Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
But if the worry is that it's more common amongst people who have had anal relations, why a lifetime ban? Why not just a "no donations if you've had bum sex with X months" rule?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranActually, Euo, you couldn't donate blood if you tried — here in England and in several other countries there is a lifetime ban on blood donation if one ever has CFS/ME
. That was due to an older scare that it was linked to another virus, which has proven false, but because we still know so little about CFS and because it can persist for so long, I do support the ban, sad though it is.
Anyway, it isn't gay men that are banned but "men who have sex with men", though that obviously has a lot of overlap with gay men. This is because anal sex has higher risks of disease transmission than vaginal sex (lesbian sex is safest, woo!), and because HIV was prevalent among gay men and even thought to be unique to or caused by them. Back then, when there was little or no good testing, a ban of some kind for MS Ms — particularly if promiscuous — wasn't actually a bad idea, although unfortunately gay men who practiced safe sex in long-term monogamous relationships were also hit.
Nowadays, of course, we are able to test blood for HIV quite accurately, and the losses being made through not allowing MS Ms to donate are therefore greater than the losses which might be made through allowing them to donate and potentially getting a higher proportion of people with HIV offering to donate (which would lead to proportionally more cases of false negatives, if those happen, but that number would still be very small because of how good testing is).
edited 14th Jul '13 3:07:00 AM by Telcontar
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.Australia's donation laws cover more than anal:
Oral or anal sex with another man, even ‘safer sex’ using a condom (if you are a man)
Sex with a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (if you are a woman)
That said, men-who-have-sex-with-men are far more likely to be HIV positive than the rest of the (Australian) population, which fucking scares me to death, honestly.
edited 14th Jul '13 3:24:29 AM by Nicknacks
This post has been powered by avenging fury and a balanced diet.Sure. I'm still at the stage where I don't know what I want from intercourse, mostly because I've never really had much interaction with guys. These three guys checked me out at this sushi place today and all I could think about was how embarrassed I was having to squeeze past while they were blatantly staring at me, instead of being pleased that something like that happened. (Or maybe my fly was undone, I dunno.)
Yeah, so I guess my feelings are kind of reactionary, but only because of a lack of exposure/familiarity.
This post has been powered by avenging fury and a balanced diet.Well I guess most tropers are eligible then
edited 14th Jul '13 8:39:27 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidI recently gave blood and even as a woman, the questioning wasn't just that could I have had sex with a man who has had gay sex, but there were other questions about if I had anal or oral sex in general with any questionable partner or any partner who had been outside the country.
They're trying to get to the point and also get to the correct points. They have also added more countries, medications, and what not on the lifetime or limited bans.
I am anemic so I go to the Red Cross to have my blood checked and evaluated.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurThe solution to the threat of HIV is obvious. Clearly, the only way to remove the risk is to enstate a worldwide ban on sex for a few generations. A good seventy, hundred years from now, HIV should be completely eliminated!
This is an excellent plan with absolutely no dangerous side effects!
edited 15th Jul '13 7:42:12 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Or slightly plausibly, a limit to age difference between two sexual partners.
Though I think that's been tried and failed logistically. HIV would go away faster if old men stopped preying on younger gay men though.
DumboEh, old people and young people having sex probably isn't likely to go away any time soon. Old people want to sleep with young people because they're young and attractive, and young people want to sleep with old people because they're experienced and know what they're doing, and the young person can learn a lot from them.
If you make it illegal, they'll just keep doing it anyway. The only difference is that more and more people will get thrown in prison for it. While there absolutely should be some restrictions on how young a person can be to prevent child abuse, making age-gap restrictions will just ruin lives while protecting nobody.
Hell, even the laws we have now have a risk of doing that. If a 15-year-old girl lies about her age and claims to be 18 in order to get three 30-year-olds to sleep with her, all three of them will go to jail because the fact that she lied about the age is irrelevant, and the fact that she has a clear pattern of doing this is irrelevant, all three of those men are legally rapists.
edited 15th Jul '13 10:39:32 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm fairly sure that in that situation you could actually plead innocence due to a lack of mens rea
.
That is about the expectation of due diligence. Having private sex is properly treated differently than publishing a sex video.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Statutory rape laws are...I cannot remember the terminology, but it basically means that someone is always at fault. Whether you had a guilty mind and whether or not you were led to believe she was over the legal age is not taken into consideration. Legally, the only thing the courts will consider is, "Was the act of sex performed with a minor?" If the answer is yes, then everything else is irrelevant. Statutory rape is one of the laws that does not take mens rea under consideration at all.
My understanding of the logic behind it is that a minor is legally incapable of consenting at all, and is not responsible for their behavior because of their age. As an adult, the law expects you to be responsible and to know better, even if she said she was of legal age. In fact, even if the minor in question doesn't want to press charges, the law considers the minor to be too young to give informed consent, and so the state will press charges on the minor's behalf.
Basically: if you even so much as suspect s/he might be, then ID or GTFO.
EDIT: ...okay, knowing so much about this is making me self-conscious, so I want to explain that I actually did have a close scare with it when I was 21 - she was 17 claiming to be 19 - resulting in me researching it heavily.
edited 15th Jul '13 1:03:57 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Some places are more lenient in the charging.
In DC for example, the legal age is 16 with "close in age exemptions" of up to 4 years so you don't get insanity like 16 year olds being charged for having sex with who is 15 and whose birthday is only a couple months away.
So your relationship would have been totally legit here, even if the age of consent was 18.
To tie this back into LGBT issues: are states still allowed to set separate ages of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals? I think some state (I want to say California) had two different ages of consent once upon a time.

ugh, worst pagetopper ever.
edited 13th Jul '13 7:30:14 PM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"