And the bigotry continues...

[rgraham666]

A whole slew of Nobel Laureates of National Medal of Science winners signed onto an official letter of protest. See how much good it will do.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381.

None at all of course.

The Shrubbies speak for God.

 

[Guest]

None at all of course.

The Shrubbies speak for God.

Maybe that's why I'm having difficulties with God these days.

 

[LadyJeanne]

None at all of course.

The Shrubbies speak for God.

With all of Bush's malapropisms, mispronunciations, and misstatements, God must be pissed to be so misrepresented.

 

[Kirk482002]

The Shrubbies speak for God.

If that's the case, then I'd look toward the Dark Side....

 

[Kirk482002]

Let me change that.....

I'd need to find a God that wasn't 'Bush Certified'...

 

[rgraham666]

I have no problems with God. She's not the celestial bully so many people imagine her to be.

It's religion I have the problem with.

 

[ElizabethWest]

I'm very sorry to say that I don't think there is anything my fellow ammericans can do any longer that really suprises me. Offends me, embarrases me, outrages me, saddens me... yes. But surprises me? No.

I agree.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Is sperm a food or a drug?

When originally taken internally, it acts as a tonic, but with the passage of time, it usually acts like a sophoric.

The FDA seems an odd authority for this.

It definitely is NOT a food additive.

 

[Dar~]

The scientific community has been up in arms for some time now because of the blatant politicization of government sponsored science under the Bush administration.

Findings have been distorted, research suppressed, and agencies like the FDA have been forced to bow to the political will on things like the morning-after birth control pill, which is still unavailable in the US because of... Well, I forget what the current rartionale is, but it has nothing to do with safety, efficacy, or health.

A whole slew of Nobel Laureates of National Medal of Science winners signed onto an official letter of protest. See how much good it will do.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381.

The morning after pill wasn't illegal a few years ago, I was given it by a military doctor while we were stationed in alaska.

 

[impressive]

FDA set to ban gay men as sperm donors

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:34 p.m. ET May 5, 2005

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.

So, if it's been six years since he's "engaged in homosexual sex" there's no chance he'll pass on those morally deviant gay genes?

Are they, like, gonna make a sex registry to keep track -- or is this, like all other such screenings, gonna rely on a check box on a form?

 

[JamesSD]

Hmmmm

I think a straight out ban is a bad idea. It might be excusable from a cost analysis perspective, yet I'd expect they need to screen sperm for HIV regardless.

That said, I can put myself in the shoes of a perspective parent and how they'd like to have a level of choice.
Sperm donation naturally drifts into the dangerous ground of eugenics. Parents to be routinely will select for traits like intelligence, height, and other genetic characteristics. I'd imagine the vast majority also choose a donor of their own race, if for no other reason than to make the child as close to the man who will be the child's father as possible.

I believe that a predisposition for homosexuality is genetic. Being a heterosexual, I would be more comfortable accepting DNA from a heterosexual. I would love and accept a gay child, but I've also seen through my friends how tough being gay can be in this world.
So I do feel that parents ought to be able to make this decision if they want to. I realize this drifts into the arguements for and against "designer babies", which is an extremely complicated issue

 

[rgraham666]

I wonder how the parents will handle it when they 'select' a child for intelligence (What ever the fuck that is) and the kid ends up smarter than they are.

"Honey, do you know what Junior's yakking about this time?"

"No dear, I'm still trying to figure out how chaos theory relates to the weather."

"Christ, this kid make me feel stupid. Who's idea was it to have a smart one anyway?"

 

[neonlyte]

I think a straight out ban is a bad idea. It might be excusable from a cost analysis perspective, yet I'd expect they need to screen sperm for HIV regardless.

That said, I can put myself in the shoes of a perspective parent and how they'd like to have a level of choice.
Sperm donation naturally drifts into the dangerous ground of eugenics. Parents to be routinely will select for traits like intelligence, height, and other genetic characteristics. I'd imagine the vast majority also choose a donor of their own race, if for no other reason than to make the child as close to the man who will be the child's father as possible.

