Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
61 online now:
14174dm, dwise1, jar, PaulK (4 members, 57 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
Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 313 (377633)
01-17-2007 6:20 PM


People often ask me if I'm not gay how come I pay so much attention to this issue. I pay attention to it so much and often vocal about it because despite the last 50 years of civil rights movements people are still trying to sweep certain types of discrimination under the rug and forget about it.

I often donate blood every 3 months or so. Ever noticed the question about whether you've ever had sexual relation with another man?

Article on student getting hatemail for being a gay activist

quote:
Gay student gets hate mail for activism
By Matt King
Sentinel staff writer

SANTA CRUZ — A Harbor High School student who protested rules that outlaw gay men from donating blood is receiving hate-filled and harassing mail at the school.

Ronnie Childers, Harbor's senior class president, said Monday he's received about 50 letters attacking his sexuality since his complaints about national blood donor rules, and his photo, were published in a Sentinel story last month. The story later attracted state and national attention.

Some of the letters were hostile enough that Childers forwarded them to police, "just to be on the safe side"

"There are a couple key phrases, 'I know where you go to school,'" he said. "I think adults need to understand that letters like this are inappropriate"


quote:
The Red Cross and other blood-collection organizations have lobbied the FDA to relax the rules, which were established during the AIDS scare in the 1980s, but, so far, the FDA has resisted.

Blood drive controversy has students seeing red

quote:
In March, the major blood-supply organizations, including Red Cross, which says it collects about half the blood in the nation, petitioned the FDA to change the rules to allow a man who has not had sex with another man for 12 months to give blood. In a letter to the FDA, they argued that "the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men is medically and scientifically unwarranted."

quote:
"It pretty much puts the picture in everyone's mind that you're gross," he said. "They're making gay youth seem like they're promiscuous and like we're dirty people. If they're going to have those strict regulations, they shouldn't be taken into a school."

Here is the article on redcross's decision in 2000 about this matter

The following government article tells us some stuff about HIV infection rate...

quote:
Background

Women are the fastest-growing group of persons with new HIV diagnoses, accounting for 30 percent of new U.S. infections in 2001.1,2 An estimated 6000 to 7000 HIV-positive women give birth each year in the United States,3 and 280 to 370 HIV-infected infants were born in the United States annually between 1999 and 2001.4


Perhaps straight women overall should be excluded from donating blood?

Another gov fact sheet

quote:
African American women are most likely to be infected with HIV as a result of sex with men.

Chart explains...

Perhaps black women should be excluded from donating blood?

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 01-17-2007 6:26 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 01-17-2007 6:36 PM Taz has responded
 Message 6 by mick, posted 01-17-2007 9:56 PM Taz has responded
 Message 12 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 12:25 AM Taz has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 313 (377650)
01-17-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
01-17-2007 6:36 PM


Re: A Quibble
Haha, you ass. I fixed it.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 01-17-2007 6:36 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 313 (377693)
01-17-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mick
01-17-2007 9:56 PM


mick writes:

It would be interesting to know how this data ties in with the data you presented in pie charts.


The data you presented is almost a decade old.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


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 10 by mick, posted 01-18-2007 1:14 AM Taz has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 313 (377807)
01-18-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mick
01-18-2007 1:14 AM


mick writes:

Sure, I just noticed that sexual orientation was missing from the pie charts, and surely that is central to the issue isn't it?


No, that's not the central issue.

Back in the 50's, if black people protested certain laws by drinking out of the same drinking fountain as white people, was it because the central issue was that they wanted to drink out of the same drinking fountain as the white people?

No, of course not. The central issue was something bigger.

If we are going to exclude a group then by definition its going to be unfair on members of that group who feel they're all painted with one brush, and naturally desire an individualized treatment from the health authorities. For example drug addicts who always use clean needles might want to give blood and feel it unfair, silly and discriminatory that they're not allowed to do so.

Let's look at it this way, society used to exclude black people from voting because many deemed they lacked the intellectual capacity to vote for the right candidates. Many argued that if black people were permitted to vote, then what's to stop monkeys and gorrillas from voting?

