The AP is reporting the FDA is condifying its ban on gay sperm.

After years of endless stories and alarm about diseased fags spreading HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, drug resistant strains of staph and the awful yeast infection that used to be rare, it should come as no shocker that the feds would reject our sperm.

Well, it only makes sense...I mean, it IS a gay disease, right?

Sperm is all over the news these days, pun intended.

What took so long for the feds to ban gays from donating sperm?

Given the endless alarming stats from many health departments, especially here in SF, about gays and HIV and STDs, I would have thought such a ban would have been in place long ago.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld...x?storyid=36715

This story out of Canada doesn't say if the health officials up north want gay sperm or not.

http://www.canada.com/health/story.html?id...21-c222cfc4a87b

I wonder if other countries ban gay sperm.

And more sperm in the news--bestialist sperm at that, in the SHOCKING (where's James Dobson when they need him???) little bit of fun told by our First (not Frist, mind you) Lady, Laura W. Bush, at the Correspondents' Dinner:

Now THAT is pretty out there. All Whoopi Goldberg did was point to her crotch and talk about her "Bush," which Ted Danson, among others, has traipsed around in. Meanwhile Mrs. W is joking about her God-loving man jacking off male horses....

I don't buy it. They aren't rejecting it because of disease. They know homosexuality is genetic and are trying to stop the spread of gays.

I first wrote that toungue in cheek, now am rethinking it.

My boyfriend made the same observation about the ban. He called it genocide against gays. I disagree with him.

It's genetic, not hereditary. I am pretty sure both my parents are straight.

.....oh my, and i thought nature abhorred a vacuum!

Point of order - if something is genetic, it is by definition hereditary. And homosexuality, which has a clear genetic/biological component, is likely to be a recessive gene, so straight parents could easily have gay children - in fact, there is research from Italy that the sisters of gay men are more fertile than women from families without gay members, so being gay could be considered an evolutionary improvement

On the sperm bank ban - at least they are not using Red Cross rules - you can't give blood if you are a man who has had sex with another man at least once since 1977! That is ridiculous - and it basically means no fags allowed. The funny thing is, if you are a straight guy who unprotected, wildly promiscuous sex last weekend, you can give blood.

cpt....you are talking WAY over my simple head. My point was that you can pass on the gay gene without being gay yourself. I guess you and I are saying the same thing?

Well, first of all, birdie boy, there is no proven "gay gene" and it is frankly extremely unlikely. Complex behaviors, and sexual behavior definitely falls into that category, are not single gene traits. Most likely sexual orientation is due to a combination of genes, possibly fetal environment, etc. At this point no one knows. (I happen to be a biologist, BTW.)

You are correct in the general case in that a person (or other organism, of course) can pass on a trait that he/she does not carry. For example I am the blue eyed child of two brown eyed parents. Assuming my mama did not stray, both of my parents carried a recessive gene that I happened to get two copies of. Neither my brother nor my sister did. Same with any recessive.
This is not "gay genocide" since gays and lesbians have plenty of ways of reproducing ourselves, including private arrangements, it is pandering to unscientific bigotry.
I used to be lab coordinator at a sperm bank, the first to provide service to single women and lesbians. We had no "gay ban" but we did test for HIV, syphilis and hepatitis and quarantine all sperm for 6 months. There were no cases of disease transmission although gay men were welcome as donors.
As to whether any of the offspring are disproportionately gay/lesbian/bi/trans, it's may be too early to tell. The oldest would be barely into their early teens. But studies of the "standard" biological children of gay men and lesbians show that the percentage who are gay/lesbian is not different from the general population. Although the straight kids raised by gay/lesbian parents are more gay friendly than many of their peers.

This is getting even more confusting for me. Look at what the Blade's blog has posted about the AP story.

>Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors is disputing an Associated Press story that cited him as the source for claims that the Food & Drug Administration plans to ban gay people from donating sperm. Traiman says the story is untrue and that AP misrepresented his views.

"The FDA a year ago published two documents; one was a regulation, the other was a guideline," Traiman said. "In the guideline, which does not have the force of law, it says not to allow gay men to donate. But in the regulations, they left that choice up to 'a responsible person,' meaning the people in charge at the clinics.

"Gay sperm donors are not banned by the FDA in the United States."
[snip]

So can gays donate sperm anonymously or not?

[ May 07, 2005, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

The article in the Blade Blog, including links to the FDA documents:

Source: AP wrong on gay sperm ban story

In other words, it appears we're not really banned, but discrimination against us is encouraged...

Isn't that special!

[ May 07, 2005, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]