source of information. Oh, and virii is not an accepted plural of virus according to dictionary.com (an actual source of real information.)[/QUOTE]

Why is dictionary.com a "real" source of information while the wiki isn't? Because the makers of dictionary.com say so?
 
bread's done
Back
Top