If Obama is looking for a simple way to signal to gays he is serious about our rights

he can change the FDA regulations which ban gay men from giving blood. In the era of reliable AIDS testing there is simply no need for a blanket ban. Change the question to within the last year have you had sex with a man who either has HIV or whose status you didn't know. This is doable by executive order. It helps gays and more importantly could save lives. It is a win, win senario and would prove that Obama values gays and values science.

The blood ban is, to me, probably THE most homophobic and pointless regulation out there. You can be a gay man in a monogamous relationship and be banned, yet a heterosexual male who sleeps around is okay. Ugh.

you can be a celebate gay, who happened to have had sex once in say 1980, and you are still banned.

It's disgusting discrimation.

Anyone who has taken intravenous drugs or been paid for sex is also barred from donating blood.

It's not just gays.

This is based on deferring to the majority opinion of scientific researchers.

It's interesting you're comparing male gay intimacy and gay male CELIBACY with prostitutes and drug addicts.

:eyes:

Hmm. What do you know that the majority opinion doesn't?

Educate yourself about this issue.

:eyes:

There was, before reliable AIDS testing, a good faith reason, even duty, to ban those folk outright. Now, there isn't. I would be perfectly willing to take the blood of a recovering addict who had been tested and cleared for HIV. I would surely take it over Newt Ginrich's blood given his history.

a year of male-male sexual contact. Apparently, the HIV tests can miss an infection that is less than a year old, but after 12 months the detecgtion is highly reliable. This seems logical to me for all of the risk factors - and I think it's far more important that the blood supply be tested thoroughly for all blood-borne diseases rather than relying on blanket bans of groups who merely have a higher than average likelihood of being infected...

"Have you ever exchanged sex for money?" and I answered, "Are we including child support?"

Please tell me you were being sarcastic, and that you were NOT actually comparing gay people to drug addicts and hookers?

I misread who you were replying to...

Edited to delete mistaken comment.

Because on questions of science and public health, I want the administration to take their cue from the science/medical community and not from political groups. If that's what they think should be done, then I hope he does it.

but the FDA refuses.

Why is the FDA refusing? This is such a no-brainer. Think of all the rare blood that could be saving lives? ARG.

Referring to us as a "political group" diminishes us as people in a horrible way, and equates our very humanity to groups like Concerned Women for America and MoveOn.org. It's incredibly hurtful.

I see the OP talking about a political issue that affects our community. Are black people nothing more than a "political group" just because there are obviously issues that affect black people disproportionately, and black people often advocate for changes in those issues?

Ugh.

You're talking about a political issue for which the GLBT community is relatively unified, and for which it exerts a common political pressure. The GLBT community can fairly be called "a political group," especially in the sense that the OP is presenting this from the viewpoint of a unified group of voters pushing for their own interests, instead of from the viewpoint of good public policy (which, of course, is on his side as well). Please do not take that to mean that I think that gay people are being "selfish" or that the gay community should not push for its own interests, by the way. The OP is justified in his post and his viewpoint. There's nothing wrong or belittling about acknowledging that the gay community has a political voice.

If we were talking about black people pushing for a change in policy that would affect black communities primarily, and for which the nationwide black population was exerting a common political pressure, then it would be fair to call them "a political group" in the same sense Cali used the word.

Cali is by no means a bigot. She's entirely on the side of gay rights.

I did not call Cali a bigot, nor did I imply any such thing.

The fact remains, it is both hurtful and detrimental to the cause of civil rights to refer to a group of people seeking their rights as a "political group." Her exact phrase was:

"I want the administration to take their cue from the science/medical community and not from political groups."

Surely you can see how that particular use diminishes the status of oppressed gay people as just another "political group," when that is not the case at all. We aren't doing this to pursue some agenda that only benefits US; we're doing it because civil equality and the removal of institutional homophobia benefits *everyone*. I believe that Cali simply did not consider her words fully, but words DO matter. We cannot sit silently by when we are dismissed--even mildly--as just another special interest "political group." Not even when it's an otherwise well-meaning ally.

A poor choice of words does not a bigot make, but just "letting it go" is a luxury that we, as gay people, simply do not have.

