2011: The Year for Gay Rights?

[BigBallinStalin]

Neotony, why do you do this to yourself?

[Neoteny]

I... I don't know. I post, and then next thing I know I'm four posts in and I'm repeating myself for the tenth time.

I hate all of you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Don't waste your time typing with her. I respect you as a poster, and if player is the only one disagreeing with you, then it's a good sign that you're correct.

[Neoteny]

I sort of, just once, want PLAYER to pick out the thesis of one of my serious-face posts. I like PLAYER. While we're discussing respect, I have a certain amount of respect for PLAYER. But every now and then when we discuss something she fixates on a concept completely unrelated to my argument, and I have to play whack-a-mole with whatever idea she has latched onto, while trying to drag her back to the things I'm actually saying.

I'm hopeful, which, I suppose, is my problem.

[PLAYER57832]

Christ.

You keep saying "real" like it's a useful descriptor. And at what point have I contradicted the the data? I would like for you, just once, to actually restate the main idea of one of my posts. A third grader could do it. To make it easier, I'll actually tell you the main idea. The actions are an inherent part of homosexuality. Non-celibate gay men tend to have gay sex. It's sorta how that works. Restricting their individual contributions to blood donation due to the statistics of the overall population is discriminatory. Again, perhaps it's a "real" reason to discriminate. But it is, still and again, discriminatory. This concludes the main idea of this paragraph.

Not when the premise is that its OK to endanger the blood supply because a few people will be offended. And that, truly is what this is about. That is what the DATA says. As for the reference to drug users, etc. Truth is, most of them don't donate except at for pay centers, which are an entirely different story. Per the black women. The rates are still low. They are growing, as they are for the heterosexual population in general, but there is a BIG difference, of which I surely hope you are aware (given your field) between increasing rate of growth and a numerical increase.

I am not trying to support any premise other than the fact that the policy is discriminatory, which is what justifies concern from the homosexual community. I have, repeatedly, typed this at you over my last several posts, and it has bounced off your comprehension like a quarter off the firm buttocks of a nearly nude gay pride protester. So, no, "that" truly is not what "this" is about. If we were talking about whether this discrimination is justified by perceived safety, then you are correct. But we are not. So you are not. If women were at the highest risk, and they were ruled out, it would be discriminatory. If politicians were the highest risk, and they were ruled out, that would be discriminatory. If the rich were... do you get it yet? I don't give a shit about whether you think that discrimination is justified. I'm trying to clarify that my original point is that it is extremely obviously discriminatory. I guess you just don't want to consider yourself as a discriminating individual. Not my problem. But it is what it is.

Should have done this before, but here is the definition:

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

NOTE that in this case, even though the action involves a class, it is based on individual considerations, that is, evidence that particular actions present more of a risk.

Look, this whole thing started with pimpdave insisting there is some huge homosexual conspiracy that is endangering the blood supply. That is just false. On the other hand, the position of others that this is arbitrary and unwarranted discrimination is just wrong.

It is not arbitrary, and I think it's warranted, but I don't expect to convince you of that. If you want to discuss that, then you picked a fight with the wrong person.

The evidence or lack of is key to whether it is discrimination or not. It is part of the definition of the term. The word "discrimination" is heavily weighted toward negativity. It does have another definition, as in "a person of discriminating tastes", but that is not the use above.

There is already too much blurring of definitions, slurring of meanings until what used to be true 30 years ago is now considered flat false. I see that entire trend as negative and will always oppose it. When things are based on specific, legitimate reasons, then it is not discrimination, even if it happens that a particular class is included. ALSO, the fact that the limit is very specific --(here against blood donation, but not other activities) is another reason its not really discrimination.

have no issue with education. It is ok to have sex with a condom with someone that has AIDS. Much better than without. It's best to know it's not perfect, sure, but taking one issue out of a myriad, and labeling it as THE ONLY REAL ISSUE is misleading, distracting, and completely false.

Yes, and no... The reason it is not is because this attitude is, even today, still common within the homosexual community.

There are so many issues; it's definitely unfair to promote only one at the expense of all the others. It's important, sure, but don't trivialize other issues just because one particular problem is a big deal. They all are, and, here on this forum, we obviously have plenty of time to talk about a lot of issues. If you're only interested in that one, then you were mistaken about accosting me over discrimination.[/quote]
HUH??? I am "concentrating" on this issue here because the topic of debate here is whether homosexuals are being dicriminated against AND whether there is a large movement of homosexuals that is impeding the blood services. I myself have pointed out the many other issues... both that many other groups are excluded, also based on evidence AND that there are reasons for a decline in blood availability, but that a homosexual boycott is just not high on the list of reasons. I also stated this is information I know because of my involvement with the American Red Cross. Its not a side, esoteric issue for me. I DO have issues with the Red Cross, but they are not part of the discussion here.