I believe that a predisposition for homosexuality is genetic. Being a heterosexual, I would be more comfortable accepting DNA from a heterosexual. I would love and accept a gay child, but I've also seen through my friends how tough being gay can be in this world.
So I do feel that parents ought to be able to make this decision if they want to. I realize this drifts into the arguements for and against "designer babies", which is an extremely complicated issue

JamesSD
My apology for picking on your post but I find it hard to take this subject seriously so lets take some counter views for the sake of a good old fashioned arguement.

1. Selection of characteristics in likely offspring occurs when Girl meets Boy and they decide to fuck.
2. Whilst screening sperm for HIV it ought to be possible to possible to whisk out the ones with 'pink' tails, but hey, there's only a one in 400 million chance that 'pinky' will hit the target.
3. Politicians flirt with eugenics, not sperm doners.
4. If you want DNA from a hetrosexual - kiss one.
5. The gay child is the one in the maternity nursery wearing the pink daiper / nappy.
6. Many of the current young generation barely seem to be off the same species, let alone the same race, I guess tossing a coin is out?
7. Designer babies do not grow up to be architects.
8. Where the fuck does someone start to 'screen out' homosexual sperm doners, is there a questionaire, do they examine my wardrobe, does having a moustache knock off points, do I HAVE to walk a straight line?
9. Anyone who can wank into a cup whilst sitting in a clinic with a nurse asking 'Are you finished yet Malcolm?' deserves to have his sperm used.
10. Before we start screening out homosexual sperm doners, here are a few I like to see screened first: Bigots, Religious fanatics who prey on the young and weak, Usurers, anyone who thinks earning a million a year is NOT obscene, add some more... you know you can.

 

[impressive]

10. Before we start screening out homosexual sperm doners, here are a few I like to see screened first: Bigots, Religious fanatics who prey on the young and weak, Usurers, anyone who thinks earning a million a year is NOT obscene, add some more... you know you can.

 

[oggbashan]

We in the UK, or rather the Labour Government, have nearly stopped sperm and egg donation dead. They now insist that any babies born as a result of a donation have the right to contact the donor parent after the baby reaches 18.

Would you like 2,000 18 year olds calling you 'Daddy'?

Og

 

[impressive]

Would you like 2,000 18 year olds calling you 'Daddy'?

Og

Odds are good, though, that at least one of them would care for you in your dotage.

 

[oggbashan]

Odds are good, though, that at least one of them would care for you in your dotage.

And 50 of them would sue you for child neglect.

Og

 

[JamesSD]

10. Before we start screening out homosexual sperm doners, here are a few I like to see screened first: Bigots, Religious fanatics who prey on the young and weak, Usurers, anyone who thinks earning a million a year is NOT obscene, add some more... you know you can.

I understand that most of your post is tongue in cheek. Nonetheless I'm going to take a bit of it seriously.
"WE" should not screen out donors as a society. But I do think individual parents have a right to make such a decision.
Bigotry, religious fanaticism and a warped sense of economic justice are learned traits. None of these come with any sort of genetic predisposition. (Ok, there may be some genetic contribution to the tendency to hate, but I doubt it's very big)

Sperm donors are selected for all sorts of traits. I know education (based on highest degree obtained) is a big one, as are SAT scores. I don't think this is a bad thing. Genetics aren't everything in future success, far from it. But I know that if I was in a position to choose, I would select traits that either would be beneficial to the child or make it as close to me genetically as possible.

Bottom line is I believe people have a right to select the sperm they want for their baby. Thus gay men should not be banned from donating, because their sperm should be available to those who are indifferent or would prefer it.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I wonder how the parents will handle it when they 'select' a child for intelligence (What ever the fuck that is) and the kid ends up smarter than they are . . .

Fifty years and seventeen doctorates later, the parents will be even more impressed when the kid proves to be too intelligent to countenance any of the prevailing business precepts, and therefor cannot get a job.

Since the kid cannot relate to average people, teaching, sales, and politics are out. The best he can manage is doing pro bona legal work for imprisoned Mensa members.

 

[impressive]

Fifty years and seventeen doctorates later, the parents will be even more impressed when the kid proves to be too intelligent to countenance any of the prevailing business precepts, and therefor cannot get a job.

Since the kid cannot relate to average people, teaching, sales, and politics are out. The best he can manage is doing pro bona legal work for imprisoned Mensa members.

And no female will be "good enough" ... so he'll never breed & his superior genes will just die.

 

[neonlyte]

I understand that most of your post is tongue in cheek. Nonetheless I'm going to take a bit of it seriously.