I was only providing further context for her statement. Your tone suggested that you were assuming that she was attempting to belittle, and I was only attempting to make clear that Cali is not the type to have any such intention.

Anyway. "Political" isn't a dirty word. If you want to deny that the gay community has a political voice, or want to pretend that acknowledging that is a bad thing, then knock yourself out. The OP was presenting--as you are now--the case from a political perspective. That is not a bad thing. It is often a very good one. Political fights are how civil rights are won. I mean, you're talking about a group of unified citizens taking action in the political realm to win a policy fight. Taking offense at being referred to as a political group? That's either misunderstanding the term, or it's looking for offense.

Cali was saying that public health decisions should be made from a public health perspective, not a political one. That is not "dismissive," "diminishing," or even "a poor choice of words." If it were true that blood from gay donors was dangerous, then such a ban would be reasonable from a public-health perspective. Cali was wondering if there was such a situation, since the OP made no mention of it, and she apparently did not know. It's a reasonable statement. Fortunately, since there is no public health reason to ban gay blood donors--blood from gays is no more dangerous, and all supplies are tested for HIV anyway--the question is a moot one. We're all on the same side.

If you want to insist on taking offense, knock yourself out. I'm well aware that outrage is a recreational drug 'round these parts.

He shouldn't do it, if its not medically smart.

the red cross has wanted to do this for years the FDA is the roadblock.

But There must have been medical concerns for there to ever be a rule in the first place.

and people all assumed that it was a "gay" disease.

It's a rule based on homophobia and ignorance, not good hard science. The truth of the matter is that a heterosexual male who sleeps around a lot is FAR more likely than a monogamous gay man to have/contract HIV. If there's a rule about sex at all, it should be based on recent unprotected promiscuity--not sexual orientation.

facing out world"? What a crock of shit. This is a perfectly valid issue.

But lately this site has been overrun with posts that seem to be holding Obama hostage to every gay interest group. There's more to being president than gay issues, yet one would be hard pressed to know that reading this and some other sites.

that there are other issues. And frankly, I think saying that Obama is being held hostage by "every gay interest group", is truly offensive.

And spare me the "offensive" crap. Everyone's offended by everything these days. Lighten up.

As are many of your posts in this thread.

I think Obama is being held hostage by radical anti-gay religious organizations and has for a very, very long time--since his time in the Illinois legislature, at least.

but overseas abortion isn't either and I bet you he will surely undo the executive orders Bush issued in regards to that. This would take maybe 10 minutes. Lets say it saved oh 5 lives, would that be good enough for 10 minutes of the great ones time?

I'll defer to the majority scientific opinion.

and has already been addressed. The Red Cross wants this ban changed, it is the FDA holding it up.

the Bush FDA is the last holdouts.

Flame bait post duly noted as well. :thumbsdown:

Oh. Didn't think so.

So unless this thread is about quirky information and satire, well, you know.

But kudos on the post-stalker thing there. WOW.

which voted 70 to 27 in favor of Obama and without whom Obama would have lost Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.

dsc's thread is serious and interesting. Gays are not a special interest group. They are people. Nice right wing talking point though.

shouldn't you be finishing this?

;)

It's fascinating stuff.

Go to hell, asshole. Enjoy your protected, coddled humanity. It must be nice not to be marginalized as just another "special interest group."

Great. Now we know where we stand.

What "special interests" are gays pursuing? That sounds a lot like the "special rights" meme.

:eyes:

Luckily for you, I give blood all the time, despite this ban. To me, the incredible insult and the personal shame I have to endure by lying about who I am are offset by the lives I get to save...even lives as callous as yours.

However, I totally empathize with my brothers who refuse to compromise their principles and will not lie about who they are. This ban is a disgrace, and has led to countless needless deaths.

But I don't imagine Obama will do anything about it. Like the poster I'm responding to, I'm sure he's MUCH more concerned with more "important" things.

and stop posting your offensive bullshit up and down this thread?

And unecessary. Do you have something worthwhile to contribute while you scour the board for "pressing" issues?

Did you know that it is possible to do both at the same time? No, really, it is!!!