Per the other... It is telling when Skittles specifically comes in and says "hey, we are safe".. "we use condoms". And, sadly, while many homosexuals are much more educated than that, this lack of information is part of a whole trend of not educating fully on sexual matters in many areas. BUT.. that is yet another set of topics. That is also why AIDS is spreading in certain other groups more quickly now than it was. (yet more topics)

[Neoteny]

I am not trying to support any premise other than the fact that the policy is discriminatory, which is what justifies concern from the homosexual community. I have, repeatedly, typed this at you over my last several posts, and it has bounced off your comprehension like a quarter off the firm buttocks of a nearly nude gay pride protester. So, no, "that" truly is not what "this" is about. If we were talking about whether this discrimination is justified by perceived safety, then you are correct. But we are not. So you are not. If women were at the highest risk, and they were ruled out, it would be discriminatory. If politicians were the highest risk, and they were ruled out, that would be discriminatory. If the rich were... do you get it yet? I don't give a shit about whether you think that discrimination is justified. I'm trying to clarify that my original point is that it is extremely obviously discriminatory. I guess you just don't want to consider yourself as a discriminating individual. Not my problem. But it is what it is.

Should have done this before, but here is the definition:

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

NOTE that in this case, even though the action involves a class, it is based on individual considerations, that is, evidence that particular actions present more of a risk.

I have now noted that you think sexuality and the pursuit of a healthy sexual relationship in homosexuals is an individual consideration and not a basic human need. That's a pretty common concept from a religious standpoint, so I don't know if that's your problem or what. I hope I don't need to remind you that sex is a biological, psychological, and sociological function, and that these add up to one of the most basic of human interactions which facilitates bonding and quality of life. To deny someone anything based only on the directionality of this relationship is basing that on class, and not on individual consideration. Also, I don't see anywhere in your definition "does not apply if there is a REAL reason to discriminate."

It is not arbitrary, and I think it's warranted, but I don't expect to convince you of that. If you want to discuss that, then you picked a fight with the wrong person.

The evidence or lack of is key to whether it is discrimination or not. It is part of the definition of the term. The word "discrimination" is heavily weighted toward negativity...

...

...When things are based on specific, legitimate reasons, then it is not discrimination, even if it happens that a particular class is included. ALSO, the fact that the limit is very specific --(here against blood donation, but not other activities) is another reason its not really discrimination.

You are completely making shit up now. None of this follows from the definition you provided or any other logical train. This leads me nowhere other than that you are justifying this post hoc. You have repeatedly asserted that legitimate reasons to remove an entire category of people automatically makes it not discriminatory. This is untrue. It might make the discrimination legitimate, but it doesn't magic away the discrimination. How can you possibly justify this?

There are so many issues; it's definitely unfair to promote only one at the expense of all the others. It's important, sure, but don't trivialize other issues just because one particular problem is a big deal. They all are, and, here on this forum, we obviously have plenty of time to talk about a lot of issues. If you're only interested in that one, then you were mistaken about accosting me over discrimination.

HUH??? I am "concentrating" on this issue here because the topic of debate here is whether homosexuals are being dicriminated against AND whether there is a large movement of homosexuals that is impeding the blood services. I myself have pointed out the many other issues... both that many other groups are excluded, also based on evidence AND that there are reasons for a decline in blood availability, but that a homosexual boycott is just not high on the list of reasons. I also stated this is information I know because of my involvement with the American Red Cross. Its not a side, esoteric issue for me. I DO have issues with the Red Cross, but they are not part of the discussion here.

Per the other... It is telling when Skittles specifically comes in and says "hey, we are safe".. "we use condoms". And, sadly, while many homosexuals are much more educated than that, this lack of information is part of a whole trend of not educating fully on sexual matters in many areas. BUT.. that is yet another set of topics. That is also why AIDS is spreading in certain other groups more quickly now than it was. (yet more topics)

Perhaps I should be more specific. Again, I have argued one main point in this thread. I have stuck to it like Richard Simmons' shorts to his junks. Meantime, you have dodged that point and lectured me on sex ed. I have developmental, ultrastructural, cellular, anotomical, physiological, psychological, sociological, and pathogenic awarenesses of sex. I was forced to attend several colloquia in high school and college demonstrating and illustrating how and why my penis will probably fall off if I have sex. I sometimes have sex with my wife. Before my wife, I had happy, healthy sexual relationships. I've learned more than I need to know about bears and handkerchiefs from my gay friends. I appreciate your concerns, but they are so far beyond what I really want from you; all I said was that they test all blood, so cost is not as much of an issue on that front. Please talk about these things. It's wonderful that you want to educate on these topics. It's a good thing.