I know what you're trying to get at, but it is essentially the same line of thought as what I just pointed out. Two entirely different situations. You can't equate people's sexual orientation with people's choice of hobby (using drugs).

But I can understand declaring a group persona non grata for efficiency reasons - say, the cost of individual testing is outweighed by the relatively high HIV prevalence in that group, so it's cheaper and more efficient to exclude the whole group without individual testing. That is precisely the decision that has been made for drug users.

I don't think it's necessarily cheaper. Nowadays, every blood sample is tested for just about every disease known to man.

You can only answer this question if you know a) how many gay men have HIV;and b) how many gay men who wish to give blood and are free of HIV are unable to do so because of the blanket ban.

Again, the central issue isn't about giving blood just as the central issue wasn't about drinking out of the same drinking fountain as whites. Hell, would those niggas stop protesting if we tell them they could drink out of our drinking fountains?

My personal feeling is that the blanket ban is silly, but on the other hand I don't think that excluding a group per se means discrimination against that group.

I don't think in this case the discrimination is on the part of the FDA. I think the FDA is just being political. The discrimination part is on the general public, who still view AIDS as strictly a gay plague.

Again, around every election time I have to drive by church signs that say "AIDS is god's punishment for gay people" and all that crap everyday. The fact that the student activist got hate mails for wanting to give blood should tell you that it's a bigger problem than just the FDA or the giving blood issue.

Finally, a note on the pie charts you provided.

Well, those pie charts weren't meant to be read by themselves. They are but a piece of the puzzle. That's why I provided so many links.

These pie charts tell us nothing about what groups might be sensibly excluded from donating blood unless they are combined with demographic data.

If you'd bothered to look at the links I provided, you'd see the demographic data as well.

Added by edit.

The reason I said the discrimination isn't necessarily on the part of the FDA because of something from one of the links I gave.

quote:
After much deliberation, the BPAC members voted 7 to 6 to maintain the current deferral policy.


quote:
Haley also stressed to the committee that the decision to uphold the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with other men should be based on scientific evidence, not societal pressures.

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mick, posted 01-18-2007 1:14 AM mick has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 313 (378040)
01-19-2007 11:31 AM


Wow, just wow.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 32 of 313 (378048)
01-19-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dan Carroll
01-19-2007 11:41 AM


I wonder if this attitude (homo=murder) is what's responsible for the killing of gay men over the years by self-proclaimed christians.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-19-2007 11:41 AM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-19-2007 12:03 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Fosdick, posted 01-19-2007 12:26 PM Taz has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 313 (378118)
01-19-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Fosdick
01-19-2007 3:20 PM


Yes, Dan would love to kiss you. Dan, get movin'.

By the way, where's berberry?

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Fosdick, posted 01-19-2007 3:20 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by berberry, posted 01-23-2007 8:16 PM Taz has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 78 of 313 (378263)
01-20-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rob
01-20-2007 12:04 AM


Re: The purposes of individual moral laws...
Rob, ever considered a career being a fortune cookie writer rather than driving trucks?

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 12:04 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 12:14 AM Taz has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 83 of 313 (378272)
01-20-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rob
01-20-2007 12:14 AM


Re: The purposes of individual moral laws...
Rob writes:

I actually expected more from you...


Thanks, but the truth is I have absolutely zip knowledge in theology and lalaland philosophy. Your discussion looks like a bunch of messages from the fortune cookies I've read over the years.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 12:14 AM Rob has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 100 of 313 (378374)
01-20-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by anastasia
01-20-2007 1:35 PM


Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
anastasia writes:

Yes, and now they throw you in prison for it.


That is mostly a direct result of western colonialism and imperialism, which happened to be one of the most unjust periods of history. Ana, are you sure you know a thing or two about marriage?

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:35 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:56 PM Taz has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 101 of 313 (378375)
01-20-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by anastasia
01-20-2007 1:24 PM


Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
anastasia writes:

Would it be unnatural for me to marry my brother even if I didn't have sex?


