Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

shruikan2553

The whole children arguments can be disproved easily. Why must they continue to make it about children

Cabaal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The whole children arguments can be disproved easily. Why must they continue to make it about children

It's always been about the children for the Catholic Church, for a crowd that deny themselves the natural, normal and healthy ability to create children they are obsessed about them.

In some normal and some extremely sickening ways

MrPudding

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The whole children arguments can be disproved easily. Why must they continue to make it about children

It's all they have... The actual reasonf or the objection is that their god (they) don't like gay people. I like Anne Lamott's view on this "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” (Actually, I think that oine will go back in the sig, time for a change.)As a result their god (them again) is intrinsically homophobic. Turns out that, unfortunately for them an unlike their god (them), society has moved on and this is no longer a valid reason.

As a result of this those that oppose equal rights, or let's face it, any rights, for gay people have resorted to pseudo science (and yes I even hesitated to call what they use pseudo science as there is a risk even that might lend it more credibility than it deserves) to try to justify their desire for continues discrimination against a minority on more secular and supposedly less homophobic grounds.

Unfortunately for them anyone with any kind of cop on at all, including thankfully most of the courts that this rubbish is being presented to, can see it for what it is, a thin and ineffective veneer of supposed respectibility over homophobic and discriminatory views that have no place in modern society.

IMO.

MrP

robindch

The parents of a transgender child retract the original announcement of the birth of their daughter. Cleverly.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/proud-parents-of-transgender-man-compose-witty-birth-notice-we-were-mistaken-about-our-sprogget-30790985.html

Nodin

"Allowing same-sex marriage would be a “grave injustice” and a disservice to society, according to members of a representative body for Catholic bishops in Ireland.
Speaking at the launch of a leaflet entitled “The Meaning of Marriage” in Maynooth, high-ranking clergy from the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference set out the church’s stall in the run-up to an expected referendum on same-sex marriage next spring.
“The view of marriage as being between man and a woman and for life, that’s not something which is particular to Catholics and Christians. There are people of all kinds of other religious beliefs, and of none, who believe in that,” said Bishop Liam MacDaid of Clogher, who is chair of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference council for marriage."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/bishops-say-allowing-same-sex-would-be-grave-injustice-1.2024464

Yez can see that Bishop Kevin Doran, noted "Alive" Journalist and cancer trial blocker, is at the table there as well.

Delirium

Nodin wrote: »

"Allowing same-sex marriage would be a “grave injustice” and a disservice to society, according to members of a representative body for Catholic bishops in Ireland.
Speaking at the launch of a leaflet entitled “The Meaning of Marriage” in Maynooth, high-ranking clergy from the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference set out the church’s stall in the run-up to an expected referendum on same-sex marriage next spring.
“The view of marriage as being between man and a woman and for life, that’s not something which is particular to Catholics and Christians. There are people of all kinds of other religious beliefs, and of none, who believe in that,” said Bishop Liam MacDaid of Clogher, who is chair of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference council for marriage."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/bishops-say-allowing-same-sex-would-be-grave-injustice-1.2024464

Yez can see that Bishop Kevin Doran, noted "Alive" Journalist and cancer trial blocker, is at the table there as well.

Is he arguing against marriage equality or divorce??

Nodin

SW wrote: »

Is he arguing against marriage equality or divorce??

.....in some Freudian way, perhaps both. That war never ended for some.

efb

A grave injustice would be quietly moving paedophiles around the country and swearing their victims to secrecy

lazygal

efb wrote: »

A grave injustice would be quietly moving paedophiles around the country and swearing their victims to secrecy

Or burying babies in septic tanks. Or refusing to pay the money they owe the state. Or moving property into trusts so it can't be used by other schools.

Cabaal

Posted this on Facebook to all my friends and family last night after learning about the Catholic Church's new leaflet, figured might as well post it here to. Just annoyed at the time after reading about it (the leaflet).

I don't normally post about gay and lesbian couples or the Catholic church on Facebook, so I';d say a few people found it to be a surprised to see the post below...including a number of religious cousins, friends etc.

I'm sure to those here that read my posts whats written won't come as a surprise as I've always been clear about my feelings towards these subjects.

This might be somewhat ranty but stick with it, today I saw that the Catholic Church has finally started its campaign against marriage equality, which Ireland is having a referendum on in 2015.

Catholic Church all of a sudden seems awful concerned about the children of Ireland as they believe its a "grave injustice" if Ireland makes it legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Their new tactic? Claiming every child has the right to a mother and father in a loving marriage. (this ignores the fact that over 40% of children born in Ireland are born outside of a marriage based on 2013 figures) Do the Catholic Church somehow believe all these children are less loved and cared for?.

