LGBTQ+ Rights and America

Never mind.

edited 11th Aug '14 12:46:13 PM by Morgikit

I reserve judgement until I see Philadelphia's Child protection department account of events.

Seems a bit silly to reserve judgement when she's basically admitted to it.

For the first time in nearly fourteen months, a state’s ban on same-sex marriage has withstood a constitutional challenge in court. A state judge in Tennessee ruled last week that “neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state’s responsibility.”

All that changes is that:

• this judge specifically will look like a dick
• this time it will be the gay side that appeals,

That is not quite an accurate description of the article. His reasoning is that the Windsor precedent doesn't apply to states. And reading Windsor's Wikipedia page, he's right - that precedent applies only to federal law in states which already allow same-sex marriage.

Actually from my understanding of the US's legal system that pretty much guarantees that this is going to the Supreme Court at some point. Resolving conflicting opinions in lower courts is one of their jobs.

Transgender teen told she can't come to school as girl

http://www.turnto10.com/story/26303320/gay-boys-rejected-organ-donation-reveals-outdated-fda-regulation

I knew sexually active gay men weren't allowed to be blood donors, but I had no idea about some stipulations with organ donations.

What hurts is they took his lungs, heart, liver, and kidneys but they wouldn't take his eyes? They took the organs that would be most susceptible to carrying any disease, but they didn't take the eyes on the chance he may have been sexually active...

Does anyone know where we are on getting this crap redetermined? I can't find anything substantial on the other side of my work's firewall.

I can understand if you're a grown man who was really active during the 70s or 80s being double tested or having that donation run through one more gambit just to be certain. But I don't see why they have to be banned altogether, especially younger people who have been properly educated and are safe and clean. If anything, we need them to donate more so hopefully we can catch people who may think they're healthy and just not be showing anything yet.

Methinks that these folks need to update their regs a bit faster. And in view of this and other data on HIV presence in the body, I want to ask what exactly whoever made up that regulation had drunk.

Most were made in the late 80s and early 90s when people were contracting HIV/AIDS virus through things like blood transfusions.

It wasn't a massive amount of people who were infected like this, but enough fear mongering lead to a ban instead of making testing and treatment better.

To be fair, at the time we didn't have reliable methods of testing equally distributed across the country, so it would be possible for contamination to spread.

But this is the damn red cross in the year 2014. Most hospitals adhere to international red cross standards because they not only want to be safe, but they want the red cross's help and if you don't adhere to their standards, you don't get their grants, extra aid, or their blood.

So reform is slow growing but if the red cross changes their standards, that would open the door for a domino of other medical facilities to change theirs by default.

I imagine any attempt to update regulations to fit reality would result in backlash and hostility from those who benefit from the current system (or think they do at least). It's just like DADT. When people see LGBT people making positive contribution to society, it's harder to demonize them.

Honestly I think it's a matter of more culpability.

If you [the red cross] decide to relax health standards and there is a HIV outbreak, you're opening yourself up to litigation even if it was cause by unrelated factors.

I'm sure there's some social prejudice involved but I think overcautiousness to the point is the gutlessness is the main culprit.

But we don't have totally reliable tests even in 2014. A asymptomatic donor is still going to be an infection risk before detection. Saying we need more younger people people for donation for the possible added benefit of early detection strikes me as a rather underhanded and irresponsible tact considering that.

edited 19th Aug '14 8:04:25 AM by joeyjojo

For one, AIDS has been an epidemic since the 80s. Second, you can just as easily get it from contaminated blood from a heterosexual. Odds are there are more straight people with the virus than gay people because there are more straight people period. So why pretend only gay men are carriers? It does not make anyone safer. In fact, it probably has killed many ignorant people who thought they were immune.

edited 19th Aug '14 8:10:16 AM by Morgikit

Every major HIV test has a sensitivity rating between 92-99% The modern pregnancy test is just now getting the same figures.

85,000 deaths from HIV since the beginning of records were contracted from heterosexual sex, over 4000 alone came from 2010.

Most young people with HIV were born with it, not acquired it. Meaning that they couldn't help it. And they would know from birth they have it.

A person can begin to donate blood from age 16 with parental consent and 17 without it in some places. There is no evidence to show that it would be more trouble to allow gay men between 16 and 35 to give blood or donate all of their organs. I understand the concern of men older than that, but if they can prove themselves HIV free, then their blood is just as red as everyone else's and just as needed as everyone else's.

Many expert medical groups and reputable human rights groups have all given their seal of approval on opening the door to gay and bisexual donations.

this image is one of my favorites.◊

Florida's SSM ban just got ruled unconstitutional, though the judge stayed his own order pending appeal by the state.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/justice/florida-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

That's 19 federal courts that have come to the same conclusion.

Welp, once again, Queue Queen

edited 22nd Aug '14 5:00:19 PM by tryrar

Obamacare helping out trans people. So there's another reason for conservatives to hate it.

Michael Sam cut from Rams. But from all accounts he was given a fair shot and the parting is amicable.

He wasn't quite ready for prime time from a playing standpoint. That's okay. It happens often.

Bible Belt leads nation in consumption of gay porn.

But of course it does.

Oi vey the comments.

"What's that? 'Shemale' is a transphobic slur? I think I'll use it exclusively to describe trans women from now on because being an asshole is my gawd-given right." You go right ahead there, Ru Paul.

@Ach And Russia leads the world in consumption of anal sex porn!

Not necessarily gay, but it's still a subversion of that old Russian orthodoxy.

The more you suppress it, the more it comes out in (ahem) back channels.

After all the talk of same-sex marriage, I found this rather interesting article about discrimination toward the UN-married.

A notable point is that single people are looked over for married people in things like jobs, home renting, and auto insurance. Also, most people apparently look down on singles as "immature, insecure, self-centered, unhappy, lonely, and ugly."

It's probably those old feelings..."School! Marriage! Babies! School! Marriage! Babies! All in that order! Always and forever!"