NationStates Jolt Archive

source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7749977/)
NEW YORK - 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, Calif., 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.

'A policy based on bigotry'
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.
Seriously. Some people...

What THE fuck?

:(
Yay for idiocy.

Amen, brother. I too mean, WTF!!!

Not that I really care about donating sperm (and I'm a hetero) but what the flick that does your sexual orientation have to do with your frigging semen?!?

If you're healthy and the gals want a kid - ...

?!?

Nazis! That's who's ruling the States. -

EDIT: What a minute - that sounds wrong: Not that I really care about donating sperm 'cause I want to father a child when I'm their "creator" - and that doesn't even include my sexual orientation 'cause I'm a hetero to whom this wouldn't apply - but this is just crazy!

Utterly ridiculous. I can understand screening or restrictions if there is a risk of STIs but only for homosexuals? Seriously, I thought the world might be moving on from the whole 'only gays can get AIDs' thing....

Will they also ban sperm from immigrants who came here from Sub Saharan Africa? Or perhaps that would be racist.

As a gay man i'm appalled at fundies attack on gay families. I hope they don't ban lesbians from donating eggs cause I would love to have a child someday although it doesn't stop me from using a straight gal.

but seriously fundies a so f***** up to believe that only hetro couples should be able to have children. I mean do so watch Dr. Phil or Nanny911 there are some majorly f**** up families. I mean who in this day in age has 5 or more kids. There are plenty of hetreo families that are severely disfunctunal I know I have seen them.

good lord i would hope they would test every freaking donation for HIV and any other std out there.

As a gay man i'm appalled at fundies attack on gay families. I hope they don't ban lesbians from donating eggs cause I would love to have a child someday although it doesn't stop me from using a straight gal.

but seriously fundies a so f***** up to believe that only hetro couples should be able to have children. I mean do so watch Dr. Phil or Nanny911 there are some majorly f**** up families. I mean who in this day in age has 5 or more kids. There are plenty of hetreo families that are severely disfunctunal I know I have seen them.
I think you misread or misunderstood what the article was about. This isn't an attempt to prevent gay couples from having children, it's an attempt to prevent gay men from donating sperm to a sperm bank. The premise is that gay men have a higher risk for carrying the hiv.

While they do have a point in that homosexual men have a much higher rate of AIDs than the straight population, it still seems silly to implement this policy instead of one based on sexual promiscuity.

Or better yet, use us asexuals as sperm donors! :) It's not like we have STDs...

Seems perfectly well-reasoned, logically thought-out, and supported by a vast majority of unbiased scientific fact. Congrats.

Seems perfectly well-reasoned, logically thought-out, and supported by a vast majority of unbiased scientific fact. Congrats.I would find it more logical for the FDA to test every sperm sample for STD's.

Whoa, on the side tab the title is cut off and all it says is "FDA set to ban gay men as" And it got me thinking... what could the FDA ban gay men as? I mean they are the Food and Drug Administration. Ban gay chefs? Regulate the gay farming community? Crack down on Gay drug traffiking? Ban gay pharmacists? Never did I think it would be something that makes LESS sense. They won't take gay semen? First, how the hell are the going to know? Unless you come in dressed like Michael Jackson and smelling like popourrii, I'd have a difficult time telling whether you were gay. Secondly, just WTF. This makes no sense at all, and it scares the ever-fanaking hell out of me that they don't TEST semen for HIV, they're just hoping to prevent it by banning gay semen. Does this mean they don't test blood, organs for HIV? I guess the solution there is to ban gays from those too, right? :rolleyes:

There's nothing to stop anyone from checking [yes] beside "have you been celibate for th past 5 years" on the questionaire.

Yay - another reason teh FDA is about as useful as a box of sand.

I would find it more logical for the FDA to test every sperm sample for STD's.

That would require work.

Woo. Actually... it is a common idea that gay men carry more STDS than straight men.

Some women might not be comfortable with the fact the donor is gay, due to this steriotype. I believe that it is a good idea and would endorse it, but it is in retrospect rather silly.

Can't they be putting restrictions on something more pressing? Like refining the way we deal with actual criminals? For instance - kids in my school have (lots of) tobacco, and the school's administration is not sufficient to combat it. They are too soft, and so is our local law enforcement.

Lets put our money into something more useful... like stricter laws and better (more useful) regulations!

they are just afraid that there is a gay gene

Well shit...there go my plans for the weekend.

Bigots

I would find it more logical for the FDA to test every sperm sample for STD's.
Wellll, there's the problem, HIV generally doesn't become visable until six months afterwards, so you have to retest the doner (of course, you wouldn't see it in the sperm six months later, as it has been on ice), and I guess the FDA is throwing a fit about doing that.

Yay - another reason teh FDA is about as useful as a box of sand.

At least a cat can use a box of sand as a washroom...

Seems perfectly well-reasoned, logically thought-out, and supported by a vast majority of unbiased scientific fact. Congrats.

You forgot your sarcasm tags.

Wellll, there's the problem, HIV generally doesn't become visable until six months afterwards, so you have to retest the doner (of course, you wouldn't see it in the sperm six months later, as it has been on ice), and I guess the FDA is throwing a fit about doing that.

Being on ice wouldn't get rid of the virus if it were actually present in the sperm.

Why would someone even want a sperm from a gay man...Good Job FDA!

Being on ice wouldn't get rid of the virus if it were actually present in the sperm.
Which is the point. You can't test the sperm for the virus, nor would freezing it get rid of the virus. You have to test the donor six months after the donation and retest them to ensure that the sample has little possibility of being HIV positive.

Why would someone even want a sperm from a gay man...Good Job FDA!
Its the in thing now a days.