According to the bible, it is perfectly natural for you to marry your brother. Considering the children of Adam and Eve, marrying your brother is the most basic natural order of things. Marrying anyone other than your brother is unnatural. Adam and Eve's children did do it. Therefore, it must be unnatural.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:24 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 2:03 PM Taz has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 199 of 313 (378793)
01-21-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Poor Rob
Hoot Mon's entire post reads:
quote:
Poor Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if all you homos and homophiles are happy now that you forced poor Rob to take down his cross and go home. Just how politically correct is that?
—Hoot Mon


Hey, Rob hijacked my thread and used it to bring his wrath upon gay people and you don't see me complaining.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 7:22 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 213 of 313 (378930)
01-22-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 12:40 PM


Re: "The whole gay thing"
Hoot Mon writes:

Please educate me. When was it decided officially that gay rights = civil rights?


This one simple statement tells us more about you than you hoped.

Dictionary tells me that "civil" means:

1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite.
6. Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
7. Law Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings.

Since at least before this point you did not consider gay rights issue to be that of a civil rights issue, at least deep down inside you did not consider gay people to be citizens of equal status as you.

You started out trying to sound tolerant. But now your bigotry is beginning to show.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 12:40 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by docpotato, posted 01-22-2007 2:19 PM Taz has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 217 of 313 (378963)
01-22-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 2:19 PM


It's not that we jump on you for being politically incorrect. I say things that are controversial all the time. For example, I've been saying this for years and I will still be saying it for many years to come: Christians deep down are selfish and immoral, which is why they always claim to have the moral high ground.

That sound politically correct to you?

Hoot, if you don't like gay people or think there is something nasty about the way they live, just say it and give your reasons. What people like me don't like is seeing how you put on the tolerant mask and then every once in a while give us a glimpse of your real face.

You've unintentionally shown your real face several times before. For example, in another thread, you said that the "gay problem" would be solved once gayness could be cured with outgoing patients. I pointed out in the other thread, as I will point out right now, that this is the kind of attitude we have toward AIDS, leprosy, and a myriad of other diseases that we consider a plague on mankind.

It's these kinds of posts that tell me you are not as tolerant of people who are different than you as you have been claiming. You put your pants on a certain way in the morning. You drive your car a certain way. You like a certain kind of movie. You use one hand to get toilet paper and the other to wipe. Consciously, you want to be tolerant of people who do all these things different than you. But deep down, I suspect that you think your way is the right and only way to do these things.

But don't take this the wrong way. Nobody is asking you to like gay people or to like the concept of gay marriage. I was one of those who was dragged to see brokeback mountain by the wife. In the whole two hours, my eyes were on the screen but inside I was thinking about the war and horror movies I'd seen recently. It is my opinion that that was by far the most boring movie out there. But that's only an opinion.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 2:19 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1873 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 244 of 313 (379093)
01-22-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 7:29 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
My father is old so I know where you are coming from. Admittedly, old people do have the advantage of experience. However, this advantage can sometime turn into a false sense of security.

In our last family reunion, I was driving my father to the store to buy some bread other essentials because we ate more stuff than originally planned. On the way there, my father complained to me that my sister and brother had arranged a "sleep over" for their sons. My father told me that that is the reason why young people these days are gay. They are gay because they are given the opportunity at every turn to be gay. Furthermore, he told me that back in his days, nobody was gay. I asked him why, and he said that if people ever found out if someone was gay they'd beat it out of him.

Against my better judgement, I voiced my protest, saying gay people are none of our bussiness and that I'm pretty sure one doesn't "choose" to be gay. But you know what, my father eventually won the debate with the "I'm older, I have more experience, therefore I'm right."

You "old people" have been through a lot of experiences, and I certainly respect you guys for it. But having more experience doesn't always mean you are right.

A long time ago, marriage was only for a free man and a free woman. Slaves didn't count. Later on, tradition changed and marriage became a union between a man and a woman of the same race. In over a dozen states, it was illegal for a man and a woman of different skin color to get married and the punishment for violation of this law could be up to half a decade in prison.

