Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

obplayer

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

To move slightly away from gay marriage for a minute, anybody working to try and get the ban from gay men donating blood lifted?

I just read this article (pertaining to the equivalent ban in the US) and it got me thinking.

The reality is that anal sex is vastly more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex.

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv

The analysis, based on the results of four studies, estimated the risk through receptive anal sex (receiving the penis into the anus, also known as bottoming) to be 1.4%. (This means that an average of one transmission occurred for every 71 exposures.) This risk was similar regardless of whether the receptive partner was a man or woman.
It estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

Gay men are much more likely to be infected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men

This makes MSM 60 times more likely to contract the virus than other men and 54 times more likely than women

People are entitled to take those risks themselves but not to put blood transfusions at risk.

Perhaps the question should be have you ever had anal sex with a man?

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

To move slightly away from gay marriage for a minute, anybody working to try and get the ban from gay men donating blood lifted?

I just read this article (pertaining to the equivalent ban in the US) and it got me thinking.

I just got a new tattoo and I can't give blood for 6 or 12 months. All about risk, or perceived risk. My tattooist is quite offended that he is consider a risk, given the hygiene protocols he is legally obliged to, and does genuinely, follow.

MrP

Brian Shanahan

obplayer wrote: »

The reality is that anal sex is vastly more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex.

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv

Gay men are much more likely to be infected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men

People are entitled to take those risks themselves but not to put blood transfusions at risk.

Perhaps the question should be have you ever had anal sex with a man?

If you actually read the links from the article, you'd see that the risk is no greater than for heterosexual couples who have sex. And furthermore the testing done on donated blood is so comprehensive the risk of infected blood being used in a transfusion is now miniscule.

Back in the 1970's the idea of banning gay men from donating blood was probably justified, because stds were far more prevalent amongst gay men then, but in this day and age with so much changed and the rates so equalised and the scrutiny of blood so much more stringent, keeping the policy begins to increasingly look like straight homophobia. The science simply doesn't support such a ban any longer.

MrPudding wrote: »

I just got a new tattoo and I can't give blood for 6 or 12 months. All about risk, or perceived risk. My tattooist is quite offended that he is consider a risk, given the hygiene protocols he is legally obliged to, and does genuinely, follow.

MrP

That's the same issue as with the gay ban. It has simply become a fear reaction. The evidence just doesn't stack up to a full outright ban, but because the perception of increased risk is still there the evidence is discarded.

obplayer

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If you actually read the links from the article, you'd see that the risk is no greater than for heterosexual couples who have sex. And furthermore the testing done on donated blood is so comprehensive the risk of infected blood being used in a transfusion is now miniscule.

Back in the 1970's the idea of banning gay men from donating blood was probably justified, because stds were far more prevalent amongst gay men then, but in this day and age with so much changed and the rates so equalised and the scrutiny of blood so much more stringent, keeping the policy begins to increasingly look like straight homophobia. The science simply doesn't support such a ban any longer.



That's the same issue as with the gay ban. It has simply become a fear reaction. The evidence just doesn't stack up to a full outright ban, but because the perception of increased risk is still there the evidence is discarded.

Receptive anal sex carries a much higher risk of HIV infection than receptive vaginal sex.
Research shows that the risk of HIV transmission from receptive anal sex is up to 18 times higher than from receptive vaginal sex.

If you mean heterosexual couples who have anal sex then you are correct but we still have the figure that...

This makes MSM 60 times more likely to contract the virus than other men and 54 times more likely than women

The fact that men who have sex with men are far more likely to be infected, and they are, is enough to easily justify the ban. You do not have a right to give blood. You may possibly have a duty to do so provided your blood is acceptable but you do not have a right.

As for the science not supporting a ban I will trust the medical authorities and the Blood Transfusion Service to make that decision, as I said above it is not a right to give blood.

Peregrinus

It's not as though gay men are being singled out here.

“Are you a man who's had sex with men?” is not the only thing that prospective donors get asked. You’ll also be asked about tattoos and body piercings, whether you’ve previously had a blood transfusion yourself (and if so where and when), how much time you spent in the UK between 1980 and 1986, what countries you have travelled to in the past month, whether you’ve been in the tropics in the past twelve months, whether you’re on certain medications, whether you have ever spend more than a month in South/Central America, whether your mother was born there, whether you’ve ever injected (or been injected with) non-prescribed drugs, whether you’ve ever had sex in return for drugs or money, whether you, your partner or members of your household have HIV/AIDS, Hep B or Hep C, whether you’ve had sex with anyone who has HIV/AIDS, with anyone who has ever given money or drugs for sex, with anyone who’s ever had sex in Africa, South-East Asia or other places where HIV/AIDS is common, with an intravenous drug user, with a haemophiliac, with a man who’s had sex with men, whether you’ve ever been in prison, whether you’ve ever snorted cocaine. And a lot more besides.

