Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
65 online now:
14174dm, dwise1, jar, PaulK (4 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,345 Year: 11,093/23,288 Month: 345/1,763 Week: 312/390 Day: 33/99 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century
Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 7 of 313 (377675)
01-17-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mick
01-17-2007 9:56 PM

One last thought - don't these guys test for HIV in the blood they collect? The test can reliably show HIV status after about two months since infection. So if it truly were necessary to exclude gay men, it would surely only be necessary to exclude men who have had sex in the last two months.

Yes, 6-12 weeks is the usual time frame in which HIV antibodies appear, although it occasionally can take longer.

I can't seem to find any information on how long blood banks sit on their donations in order to screen them for HIV or other diseases, but it must be working pretty damn well whatever they do because there haven't been any recent cases (as far as we know) of HIV transmission through the donated blood supply.

Since all blood is screened (and apparently pretty accurately) I do not see the problem with donations from homo/bisexual men or from other high risk groups. Maybe the blood banks can hold certain donations a little longer for more accurate screening and that group should include anyone who has had unprotected sex of any kind within the past year (including married couples...just because you are monogamous does not necessarily mean your partner is).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mick, posted 01-17-2007 9:56 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mick, posted 01-17-2007 11:35 PM Jaderis has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 16 of 313 (377949)
01-19-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rob
01-19-2007 1:26 AM

Re: Descrimination...
The term sex finds it's context in the concept of reproduction. Some creatures are asexual. Some are heterosexual. And of course their are others...

Human beings are heterosexual. I thought you knew that.

No, the appropriate antonym to asexual in a biological context is sexual. I thought you knew that (or rather, you should know that unless you reject all of biology as false)

Of course, asexuality as an orientation is another topic for another time and place.

Btw, what are the "others..."?

Of course, we all know that reproduction between two members of the same biological sex is not possible (that is, right now).

That does not preclude a loving, sexual relationship between two people of the same sex.

Anyhow, this is off topic (mostly). If you wish to contribute something besides Bible quotes and innacurate biological terms to the debate, I would love to hear what you have to say on the topic.

{A continuing off-topic ABE:

Isn't it amazing also, that God called man and woman... man (or in the Hebrew, 'Adam'). It was only after sin entered the picture that the male decided to give his wife a diferent name from his own and rule over her.

Yes, they were "equal" before sin, so what gave "Adam" the right to "give his wife a different name" and "rule over her?" If they were equal, then "Eve" should still have as much rule over "Adam" as he does over her because they both "sinned" and aren't all sins equally egregious under the eyes of God?

And where in the hell does it say in Genesis that Adam named Eve after the incident with the fruit? It doesn't. The word for "woman" was used in Genesis before said incident.

This little aside is just a more wordy elaboration on "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." How clever.}

Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 1:26 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 10:08 AM Jaderis has not yet responded
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2007 11:11 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 18 of 313 (377959)
01-19-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rob
01-19-2007 12:25 AM

Re: Descrimination...
From Rob's quote:

I said this to her: “We are against racial discrimination because one’s ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate the sacredness of one’s race. For the same reason we are against the altering of God’s pattern and purpose for sexuality. Sex is sacred in the eyes of God and ought not to be violated.

I know the person you quoted asked the woman why race was sacred and not sexuality, but why do you, Rob, think that this is so?

Is it explicitly stated in the Bible that black people and white people and cafe con leche people are all equally sacred? Or are you just a product of your culture?

It also says, and I don't deny it, in the Bible that lying down with a man as with a woman is an abomination and that Jesus or God (or someone, Paul, maybe...speaking of asexuality ;)) disapproved of men and women going "against their natures," and I won't go into interpretation here (and, yes, there are alternate interpretations especially when one takes into acount historical context).

However, Jesus says in Matthew 19:

1And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

There is much debate about the meaning of "eunuchs" and diferent Bibles have different wordings (I used the KJV), but the phrasing is interesting, isn't it. Some are made so "from their mother's wombs" and "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Now, I'm not saying that Jesus condoned homosexuality in this passage, but I would like to know your interpretation of this passage.

Sorry, admins, again off-topic. I may want to do some research and propose a new topic. If Rob wishes to reply I want to hear what he has to say and it does sorta mesh with the original topic, but I understand if this vein is forced to discontinue on this thread.

Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 12:25 AM Rob has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2007 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006

Message 205 of 313 (378863)
01-22-2007 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by ringo
01-20-2007 2:20 PM

Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
Why not scrap the whole "civil union" and base benefits on what the beneficiaries want?

If somebody lives with his father, why can't his father be a part of his dental plan? If somebody lives with his brother, why can't he get time off to take care of him when he's sick? (For that matter, why do they even have to live together?)

Why not divorce the whole concept of "benefits" from marriage?

Then "traditionalists" wouldn't have to boo-hoo about not being allowed to discriminate.

That's the best idea I've heard all day :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 01-20-2007 2:20 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Chiroptera, posted 01-22-2007 11:51 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020