Please, for the love of fat, hairy gay men everywhere, can you just explain to me how the exclusion of an entire category of humans due to the undertaking of an important, if not essential, biological function is not discriminatory.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thus, the saga continues.

Wake me up when we hit page 25.

[Neoteny]

It won't get that far. I'll get bored before then.

[Woodruff]

But every now and then when we discuss something she fixates on a concept completely unrelated to my argument, and I have to play whack-a-mole with whatever idea she has latched onto, while trying to drag her back to the things I'm actually saying.

What a beautiful analogy.

Again, I have argued one main point in this thread. I have stuck to it like Richard Simmons' shorts to his junk.

NO MORE ANALOGIES!!!!

[Neoteny]

Why is it that I notice comma errors after people quote them?

[barackattack]

1 - someone who has been charged with possession of child porn is more likely to be a physical danger to children than someone who has not.
2 - all people who have been caught with child porn are banned from working in schools.
3 - child pornographers picket schools until this discrimination is overturned.

The rate of HIV infection is higher amongst gay people than heterosexuals.

[Neoteny]

:facepalm:

[Symmetry]

1 - someone who has been charged with possession of child porn is more likely to be a physical danger to children than someone who has not.
2 - all people who have been caught with child porn are banned from working in schools.
3 - child pornographers picket schools until this discrimination is overturned.

The rate of HIV infection is higher amongst gay people than heterosexuals.

Why the obsession with child porn BA? It's like you can't separate the idea of homosexuality from threats to kids. As if one follows on to another in your mind. Like paedophilia is the same as homosexuality, so much so that they can be easily added to together in your posts.

What makes you associate them so casually?

[PLAYER57832]

I have now noted that you think sexuality and the pursuit of a healthy sexual relationship in homosexuals is an individual consideration and not a basic human need.

Not only is that absolutely not anything I even hinted at above, its a pretty sleezy assertion given the number of times I have said exactly the opposite here in this forum. This debate is over the term discrimination, not anything else.

can you just explain to me how the exclusion of an entire category of humans due to the undertaking of an important, if not essential, biological function is not discriminatory.

Here you go, again:

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

The key is "individual merit". If someone refuses to rent a room to a homosexual because they "might have AIDS" that IS discrimination. It is discrimination because even if they did, there is not a high likelihood of transmission. it is not based on any real attribute of that person., just imagined ideas. If that person had obvious, open sores or some such.. that is a tad different.

In this case, the American Red Cross really does not "care" what a person does in their personal life. However, if those actitivities mean that their blood presents a much greater risk of diseases (and not, HIV is not the only concern here!), then banning folks who participate in that activity is not discriminatory, becuase it is based on the fact that they do present a greater risk, not that they belong to a particular group.

Just because the group is homosexual males instead of those who have been to Africa or who have engaged in some other activities doesn't mean its suddenly discrimination. That this particular prohibition hits a larger segment of the population is unfortunate, but for now, restricting them has been deemed the best way to protect the blood supply.

In other words, the rule IS based on "individual considerations" -- engaging in a very specific activity. That it also involves a whole group is essentially cooincidental.

AND.. the Red Cross does mince words about the safety of the blood supply. The supply is relatively safe. It is so safe , in part, because people who have engaged in various activities that are risky are asked not to donate.

[Skittles!]

Hey... Player... serious question.. do you get off to arguing? You've been doing it here for years now, and I just think your long winded posts and then the period at the end is just signifying that you just creamed all over your PC.

Just kidding, carry on.

[Neoteny]

Not only is that absolutely not anything I even hinted at above, its a pretty sleezy assertion given the number of times I have said exactly the opposite here in this forum. This debate is over the term discrimination, not anything else.

Here you go, again:

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

The key is "individual merit". If someone refuses to rent a room to a black person because they "might have a low IQ" that IS discrimination. It is discrimination because even if they did, there is not a high likelihood of being unintelligent. it is not based on any real attribute of that person., just imagined ideas. If that person had obvious, poor test scores or some such.. that is a tad different.