Funny thing is, for an organization that now acts so very concerned about children they were more then happy to sell off children in Ireland for over 3 decades to American couples. Not to mention the hundreds of cover ups of sexual abuse which were covered up by the Vatican's own policies on how to handle cover-ups.

I also note that Bishop Kevin Doran is involved in this campaign against marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. For those that have not heard of Kevin, he used to be on the board of Dublin's Mater Hospital.

In 2005 Kevin and two other individuals on the board of the hospital took the decision to stop trials of the drug for lung cancer patients. The reason?? They objected because female patients who could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment. The drug to be tested at the time may have prolonged the lives of lung cancer patients by several months.

Kevin & his "friends" objected to use of the drug because women taking contraceptives was against the catholic church's "ethos". Due to this the cancer treatment was stopped.

So when it comes to cancer, they'd rather a women would die quickly then take the pill. In my book thats pretty messed up thinking. So forgive me if I don't respect Kevin on any level, he is pond scum and nothing more.

The bottom line is gay and lesbian couples deserve marriage equality, if a couple wants to get married then that is their personal choice.

If you think that marriage equality somehow de-value's your own marriage then you must be in an awful insecure marriage to begin with as I know that in the morning if marriage equality passes it doesn't change my marriage to my wife or my love for her one bit.

A marriage is what YOU as a couple make it, not what the catholic church claims it stand for. Thats why many people get married and decide never to have children for whatever the reason, thats their choice. It doesn't mean their marriage is less of a marriage because of this.

If you think that marriage is only to create a loving family for children then you do a disservice to the 40% of children born outside of marriage in Ireland by even suggesting that their parents somehow love or care for them in a lesser way to a couple that is married.

At the end of the day unlike nuns, priests and bishops the vast majority of people that will vote on marriage equality in 2015 have allowed themselves the most normal and natural thing in the world......to have feelings, relationships and sex with another human being.

How priests and bishops feel they are somehow qualified to comment on relationships and sex when they deny themselves these very normal feelings and experiences is beyond me. Would you trust a person to tell you how to drive if they never drove a car?

For those of us that have allowed themselves to create relationships, marry, divorce, have sex or whatever, you know that real life and marriage isn't some super dream land were children will experience nothing negative.

The Catholic church's attempt to somehow classify marriage as something that no gay or lesbian couple should ever experience is utter nonsense and a few very short years from now we'll look back at Bishop Kevin Doran and Bishop Liam MacDaid and call them bigots,

So with all that I urge people to get out and vote in 2015.

shruikan2553

Have they ever explained why Catholics can't just follow catholic rules and non catholic marriages can do what they want? I'm not a catholic so I can't see why their view on marriage should matter to me.

ShooterSF

^^^
No surprise there. The church has always felt a child should be raised by a mother and father even if it means imprisoning single parents and selling their child to the highest bidding family in the U.S.

PopePalpatine

No, no, no, you see, them sluts women had a choice between the laundries and homelessness! :rolleyes:

MrPudding

Some good news.

First quote in my signature applies.

MrP

TheChizler

MrPudding wrote: »

Some good news.

First quote in my signature applies.

MrP

The DUP MLA Paul Givan said he was "deeply disappointed" that the church had ended its relationship with the adoption provider and said that such a circumstance demonstrates the need for a conscious clause in Northern Ireland.

"This decision by the Catholic Church is another reminder that our laws do not make provision for those with perfectly legitimate religious beliefs," he said.

"Equality of opportunity for Catholics to access adoption services from their own church is being denied as a result of our laws.

What kind of mental somersaults do you have to perform to come out with that?

'The anti-discriminatory law is discriminating against us because we now can't discriminate'.

MrPudding

TheChizler wrote: »

What kind of mental somersaults do you have to perform to come out with that?

'The anti-discriminatory law is discriminating against us because we now can't discriminate'.

Indeed. I also like the implication that catholics somehow no longer have access to adoption services... Typical NI religious bullsh1t. Where you shop, what football team you support, who you vote for all dictated by what religion you are.

MrP

swampgas

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Have they ever explained why Catholics can't just follow catholic rules and non catholic marriages can do what they want? I'm not a catholic so I can't see why their view on marriage should matter to me.

There was a time when they could say "the church's position is this, now obey, just because we say so". Now that people don't fear the church like they did in the past, they have to pretend that their opposition isn't really based on religion at all. So they think they can extend it to everyone.

So when we see stuff like this:

“The view of marriage as being between man and a woman and for life, that’s not something which is particular to Catholics and Christians. There are people of all kinds of other religious beliefs, and of none, who believe in that”

... it's simply an attempt to hide their dogma-based opposition behind a smoke-screen of supposedly reasonable and non-religious concerns.

The same happened in the abortion debate at the Oireachtas hearings. All sorts of waffle about "Natural Law", and not single priest or bishop brave enough to argue from a serious theological position.