So, there’s no truth to the suggestiont that gay men (or men likely to be gay) are being singled out here. The IBTS is exhaustive in its enquiries about possible risk factors.

The question of blood safety is not a simply binary; we cannot categorise all prospective donors as either certainly safe or certainly unsafe; risk is a continuum.

It’s expensive to collect, store and process blood, and the obvious strategy is to collect, process and store enough blood to cope with foreseeable demand, plus a bit more, rather than to collect all the blood that’s offered. And, in selecting the blood to collect, it makes sense to select the blood with the lowest risk factor. Even if the risk factor associated with blood from a man who’s had sex with men is low, if someone else’s blood has a lower risk factor, I should take that other blood first. If there is enough blood from donors with lower risk factors than men who have sex with men, then there is no reason to collect blood from men who have sex with men (or from other donors with similar or higher risk factors).

Peregrinus

You are right to point me to the Tyra Hunter case.

However, it's worth pointing out that the proposed law here wouldn't have provided any defence in the Tyra Hunter case. It allows people to challenge the application of laws to them on the grounds that those laws "substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion". Hunter was denied adequate medical care because, once the medics discovered that she was transgender, they stereotyped her as an "anonymous, drug using, TG street person", and allowed their prejudice against such persons to affect the standard of care she received. That wasn't a religiously-based or religiously-justified stance. No claim was made that failing to care for Hunter was "the free exercise of religion".

Plus, it's worth pointing out that they Tyra Hunter case unfolded in DC in 1995, where there was already a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in place. A federal RFRA was passed by the Clinton administration in 1993 and is still in force; it applies to all agencies in the federal government and in federal territories (of which DC is one). SFAIK, the proposed Michigan law basically mirrors the federal law, but applies to agencies of the state government.

Links234

Peregrinus, I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison or say that the Tyra Hunter case was religiously motivated, just pointing out that there have been cases of paramedics refusing medical aid in the past.

Also, this is just lovely... Right-Wingers Want Constitutional Amendment Banning Trans People

Delirium

Gay marriage law comes into effect in Scotland

Scotland's new law on same-sex marriages has come into effect.

Existing civil partnerships can now be converted to a marriage and other same-sex couples can give notice of their intention to wed.

The new legislation was used for the first time shortly after midnight when one couple upgraded their civil partnership at the British consulate in Sydney.

The first gay weddings in Scotland will take place on Hogmanay.

Because Australia is 11 hours ahead, Douglas Pretsell, from Edinburgh, and Peter Gloster, from Melbourne, completed the paperwork to formalise their marriage hours before registrars open for business in Scotland.

The couple have been together for seven years and had their civil partnership in August 2010 at Fenton Tower in North Berwick, East Lothian.

MrPudding

SW wrote: »

Gay marriage law comes into effect in Scotland

And the world spins on...

MrP

Delirium

and the referendum date has been announced.

The same-sex marriage referendum will take place next May

THE REFERENDUM ON same-sex marriage will take place in May of next year.

The Cabinet reached agreement this morning on holding the referendum to legalise same-sex marriage in Ireland next year with early May, possibly the first week of the month, identified as a possible period when the vote could take place.

A referendum on lowering the age at which citizen can run for president from 35 to 21 could also be held on the same day along with the by-election in Carlow-Kilkenny to fill the seat vacated by new EU Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan.

Polls have found increasing support for same-sex marriage but some in government, which will be advocating a Yes vote, believes the gap will narrow in any referendum campaign.

A recent Ipsos MRBI poll for the Irish Times found that 71 per cent say they will vote Yes in the vote while 17% will vote No. Nine per cent had no opinion and three per cent refused to respond.

eviltwin

SW wrote: »

and the referendum date has been announced.

The same-sex marriage referendum will take place next May

Finally!

Brian Shanahan

eviltwin wrote: »

Finally!

Yay! Another day's work as a polling clerk for me! Now all I need is for the government to collapse.

aloyisious

I was wondering if the fall of a gov't would mean the promise of a referendum may lapse before it's held? Re Peregrinus's post on blood-donation disqualifications, people on Warfarin (blood-thinner) are barred from donating.