Perhaps you should look into it.

of the blood ban, my biggest concern is that it suggests that blood is NOT being tested properly. If the blood is being tested correctly, there is no need for a ban. If it isn't than a ban may statistically lessen the likelihood of HIV+ blood ending up in the donor pool. In the first case, I really don't want to receive blood products in a hospital.

I find it ironic that this is posted so close to Isaac Asimov's birthday.

Isaac Asimov, who died of AIDs. AIDS that he got from a blood transfusion.


If the blood isn't being tested, then that question does not seem like much protection. How do you know anybody's status unless they are either a faithful partner or you got tested right before you had sex. If I have had sex with two people in the last year and each of them have had sex with two other people and each of those four have had sex with two other people, then how fast does that pool grow to 64 people, and if one of those people is HIV positive without knowing it, and also without being extremely promiscuous, then how many people can it also be spread to before somebody either starts showing symptoms or gets tested?

You're obviously against gay people giving blood, but your laborious post applies as much to straight people as it does to gay people. If you're saying that all donated blood should be tested (as the Red Cross says is the case), then I agree with you. But if that is the case, why the need for the ban?

Dizzy-making is how I'd describe that last run-on sentence, whoa..

it just seemed that the OP's claim was that "asking people if they have had sex with somebody who is HIV positive in the last year" was gonna protect people. So I tried to demonstrate that "they cannot know that".

I am not against gay people giving blood, but as a non blood donor, guessing that non blood donors are in the majority, I am not seeing it as a huge advance in GLBT rights. Symbolism is important, but I have a feeling too that it would be easily dismissed as even less of a victory for progressives as the increase in the minimum wage.

It is. What's your point?

then the original ban made no sense, and the question about sex partners makes no sense either. I guess it could be another level of protection just in case the tests are not perfect.

who had sexual relations with more than two people in the past year, at the minimum. This is using your reasoning, either that, or they would have lifetime bans on all people who are in higher risk groups, which would include gay men, straight black women, etc.

even more so than gay people, simply because there are more OF them--thus more opportunities for infection and transmission.

And yet, only gay people are blanketly banned. They don't tie the ban to promiscuity, they tie it to sexual orientation. This is incredibly wrong, and is a fine example of institutional homophobia at its most insidious.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying only gays sleep around?

that even somebody who does not sleep around much, somebody with only two sex partners in a year, still cannot know if those sex partners are HIV positive unless they are testing before sex, or testing periodically. As a person of Puritan blood, I feel certain that somebody is out there having fun, damn them! :spank:

Clearly, Puritans should not be allowed to give blood.

blood safe. Testing is, of ALL blood.

But a quick Google search confirmed it. I think it just underscores what I keep saying: orientation has no relation to HIV - behavior does. You can be 100% gay, but unless you've participated in risky behavior, your chances of getting it are extremely low (they're never zero: nuns have gotten AIDS). A mutually monogamous gay couple are no more likely to acquire it than are a equally faithful straight couple. You can also be a stone addict, but unless you've used unsterile needles or done something risky to support your habit the biggest threat to your health will be an overdose, not AIDS or HepC.

The rules against gays giving blood are outdated. We need to modify them to fit the advances in medical science and epidemiology that have taken place since they were written.

politically, it would be the wrong thing to do at this time. The fundies would have a field day with it.

And while the fundies, freeptards, and assorted haters have been able to persuade the mushy middle to their side on equal marriage, they'd use extreme fear tactics to motivate an anti-Obama reaction like we haven't seen yet.

The economy is important enough to all of us, gay, straight, bi or whatever that we need to get that fixed first. Once Obama really does some of the stuff he said he would, then he can quietly lift the homophobia that still lingers.

About a week ago, I saw "Milk", and I kept wondering why the progress Harvey Milk set into motion did not get much farther for the next couple of decades. The answer, of course, was HIV/AIDS, which wasn't even part of the story of the movie. Uneducated fear of HIV/AIDS is probably a principle reason that we have thirty state constitutions stained with discrimination in their amendments right now. Poking that old bugaboo with a stick is probably not Obama's smartest move right now.

"an anti-Obama reaction like we haven't seen yet." Keep in mind that we have majorities on our side for civil unions, and a huge majority for repealing DADT.

