('Cept, that, yknow, I'm gay, so can't really have children =P)
? Your country against that or something? Adoption, artificial insemination, not-so-artificial insemination (ewwww), and other options exist. Gay couples can certainly have children, and there is even the possibility of one parent being blood related to those children.
I believe stem cell research might even find a way to create egg cells from a male's cells or sperm cells from a female's cells. Women pairings could only have female viable offspring (both partners lacking a Y chromosome) while 1/4 of all male-male offspring would be non-viable (YY). YAY SCIENCE!
Yes, but then it's not really my child. I can treat and think of it as such, but saying I would be unable to have children is still accurate.
not-so-artificial insemination (ewwww)
Huh?
artificial insemination (...) Gay couples can certainly have children, and there is even the possibility of one parent being blood related to those children.
Well yeah, one of us, but then it wouldn't be our child, and I wouldn't want that.
Besides, there's a mountain of reasons it wouldn't be fair to the child to be raised under those circumstances.
=O Brian! You sending me to Wiki just now made me discover that I'm a criminal! I'm not allowed to give blood, due to being homosexual. That's bullsh-- Maybe I should email the hospital and tell them not to use my blood...?
I believe stem cell research might even find a way to create egg cells from a male's cells or sperm cells from a female's cells. Women pairings could only have female viable offspring (both partners lacking a Y chromosome) while 1/4 of all male-male offspring would be non-viable (YY). YAY SCIENCE!
I'm pretty sure that the latter is already possible. But don't quote me on that.
How is not wanting to infect someone in need of blood with HIV bullshit? The number of homosexuals with HIV is significantly larger than heterosexuals, so much so, that it's easier to just deny blood from homosexuals instead of testing the small percentage of homosexuals that want to donate blood first for HIV. No bullshit, nothing personal, just practical convenience.
How is not wanting to infect someone in need of blood with HIV bullshit? The number of homosexuals with HIV is significantly larger than heterosexuals, so much so, that it's easier to just deny blood from homosexuals instead of testing the small percentage of homosexuals that want to donate blood first for HIV. No bullshit, nothing personal, just practical convenience.
They already test all the blood they receive for HIV, among other things. Not in all countries, admittedly, but the countries that don't are mostly the developing world, and even of those small few, it's only that they test the majority of the blood received, not all of it. So, while I can see your point, your argument is way off - they already do more than what you claim would be more inconvenient than just banning homosexuals.
So, while I can see your point, your argument is way off
Wouldn't surprise me. I took it from memory when tired so yeah. It was something with STDs and the point being: there's a non-bullshit reason as to why it is/was easier to just not accept blood from homosexuals.
Wouldn't surprise me. I took it from memory when tired so yeah. It was something with STDs and a non-bullshit reason as to why it is/was easier to just not accept blood from homosexuals.
Yeah, that's cool. It would be a good reason, if they didn't already do more than what is contained within the argument. Anyone with a tattoo or who has traveled in the last five years can't donate here, either.
Home Visits And Other 'Secrets Of The FBI'. This amused me when I listened to this on my commute. Just hearing of some of the things the tact ops people do in the FBI to cover themselves up is quite brilliant.
Comments
I am gonna shed some manly tears now, bye :O
I believe stem cell research might even find a way to create egg cells from a male's cells or sperm cells from a female's cells. Women pairings could only have female viable offspring (both partners lacking a Y chromosome) while 1/4 of all male-male offspring would be non-viable (YY). YAY SCIENCE!
Besides, there's a mountain of reasons it wouldn't be fair to the child to be raised under those circumstances.
>manly tears
NOPE.wmv How is not wanting to infect someone in need of blood with HIV bullshit? The number of homosexuals with HIV is significantly larger than heterosexuals, so much so, that it's easier to just deny blood from homosexuals instead of testing the small percentage of homosexuals that want to donate blood first for HIV. No bullshit, nothing personal, just practical convenience.
So, while I can see your point, your argument is way off - they already do more than what you claim would be more inconvenient than just banning homosexuals.
I must have read this at some point and forgot. I'm not some kind of magical science prediction machine.
I can't remember if this has been posted before. If it has, oh well.
"No, I don't want to die, no!" lolololol!