Which is the point. You can't test the sperm for the virus, nor would freezing it get rid of the virus. You have to test the donor six months after the donation and retest them to ensure that the sample has little possibility of being HIV positive.

Why can't you test the sperm?

Last I read, HIV shows up in sperm.

Why can't you test the sperm?

Last I read, HIV shows up in sperm.
HIV doesn't show up (the antibodies) until about 6 months after infection.

HIV doesn't show up (the antibodies) until about 6 months after infection.

N/m I see. I forgot that they don't actually test for the virus itself.

Woo. Actually... it is a common idea that gay men carry more STDS than straight men.

And totally false. Heterosexual males have a far higher occurance of STDs than homosexual males.

And totally false. Heterosexual males have a far higher occurance of STDs than homosexual males.
According to the CDC, 60% of men infected with AIDS got it through homosexual sex, while 15% got it through hetero sex.
For women, it's 75% through hetero sex.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

According to the CDC, 60% of men infected with AIDS got it through homosexual sex, while 15% got it through hetero sex.
For women, it's 75% through hetero sex.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Now look at the fastest rising populations contracting HIV.

Twits. :headbang:
What about straight white guys that listen to thrash? In my experience they tend to do a lot of IV drugs. Are they going to start asking about your musical tastes next?

I'm delighted that the FDA has no actual system set up to prevent the potential donation and distribution of HIV positive sperm, and just relies on banning potential high-risk groups.

Its the in thing now a days.I like to collect gay mens' semen samples.

So ....

The FDA is admitting that it's genetic and not a choice?

Sweet.

I'm delighted that the FDA has no actual system set up to prevent the potential donation and distribution of HIV positive sperm, and just relies on banning potential high-risk groups.

I find that rather interesting as well. In most tissue donations (including blood), they do both.

Of course, I think that banning so-called high-risk groups, especially when the habits of the members of that group have changed drastically over time, is silly. The problem is promiscuity, so ban promiscuous donors (of any sexuality), not simply gay donors.

Right. So lets only get virgins to donate their sperm.

Well, it's how the FDA works isn't it. For example I can't donate blood. (Well, I can, but I have to go to england to do it.)


What's funny is that they are going after anyone who "engage in homosexual sex" in the past five years.

Yeah, like people are goin to tell the truth. :rolleyes:

Right. So lets only get virgins to donate their sperm.That would be an extremely profitable business for me.

Well, it's how the FDA works isn't it. For example I can't donate blood. (Well, I can, but I have to go to england to do it.)


What's funny is that they are going after anyone who "engage in homosexual sex" in the past five years.

Yeah, like people are goin to tell the truth. :rolleyes:


You will if we zap you with a stun gun.

People people, calm down. I think we have enough men and enough sperm to last us a while, but i do think the gays should be alllowed because they are in some of the best shape and many of them are nicer than regular men

You will if we zap you with a stun gun.

Depends where you zap me. I may well like it.

Oh well. If I ever go to donate sperm, I'll lie about my orientation. :>

Actually, studies have shown that the people who have the highest risk for HIV and AIDS are heterosexual women.

...You know what, I'm willing to bet those punks are just conserned that sperm from a gay man will cause the child to be gay, or something like that.

So ....

The FDA is admitting that it's genetic and not a choice?

Sweet.


Quoted because it needs to be.

Statistics do show that males engaging in homosexual activity have a high risk of spreading HIV/AIDS as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. It's a fact, unfortunately, that has been used against gays in all ways, shapes and forms. It's horrible that the FDA is now using it, too, against homosexuals who know much better than the stats show.

Statistics do show that males engaging in homosexual activity have a high risk of spreading HIV/AIDS as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. It's a fact, unfortunately, that has been used against gays in all ways, shapes and forms. It's horrible that the FDA is now using it, too, against homosexuals who know much better than the stats show.

Since we're being totally honest, let's be totally honest. It's not homosexual activity. Its anal intercourse (particularly the receiver) that has the hightest risk of spreading STDs. So really, if they FDA cared all about being fair to gays (which they obviously don't) they would only discourage those who've had anal sex--cause after all, blow jobs between men have no higher rate than blow jobs with straight couples.

Now look at the fastest rising populations contracting HIV.
Where? Could you show that stat?

Odd, what's with the five years thing. Do they expect the aids to clear up or something? What does it really matter how long ago you got aids?
Anyways, I am almost as sad at this as I am against the zombie terrorism plot, but not quite.

I can not begin to fathom the sheer stupidity of this. Sexual orientation does not mean that you are promiscuous or having unprotected sex with anything that moves. Many of my gay friends have long term relationships. I know more straight people who sleep around and have unprotected sex than gays. At least they know the risk. They aren't living in a fantasy land where STDs don't exist.

While they do have a point in that homosexual men have a much higher rate of AIDs than the straight population, it still seems silly to implement this policy instead of one based on sexual promiscuity.

Or better yet, use us asexuals as sperm donors! :) It's not like we have STDs...

That would mean that you would have to, oh my God, the shame, the shame, MASTURBATE. And in a PUBLIC PLACE!

Where? Could you show that stat?

It has been recently reported - I'll try to look it up.

The basic points are that the fastest rising population with HIV is heterosexual, black women. The rates are falling among the homosexual community and rising in the heterosexual community. Sad, really. We'd like to see them falling everywhere.

I'm sure someone else must have stated the obvious- but wouldnt it be better to test every individual potential donor prior to accepting the donation for any and all diseases?
I'm not sure why it would be necesary to exlude homosexual males accross the board-unless you are looking to be challenged.

Hmmm.. This would prove whether or not homosexuality is a gene thingy or just mental. Well.. not really either. Hetrogene could come from the mother and they'll be more arguements.

How would the FDA know that a particular man was gay? Is it tattooed on their foreheads? (or foreskins?)