In this case, the federal government really does not "care" what a person does in their personal life. However, if those actitivities mean that their brain presents a much greater risk of lower intelligence (and not, IQ is not the only concern here!), then banning folks who participate in that activity is not discriminatory, becuase it is based on the fact that they do present a greater risk, not that they belong to a particular group.

Just because the group is black people instead of those who dropped out of school or who have engaged in some other activities doesn't mean its suddenly discrimination. That this particular prohibition hits a larger segment of the population is unfortunate, but for now, restricting them has been deemed the best way to protect the voting population.

In other words, the rule IS based on "individual considerations" -- engaging in a very specific activity. That it also involves a whole group is essentially cooincidental.

AND.. the government does mince words about the results of the IQ tests. The results are relatively high. They are so high , in part, because people who have engaged in various activities that are risky are asked not to vote.

This is what pimpdave would call a "valid comparison." It has its flaws, but it amused me enough that I have to leave it that way.

Ok, I know you know that sex is a natural function that should not be stigmatized. I know you know that homosexuals are not baby-eating monster that will stop at nothing to corrupt our marriages and blood supply.

What I don't understand is how you fail to link healthy sexual activity to inherent sexuality. You keep calling it risky behavior. I call it being a homosexual. People will have sex. Gay men will have sex with other gay men. Sex is something most people do. MSM is, by your definition and the FDA's, inherently risky behavior. Fine. It is also inherently homosexual. So discriminating against MSM is discriminating against homosexuals as much as it is risky behavior. Gay sex is pretty much the only sex gay men have. And if you consider sexuality to be an inherent trait (genetic or otherwise), then you have to concede discrimination. You can think it's appropriate, but it is not suddenly not discrimination because a) the policy does not explicitly target gay men (just like voter testing [or, now, ID policies] did not explicitly target black men), or b) because this discrimination is based on factual data. Any judgment on an individual based on real or perceived characteristics of the population of which that individual is a member is discriminatory. That's your definition. That's why it is suddenly discrimination. Full stop. AIDS is most common in homosexuals (men that have sex with men), therefore this homosexual cannot donate blood. Just because sex is an activity that can be avoided does not prevent this policy from being discriminatory. It's also not exactly coincidental that those that participate in gaysex tend to be gay.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this. The policy is based on an observation of an entire population, and is applied individually. For drug users, there is no inherent basis to their exclusion. For homosexuals, there is.

[PLAYER57832]

[ I don't know how many different ways I can say this. The policy is based on an observation of an entire population, and is applied individually. For drug users, there is no inherent basis to their exclusion. For homosexuals, there is.

Most of what you wrote is irrelevant idiocy. That is, idiocy to think it has anything to do with anything I said or that I actually think most of what you try to accuse me of thinking.

The ONLY point here is over the term "discrimination". It is a technicality. However, the fact that this behavior is part of the definition of the group "homosexuals" is irrelevant. It is the individual behavior that is being proscribed here (though, technically, again it isn't becuase sexuality and practice of sexuality are just 2 different things).

Now, as noted above, whether that is still a legitimate stance, given the increase of AIDS is another question. But, really, the question is if the danger in the whole population is enough that something else has to be done for ALL blood, not simply should this prohibition be removed from homosexuals.

That sexual action is a part of sexual identity in adults is irrelevant. That this action involves most of the group identifying themselves as homosexual males is irrelevant. WHO they are is not being judged, it is whether they engage in risky behavior.

You want to claim that because this behavior is part of the definition for that group, it constitutes discrimination, but it doesn't, becuase it is the action itself, and because it is based on evidence of harm, not some arbitrary grouping or distinction that makes the Red Cross say these people shoud refrain.

PS, just to clarify, if the situation were reversed and there was a lower risk of some disease transmission through homosexual sex, then I would still say it is not discrimination. As a practical matter, the numbers of heterosexuals are such that this would just shut down blood services or force an entirely different way of doing things.

I believe your real point is that the American Red Cross is being negligent in relying on these prohibitions instead of pure testing for safety, but as you ought to be well aware, no testing regime yet developed is 100%.