Bigotry, religious fanaticism and a warped sense of economic justice are learned traits. None of these come with any sort of genetic predisposition. (Ok, there may be some genetic contribution to the tendency to hate, but I doubt it's very big)

Bottom line is I believe people have a right to select the sperm they want for their baby. Thus gay men should not be banned from donating, because their sperm should be available to those who are indifferent or would prefer it.

JamesSD
First - convince me there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

The only study to indicate this possibility was carried out in the US in 1993, thus far no other laboratory or research group has been able to replicate their findings.

Ready for the real shock news?

The gene they identified is on the X chromosome (Xsa23 - or some such number is the marker) and is always and only transmitted by the MOTHER to the son.

If such a gene predisposition existed it would work in the same way that X chromosomes cause Huntingdons Disease, colour blindness and heomophelia A almost exclusively in men and is only ever transmitted by the female X chromosome.

The problem with this 'news' when released in the 1990's is that it passed into 'folk law', newspapers don't sell copy by admitting possible errors in reporting, the 'queer gene' makes for good copy.

The idea that gay sperm produces gay babies is a load of bollocks, no gay sperm donor should be held to account for his sexual practices except in the prudent screening for HIV transmission, though the hetrosexual community accounts for double the HIV transmission rate compared with the gay community.

This move by the FDA is 'Gay Bashing' - pure, undisguised bigotry on behalf of an administration too intent on fiddling with the minutia on behalf of Middle America.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

What do we think of lesbian couples wanting only sperm from gay men for artificial insemenation? A form of bigotry?

 

[LadyJeanne]

There's a more recent study completed by researchers at UIC that came out earlier this year that points to genetic linkage to homosexuality. It doesn't appear definitive, from my reading of the press release, but it's enough to convince me that we haven't discovered everything there is to know about genetics and homosexuality yet and shouldn't categorically rule anything out.

Univ. of Illinois at Chicago

Genetic Regions Influencing Male Sexual Orientation Identified

In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is heterosexual or gay.

The study, which is currently available online, will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.

UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.

Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."

Other researchers involved in the study were Dean Hamer, at the National Institutes of Health; Nicholas Schork and Caroline Nievergelt, at the University of California at San Diego; Michael DuPree, at Pennsylvania State University; and Sven Bocklandt, at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

UIC ranks among the nation's top 50 universities in federal research funding and is Chicago's largest university with 25,000 students, 12,000 faculty and staff, 15 colleges and the state's major public medical center. A hallmark of the campus is the Great Cities Commitment, through which UIC faculty, students and staff engage with community, corporate, foundation and government partners in hundreds of programs to improve the quality of life in metropolitan areas around the world.

For more information about UIC, visit www.uic.edu

 

[JamesSD]

First - convince me there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

I'm basing it on purely anecdotal evidence that every gay friend I've ever had feels they were born that way. I don't believe for a second that homosexuality is a choice. Nor do I believe that it comes from being "too close to one's mother" or something like that. Like most human behavioral traits I'm sure it's a combination of environment bringing out certain complex genetic factors. If there is no genetic cause then homosexuality is strictly a result of environment or choice, which conservatives would absolutely love.

The gene they identified is on the X chromosome (Xsa23 - or some such number is the marker) and is always and only transmitted by the MOTHER to the son.

If such a gene predisposition existed it would work in the same way that X chromosomes cause Huntingdons Disease, colour blindness and heomophelia A almost exclusively in men and is only ever transmitted by the female X chromosome.

You obviously are much better informed than I am about the subject.

This move by the FDA is 'Gay Bashing' - pure, undisguised bigotry on behalf of an administration too intent on fiddling with the minutia on behalf of Middle America.

I totally agree the FDA move sounds a lot like gay bashing and seems pretty dishonest at heart. The AIDS arguement is absurd.

It may be better from a societal standpoint to leave sexual orientation out of sperm donation all together. Yet the process is a voluntary and extremely personally invasive one. And I really feel like parents do have a right to select a donor of their choosing based on whatever criteria they choose.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . The idea that gay sperm produces gay babies is a load of bollocks . . .

To me, this sounds like the early prejudice against mixing blood supplies, in the idiotic belief that — just maybe — one could be tainted with Negro blood, and wind up black.