Pro Hoc Vice

aloyisious wrote: »

I was wondering if the fall of a gov't would mean the promise of a referendum may lapse before it's held? Re Peregrinus's post on blood-donation disqualifications, people on Warfarin (blood-thinner) are barred from donating.

People on warfarin could bleed to death if they gave blood, it's rat poison that thins the blood and stops cloting, so very valid reason for the ban.

The Black Oil

I wonder what the No posters will be like. 'Vote No. Children Matter. Vote No. Protect the Family', etc.

efb

obplayer wrote: »

The reality is that anal sex is vastly more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex.

http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv

Gay men are much more likely to be infected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_men_who_have_sex_with_men

People are entitled to take those risks themselves but not to put blood transfusions at risk.

Perhaps the question should be have you ever had anal sex with a man?

that is the question isn't it?

efb

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/gay-hero-of-sydney-hostag_b_6332038.html

lazygal

The Black Oil wrote: »

I wonder what the No posters will be like. 'Vote No. Children Matter. Vote No. Protect the Family', etc.

Vote No. So we can make more funny for all the wrong reasons videos showing why we hate equality.

marienbad

They might resurrect the best slogan in the divorce campaigns - 'if you don't know,vote no'

lazygal

marienbad wrote: »

They might resurrect the best slogan in the divorce campaigns - 'if you don't know,vote no'

Divorce-don't you regret voting yes to damaging marriage?
Hello Gay Marriage, bye bye children's right to mammies and daddies like Anne and Barry had.

Nodin

marienbad wrote: »

They might resurrect the best slogan in the divorce campaigns - 'if you don't know,vote no'

....that was won by the wife swapping sodomites, I seem to recall.

Peregrinus

Nodin wrote: »

....that was won by the wife swapping sodomites, I seem to recall.

It was.

But despite the fact that the slogan didn't secure a victory in the campaign it was, all things considered, not a bad slogan. It was, after all, an appeal to ignorance. And, in that campaign, as in the next one, ignorance is probably the 'no' side's strongest card. Expect them to play it firmly and repeatedly.

The Black Oil

Suppose we'll hear the floodgates argument as well.

Daith

The Black Oil wrote: »

Suppose we'll hear the floodgates argument as well.

Of course we will, but surely a referendum is a barrier to these "floodgates"?

Going Strong

The Black Oil wrote: »

Suppose we'll hear the floodgates argument as well.

Nothing wrong with opening the floodgates you know. I'm all set to marry my cat so we can tie up all the loose ends nice and legal like.

seamus

The Black Oil wrote: »

I wonder what the No posters will be like. 'Vote No. Children Matter. Vote No. Protect the Family', etc.

There are very few ways you can play the anti-equality card without coming across as a big dirty bigot or straight out accusing gay men of being paedophiles.

I reckon they'll mostly try to spin it on the "protecting" marriage and family nonsense. Or like one previous poster who's entire reasoning was that it was "redefining" the meaning of a word and therefore gay people should have their own word for marriage.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was.

But despite the fact that the slogan didn't secure a victory in the campaign it was, all things considered, not a bad slogan. It was, after all, an appeal to ignorance. And, in that campaign, as in the next one, ignorance is probably the 'no' side's strongest card. Expect them to play it firmly and repeatedly.

It wasn't a slogan in the campaign at all. It was said during the count of ballot papers by a woman who was behind the no campaign.

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was.

But despite the fact that the slogan didn't secure a victory in the campaign it was, all things considered, not a bad slogan. It was, after all, an appeal to ignorance. And, in that campaign, as in the next one, ignorance is probably the 'no' side's strongest card. Expect them to play it firmly and repeatedly.

It wasn't a slogan in the campaign at all. It was said during the count of ballot papers by a woman who was behind the no campaign.

http://comeheretome.com/2012/07/29/una-bean-mhic-mhathuna-40-years-of-reactionary-politics/

Peregrinus

Sorry, we're getting confused. The slogan I was referring to was "If you're not sure, vote no", which was used in the divorce referendum. But, as Nodin pointed out, despite the appeal of that slogan (and I think it does have an appeal to the insecure) the wife-swapping sodomites carried the day. That epithet was probably Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna's most memorable legacy to Irish politics, and one born with pride - if not necessarily with complete accuracy - by those to whom it referred.

swampgas

marienbad wrote: »

They might resurrect the best slogan in the divorce campaigns - 'if you don't know,vote no'

A better slogan would be "If you don't know, don't vote" - after all, the constitution is too important to be influenced by ignorance.