[Neoteny]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, and are unable to think past your own biases. We've run against this before. I'm going to chalk that up to you believing in the veracity of the Bible. People like you have this thing with sex that makes reasonable discussion impossible. Since this is such a high risk population, I will no longer be debating with people possesssing ideologies originating from the bronze age, even if you have opinions on sex that qualify as post-medieval. Keep in mind that I'm not discriminating against Christians, I'm just not accepting the positions of those who take the Bible as an authority as valid. The fact that the majority of Christians are Bible-believers, or vice versa, is purely coincidental.

[barackattack]

No one's stopping you from abstaining from sex in order to give blood. Your inability to resist your animal urges is not society's fault.

[Neoteny]

Your complete lack of a capacity for perspective is amusing.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

Sometimes the facts of the world are not nice, but that is how it is. And you can stop with this "player just doesn't understand what homosexuality is" garbage. I have argued those points plenty. All that matters is the data. When there is no data specifying harm, then it becomes discrimination. But placing restrictions based on the DATA, based on EVIDENCE OF HARM means it is not discrimination, even if that prohibition does impact a specific class of people.

Again.. the Red Cross could care less what groups give blood. They only care to eliminate those people who exhibit behaviors or actions that put the blood they might give at risk. IF that also means they eliminate a group, it is cooincidence, not intent and therefore not discrimination.

HIt your head all you want... but changing dictionary definitions to make people feel better is a mistake when it causes other people harm.

[PLAYER57832]

No one's stopping you from abstaining from sex in order to give blood. Your inability to resist your animal urges is not society's fault.

This is what Neoteny wants to pretend I am saying, but it is completely irrelevant to my point.

[Neoteny]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. The definition you provided, and all other definitions of discrimination, do not include a clause saying it's not discrimination if the exclusion is based on demonstrable fact. This is the most frustrating part of this discussion. You accuse me of playing with words for political correctness (I'm amused to see you use that like a four letter word), while you are completely making shit up to justify your opinion. Show me a definition, or convince me otherwise, that says excluding a group for a demonstrably positive reason is not discriminatory.

Sometimes the facts of the world are not nice, but that is how it is. And you can stop with this "player just doesn't understand what homosexuality is" garbage. I have argued those points plenty. All that matters is the data. When there is no data specifying harm, then it becomes discrimination. But placing restrictions based on the DATA, based on EVIDENCE OF HARM means it is not discrimination, even if that prohibition does impact a specific class of people.

A repeat of your made-up definition with a condescending lecture from grandma. Nice. If it is indeed discriminatory, then the EVIDENCE OF HARM goes both ways, but you're too blinkered to even consider it. Instead, you'll continue to justify your bigotry (because I am now certain that this is what we are dealing with) with imaginative dictionary entries.

Again.. the Red Cross could care less what groups give blood. They only care to eliminate those people who exhibit behaviors or actions that put the blood they might give at risk. IF that also means they eliminate a group, it is cooincidence, not intent and therefore not discrimination.

"Intent?" This dictionary entry you're making up is getting longer and longer. So if I enact a policy that accidently excludes an entire classification of people (women, perhaps), it's not discriminatory? Your privilege is showing.

HIt your head all you want... but changing dictionary definitions to make people feel better is a mistake when it causes other people harm.

I see you've learned something from the conservatives on this site: dodging tough questions by lamenting the wishy-washy liberals is distinctly NightStrikian. It comes down to this: it is either right or wrong, and, if it is wrong, the fact that changing it may cause harm doesn't make it right. It means we have to consider tough questions about whether it's worth it. You're right, life isn't always nice.

But your positions on this are absurd. Discrimination can be unintentional and justifiable. Saying otherwise is simply a lie.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

So, according to your logic, if the denial of someone or some group to a good or service is based on true or legitimate reasons, then it is not discrimination?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

So, according to your logic, if the denial of someone or some group to a good or service is based on true or legitimate reasons, then it is not discrimination?

Close. The tricky part is that too often harm is insinuated when there is none really OR when other steps could readily be taken. (for example, seperate bunks for men and women, for example) The harm must be significant, so that eliminating the harm is a truly valid concern.

So, for a hotel to deny a homosexual couple a room becuase they might have AIDS is discrimination. For the American Red Cross to specifically ask people to take themselves out of the donation pool because there is no way to fully and completely test blood with low levels of pathogen.. is not discrimination. Whether it is the correct decision or not is another question, but it is not discrimination.

I realize, have said all along, that this is splitting hairs. However, all this blambast that Neoteny wants to bring in about my somehow not understanding homosexuality and such is just garbage.

Another example is that even though gender discrimination is illegal, personal care homes and some other facilities are allowed to hire just men or just women for specific positions. But that gets off topic.