To be honest, they must know they have lost, when they know that nobody seems to care about doctrine any more.

fisgon

You have the bizarre situation that a DUP member is supporting the catholic church...and is talking about a "truly tolerant society". "Tolerant" here, meaning, of course, tolerant of everyone except gay people.


"This decision by the Catholic Church is another reminder that our laws do not make provision for those with perfectly legitimate religious beliefs," he said.

"Equality of opportunity for Catholics to access adoption services from their own church is being denied as a result of our laws.

"Just as with Ashers Bakery, the Catholic Church should not have to act in violation of its deeply held religious beliefs. A truly tolerant society should be capable of making space to accommodate difference in our community."

PopePalpatine

I guess it's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". *sigh*

Brian Shanahan

TheChizler wrote: »

What kind of mental somersaults do you have to perform to come out with that?

'The anti-discriminatory law is discriminating against us because we now can't discriminate'.

And I love that its a DUP stooge coming out with the tirade: "Dem's maybe dirty Taigs who kiss the popes rear, but dey got religion, even if it is the wrong one and dey will burn in hell for such an abomination, and so dey got rights to discriminate against the gheys, just not as many rights as us, the true children of Jebus!"

The Black Oil

The auld balance machine is getting a bit fired up today. Irish Times, BAI, etc.

aloyisious

Going back to the cake issue, DUP MLA seek's conscience clause in equality law. http://goo.gl/rBnYUG.


Next thing is they'll find they had good lifelong buddies in the shinners..

Delirium

http://m.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

On phone so can't easily quote from link.

EDIT:

Over the weekend, Republicans in the Michigan Statehouse passed a “license to discriminate” bill that would give just about anyone the right to refuse service to LGBT people if it conflicted with their religious beliefs.

The broadly written Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow, for example, an EMT to refuse emergency treatment to a gay person or a pharmacist to refuse to refill HIV medication, because God decreed gays and lesbians should be put to death.

The measure is similar to one in Arizona that even right-wing governor Jan Brewer thought went too far and vetoed.

As The New Civil Rights Movement points out, the act is so broad it would let a Catholic high school refuse to hire a Muslim janitor, and a DMV clerk deny a new driver’s license to someone who is divorced.

Terrible stuff altogether, to protect religious discrimination on such a potentially large scale.

PopePalpatine

I'd love it if the 59 bigoted failed abortions who supported that bill get denied medical treatment the next time they go to hospital. :mad:

eviltwin

SW wrote: »

http://m.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

On phone so can't easily quote from link.

Oh my god, that is actually disgusting :eek: How can that ever be allowed to happen??

TheChizler

SW wrote: »

http://m.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

On phone so can't easily quote from link.

EDIT:



Terrible stuff altogether, to protect religious discrimination on such a potentially large scale.

Surely that will make it to the Supreme Court at some stage and they'll be told where to go?

Zillah

TheChizler wrote: »

Surely that will make it to the Supreme Court at some stage and they'll be told where to go?

The senate might block it (republican controlled so who knows? Senators tend to be a little more level headed), and if not the governor could veto it, and if not it will be challenged in court and crushed there (100% guaranteed). This kite aint gonna fly.

MrPudding

TheChizler wrote: »

Surely that will make it to the Supreme Court at some stage and they'll be told where to go?

I don't think it will make it out of the state, let alone to the Supreme Court. If the legislature don't stop it then the state courts might. If they don't then I am sure the state federal court will sort it quick smart.

MrP

TheChizler

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think it will make it out of the state, let alone to the Supreme Court. If the legislature don't stop it then the state courts might. If they don't then I am sure the state federal court will sort it quick smart.

MrP

In my half asleep state I thought it had already happened!

As an aside, and blatantly stolen from AH, but http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/news/item/1232-paedophiles-set-to-pose-as-gays-to-marry-and-adopt-kids.

Mad ramblings of some blogger posing as a newspaper or a Poe?

Delirium

TheChizler wrote: »

In my half asleep state I thought it had already happened!

As an aside, and blatantly stolen from AH, but http://www.kilkennyjournal.ie/index.php/news/item/1232-paedophiles-set-to-pose-as-gays-to-marry-and-adopt-kids.

Mad ramblings of some blogger posing as a newspaper or a Poe?

All posts are submitted by Michael McGrath. The linked article definitely reads as the mad ramblings of a homophobe.

Nodin

SW wrote: »

All posts are submitted by Michael McGrath. The linked article definitely reads as the mad ramblings of a homophobe.

From the discussion linked in this post it would seem he is a full time head the ball.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93394907&postcount=81

Brian Shanahan

Zillah wrote: »

The senate might block it (republican controlled so who knows? Senators tend to be a little more level headed), and if not the governor could veto it, and if not it will be challenged in court and crushed there (100% guaranteed). This kite aint gonna fly.