Now, some people, like myself, who I might add see marriage as more than just sacred, that it is a life long commitment, simply want the law to extend the protection of marriage to include a wider range of people. To people like me, this is simply the continuation of a very long history of the societal evolution of marriage.

I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again. I like being married because of joint tax benefits and 1000+ other legal rights. I go to bed every night knowing my wife could never be made to testify in court against me (and vice versa). I go to bed every night knowing that if tomorrow I die from some major accident my wife will automatically inherit everything I owned plus the life insurance money.

But the reason I like being married so much goes beyond legal issues. I absolutely love the fact that everytime we go out to meet people I could just introduce my wife to people as "my wife" and there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that this is the most important person in my life. Whenever we go out to buy anything, my wife would be the person to pick things out (I have no sense of fashion). I love the fact that whenever a store worker asks me what I need all I have to say is "go help my wife" and that person would treat my wife and I as one person. I love the fact that whenever we go on a vacation we could just introduce ourselves to people and everyone would automatically assume we ain't going anywhere without each other.

In fact, when we first moved into our neighborhood, we were greeted by our new neighbors. A few months after, a new couple moved in across the street from ours. Only after a few days, people had already started gossiping about the people across the street. You know why? Because they were not married. When I went over to introduce myself and told her about my wife, she introduced herself and her "boyfriend". While people hate to admit this, being a girlfriend or boyfriend carries a lot less weight in our society. Being a "gay partner" even carries a lot lesser weight.

Some time ago, I attended a symbolic wedding of two men who had been together for 20 years. That sure beats Britteny Spear's 52 hour just-for-fun marriage. The very sight of these two men being together like that made me had no doubt that they love each other just as much, if not more, as how much I love my wife. They looked into each other's eyes and took turn to say "I do" to one another. Now, remember that this is after 20 years of being together.

Later, I found out that only the parents of one of them attended the wedding. After 20 years, the parents of the other one still refused to acknowledge the love these two men had for each other.

It frightens me to think that if these two men have a joint bank account and something happens to one of them the family of the deceased one could take legal actions to take everything, including the house, and leave the other man with absolutely nothing. It's happened before to people I have known of. If there is some kind of legal complications, they would not have spousal protection. They'd be made to testify against one another.

But beyond that, they can't go out and introduce themselves as being spouses without getting weird looks. They can't take a vacation knowing they are protected fully by the law.

But you know what, the thing that really openned my eyes about the struggle they still go through to get recognized for their love for each other was when one of them gave me a call and told me it was a gay wedding to make sure I knew ahead of time. Someone told him about my unfortunate past (I used to hate gay people in the name of christ). I can't imagine having to worry about something like that when we were planning our wedding just because we were a straight couple.

Now, to make this post even longer, let's address the issue of civil union.

Civil union is an excuse conjured up by politicians who are bigots but want to hide their bigotry. Every state that has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage also has a ban on any and all form of union between two gay people that even remotely resemble marriage. People who argue for civil union rather than "gay marriage" do so because they know civil union is an impossible feat to accomplished. They know that civil union would never be accepted by either straight or gay people. They know that civil union looks good on paper and make a good sound bite but it will never lead to anywhere.

I, too, once thought civil union was the solution to the whole issue. But the concept of civil union only addresses the legal part of the issue. The issue is much wider than who gets what rights. The issue also encompasses how society as a whole as well as the individual view such unity/bond between two people. Civil union simply doesn't have what it takes to give gay people legal as well as societal rights that they deserve.

I speak as a person who once held signs that said something along the line of god hates fags. I speak as a person who once told gay people they were going to hell. I speak as a person who once thought up of ways to rid our society of gay people in my spare time. And in my prime youth I once even said the only good gays were dead gays.

Gay people have taken a lot of shit from the rest of us. I don't think it is too much for them to ask to be legally and socially recognized when they fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their lives together.


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:29 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Larni, posted 01-23-2007 4:15 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 251 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 11:30 AM Taz has 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