The wingnuts have hurled every spurious charge they can against Obama, that he's a Muslim, that he'll paint the White House black, etc. So far, it's fallen on deaf ears, just because it sounds so damned foolish.

But the blood supply is something we all depend on, and everybody knows it. An announcement that gay men can now contribute to that supply will be painted as Obama's attempt to give red state America AIDS. It would threaten the mushy middle WAY more than a paint roller with a dark hue headed towards the outer walls of the Presidential mansion.

If fuzzy-witted mushy middlers cannot even believe us that equal marriage will not tear apart theirs, we will have no chance convincing people that the blood supply will be safe. Not until we can see homophobia with the same clarity we now see the racism of the Jim Crow era. We're years away from that.

It sure is. And there is a tremendous shortage. Turning people away on the basis of a stupid prejudice means that people will DIE.

Maybe it's time that we started worrying a little less about what the fundies (who've had it pretty good in this country since Reagan) want, and start worrying about what's RIGHT. Opinions like yours are the reason why the Democratic party is a joke, and can never accomplish anything.

But I'm sure you'll be pleased when Obama lets another opportunity to save lives escape him, as he'll no doubt ignore this ban while he's busy reaching out to the right.

though the blood-donor rules are backwards and do need changing.

he needs Congress.

And I suppose it would be easiest to do this in a flurry of executive orders largely reversing Bush's mess o' 11th-hour orders, rather than do it a year or so into the Presidency--which would indeed seem kind of random.

You've convinced me entirely.

It never made sense to me in the first place, and seems to be rather bigoted as a policy. A gay man who has been with the same partner for a number of years is banned for LIFE from donating blood, but a straight guy who sleeps with a different woman every weekend, unprotected, isn't.

http://www2.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html

You are not eligible to donate if:


From January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1996, you spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 3 months or more, in the United Kingdom (UK), or
From January 1, 1980, to present, you had a blood transfusion in any country(ies) in the (UK). The UK includes any of the countries listed below.

* Channel Islands
* England
* Falkland Islands
* Gibraltar
* Isle of Man
* Northern Ireland
* Scotland
* Wales

You were a member of the of the U.S. military, a civilian military employee, or a dependent of a member of the U.S. military who spent a total time of 6 months on or associated with a military base in any of the following areas during the specified time frames

* From 1980 through 1990 - Belgium, the Netherlands (Holland), or Germany
* From 1980 through 1996 - Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Italy or Greece.


You spent (visited or lived) a cumulative time of 5 years or more from January 1, 1980, to present, in any combination of country(ies) in Europe, including

* in the UK from 1980 through 1996 as listed in above
* on or associated with military bases as described above, and
* in other countries in Europe as listed below:
o Albania
o Austria
o Belgium
o Bosnia/Herzegovina
o Bulgaria
o Croatia
o Czech Republic
o Denmark
o Finland
o France
o Germany
o Greece
o Hungary
o Ireland (Republic of)
o Italy
o Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
o Liechtenstein
o Luxembourg
o Macedonia
o Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
o Netherlands (Holland)
o Norway
o Poland
o Portugal
o Romania
o Serbia (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
o Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
o Slovenia
o Spain
o Sweden
o Switzerland
o Turkey
o Yugoslavia (Federal Republic includes Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia)

since you can't test for mad cow disease.

that declares homosexuality not a crime . . . frankly, I'm disappointed that he didn't take the opportunity to speak out the day the vote was taken -- or any time since . . .

c'mon, Barack . . . you claim to be committed to equal rights for gays . . . time to step up and do something to demonstrate that commitment . . .

But it should be slipped through so that the fundies don't have anything to attack. Perhaps, at the same time as the big main st. bail out package we've been hearing so much about.

Replace him with Sandra Day O'Conner reading the Preamble to the Constitution.

I mean can't any gay man just claim to be straight? It's not like race, which is usually clearly visible. I'd still support it for its symbolic value, though.

but if we are giving blood around people who know us well that becomes more of a problem. Some just don't wish to lie if for no other reason than being unsure of what, if any, legal reprecussions may ensue. I do give from time to time and lie when I do so but I can't blame those who won't.