State senates are often worse than the houses of representatives beneath them. And it is very rare that you get one that is better.

States tend to consistently return majorities for the same party election after election, due to small size of electorates, political appointees holding electorally powerful positions and the ease with which state districts can be gerrymandered.

obplayer

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

State senates are often worse than the houses of representatives beneath them. And it is very rare that you get one that is better.

States tend to consistently return majorities for the same party election after election, due to small size of electorates, political appointees holding electorally powerful positions and the ease with which state districts can be gerrymandered.

Can't see how it would get past the Supreme Court though. If it does then America is truly f**ked.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Can't see how it would get past the Supreme Court though. If it does then America is truly f**ked.

Even if passed by the other house and signed by the Governor - both of which are in doubt - it won't get past the Supreme Court.

Ironically, this system increases the incentive for cynical populist politicians to play to the homophobes and bigots in the audience, voting for legislation which they know will never take effect and would be disastrous in operation if it did. You can't assume that the politicians who voted for this thought it would be a good law, or even a tolerable one. They just thought they could increase their support in certain quarters by makign this highly offensive gesture to gays.

Ironically, in the same week as this travesty, the Michigan house also passed a non-discrimination Bill which forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Definitely a case of talking out of both sides of their mouths.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if passed by the other house and signed by the Governor - both of which are in doubt - it won't get past the Supreme Court.

Ironically, this system increases the incentive for cynical populist politicians to play to the homophobes and bigots in the audience, voting for legislation which they know will never take effect and would be disastrous in operation if it did. You can't assume that the politicians who voted for this thought it would be a good law, or even a tolerable one. They just thought they could increase their support in certain quarters by makign this highly offensive gesture to gays.

Ironically, in the same week as this travesty, the Michigan house also passed a non-discrimination Bill which forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Definitely a case of talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Which I suppose leaves us with one more question. How can something like this ever get even this close to law? What is wrong with the people who proposed and supported it?

MrPudding

obplayer wrote: »

Which I suppose leaves us with one more question. How can something like this ever get even this close to law? What is wrong with the people who proposed and supported it?

It's exactly a Peregrinus says, likely most of the people that voted for it did so simply to pander to a certain element of the electorate. There is a possibility that the person that actually proposed it believes it is good law, but there is probably a reasonable chance that even they didn't and simply did it or votes, I. The k owl edge it would make it into the books.

MrP

Peregrinus

Much as I dislike being fair, in fairness I should say that this law isn't explicitly sold as anti-gay, or anti-anything else. Those who object that the law could allow emergency paramedics to refuse treatment to gays are not actually saying either that the law mentions paramedics or gays - it doesn't- or that there are any paremedics out there who want to refuse treatment to gays. They just mention this as an example of how widely the law is written; it could even cover (they say) this frankly unlikely scenario.

And, in fact, while it could cover a lot, it probably couldn't cover this. The US has laws in place which explicitly require medics to provide emergency medical treatment to anyone who needs it, and I seriously doubt whether, even if passed, the courts would interpret this law as trumping that one.

The dog-whistle being blown here isn't so much anti-gay as pro-religious freedom. (And who doesn't like freedom?) The legislators who have thought about this law know that it's objectionable and unworkable, but that doesn't bother them, because they know it's never going to be put to work. All that matters to them is that they are recorded as having voted for more Freedom!!! Which is why, on the same weekend, they can also vote in favour of a civil rights law which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. (Because who doesn't hate discrimination?) We're for Freedom!!! We're for Civil Rights!!! It's the American Way!

Before we get too high on our high horses, we should reflect that this isn't a phenomenon confined to American politics. In parliamentary democracies like our own opposition parties routinely vote against laws which they know to be good laws, and which they have no intention of repealing when they come to power, and routinely bring forward ill-thought out and unworkable proposals for legislation, safe in the knowledge that they will never see the statute-book.

Brian Shanahan

obplayer wrote: »

Can't see how it would get past the Supreme Court though. If it does then America is truly f**ked.

I wouldn't be sure on that. Remember this is the Supreme that Ronnie Raygun and Daddy and Baby Shrub packed with right-wingers. This is the Supreme that reinterpreted a clayse which said "you should only have a gun if you're part of a government militia" to mean "guns for everbody, no matter how violent and murderous they are"

Links234

Peregrinus wrote: »

or that there are any paremedics out there who want to refuse treatment to gays. They just mention this as an example of how widely the law is written; it could even cover (they say) this frankly unlikely scenario.

There was a pretty famous case in America where a transgender woman was left to bleed to death because the paramedics stood around laughing and didn't want to touch her. It's unlikely but things like this have happened and have cost lives in the past.

On mobile atm so can't link details, but google Tyra Hunter.

Brian Shanahan

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.

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.