Equality of Blood
March 7, 2010
by Brian Leubitz
During my sophomore year in college, I spent a semester in London. When I went in to donate blood a few months after I came back, I discovered that I wasn’t eligible. Apparently, I might have been exposed to mad cow disease. A sensible precaution I suppose, as the disease is difficult to detect, and can lie dormant for an extended period of time. I had yet to come out, so that was the factor that kept me away.
Years after returning from London or of being at any risk for mad cow disease, I am still ineligible to donate blood. Today, it is because I am an openly gay man. That I admit that fact means that under the current guidelines I can never give blood. Ever. You can see the full guidelines here. Note that if you have paid or been paid for sex, you can donate blood after 12 months. Monogamous gay sex? Never
However, 18 Senators, and one of my favorite members of the House, Anthony Weiner, have written a letter calling for that outright ban to end. In an op-ed for the Bay Windows, Sen. Kerry points out some of the ridiculousness of the ban:
It’s more than a little hard for most people to believe that federal law today bans gay men from donating blood. But it’s true; in fact, any man who has had a sexual relationship with another man, even once, since 1977, is banned — for life — from donating blood. It’s a cruel reality that I thought warranted a close examination of the justifications.
As it turns out, not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban. The three largest blood donation organizations in our country — the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) — all agree calling the ban “medically and scientifically unwarranted.” The American Medical Association supports modifying the restriction. And this week, I was joined by more than a dozen other United States Senators in calling on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review and modify this discriminatory ban.
**** **** ****
Nothing better highlights the unjustified nature of the discrimination against men who have had sex with other men than the FDA’s own screening guidelines for other high risk sexual behaviors known for transmitting HIV. FDA guidelines dictate that if you pay a heterosexual prostitute for sex you are deferred from donating blood, but for just one year following the incident. If you have had heterosexual sex with someone you know is infected with HIV, you are deferred from donating blood for just one year. But a man who has had protected sex with a monogamous male partner, even one time 33 years ago, is barred for life from donating blood. (Bay Windows)
Now, the Senators seem to point toward a 12 month defferal for male-to-male sexual contact. The thing is that if we are going to start really classifying behaviors, let’s classify behaviors according to their actual risk. If we are asking these personal questions when we are donating blood, let’s ask the relevant ones. Same-sex partners in a truly monogamous relationship are at no greater risk than an opposite sex couple. I will certainly admit that gay men are known to be a smidgen more promiscuous, but in these times, infidelity in straight marriages is hardly noteworthy. Yet having multiple sex partners is not even one of the factors in the donation restriction list.
I’m not trying to be sex-negative here, but the fact is that having multiple sex partners over a short period of time is a far larger risk factor than having a single monogamous same-sex relationship. HIV antibodies are undetectable for about three weeks, so a deferral for promiscuous people, no matter who they are having sex with, seems reasonable.
The best we can do is to ask the relevant questions, and quit pretending that we can neatly classify people. Ask the real questions, rather than relying on outdated and unscientific categories.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized. .
139 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
John | March 7, 2010 at 9:12 am
I hate it when they have blood drives in the buildings where my office is located. 17% of the employees in my office are gay men, me included. Walking past blood drive signs on my way into the building is like a slap in the face.
2.
Felyx | March 7, 2010 at 9:30 am
I worked in the industry being qualified to do so during a disaster when there was a dire need for blood products. I had to take a turn at screening. I took one look at the form and said ‘Fuck it!’ As a trained healthcare professional I knew two things, one, I know what the true known risks were and the weight of each one, (Unprotected anonymous sex with concurrent syringe delivered drug use ranked just under positive knowledge of infection.) The second is that no matter what you ask, some people will be pressured to participate but will not want to be judged…i.e. they will not answer honestly. So I just asked my own questions. I never asked about sexual attraction, it was just too demeaning for me as a person…the rules be damned!!!
I had a few people, because they had to look at and sign the form, ask me why I didn’t ask ALL the questions….I told them that the point was to screen for risk not necessarily to make someone uncomfortable. I hated to lie like that but at least I know that many walked away feeling validated or more pleasant about the whole situation.
I personally will just not ever donate blood. If they want it that bad they will scrap the screening process and start screening the blood instead. (It is now possible, just a bit more costly.)
3.
K!r!lleXXI | March 7, 2010 at 9:35 am
Funny, we’ve talked about this issue in comments just the other day…
And truth is, sexual orientation or the mere fact that a person had sex with another person of the same gender, is hardly a factor at all. If we really get into discussing sex, heterosexual people are much more likely to have unprotected sex (without the condoms) because these days women have very efficient contraceptives and men have vasectomies — no real reason for condoms, except those nasty STD’s… while gay men are more likely to use condoms performing anal sex.
The one and only reason to ban gays from donating blood is the same animus and hatred we all know and “love”… What else possibly we can say to prove that we are being persecuted in the States? Even in my country blood donation ban for gay men (yes, it was only for men!) was lifted in May 2008 — just because there were no religious bigots yelling there lies, there were medical professionals who got together and figured out there is no good reason for this ban to even exist, and it was lifted!
Religion brought to us from Vatican is poisonous!
It has turned into the religion of evil!
The Pope’s puppet master is the real Satan in my humble opinion!
And I just can’t believe people can be that blind!
I respect religious beliefs of others, but you can only push us so much until we break the wall of feces upon your heads!
–Kirill, Russia
4.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 9:48 am
while gay men are more likely to use condoms performing anal sex.
I for one am not at all surprised by this. It’s shocking and worrisome how ignorant many of my heterosexual friends are about the risks associated with anal sex. Many think it means you can’t get a woman pregnant (not true) and thus you don’t need a condom (laughably untrue). IIRC, there *are* additional risks associated with unprotected anal sex regarding HIV over unprotected vaginal sex, because of the increase presence of blood, but if you’re going to ask the questions, ask the right ones. “Have you had protected/unprotected anal sex in the last ____?” “Have you had multiple partners in the last _____?” And other such questions. The thing is, none of these answers are dependent on a person’s sexual orientation. Some gay and some straight people have anal sex or multiple partners. Some gay and some straight people do not have anal sex and/or are monogamous. Whether or not they do these things with partners of the same or opposite sex is completely and totally irrelevant.
5.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 10:25 am
Ergh, some of that came out the wrong way. I’m not trying to say there’s anything wrong with anal sex – just that a lot of people see it as “risk-free,” which isn’t any more true than other types of sex.
6.
John | March 7, 2010 at 9:47 am
The more time passes, the more I am convinced that “Satan” exists only in the form of religiously-based hatred, fear and lust for power.
7.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 3:48 pm
If I understand you correctly, John, I agree and at least two of these are among the seven deadly sins cited in ther fear and loathing statements. <3 David
8.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 9:49 am
Not just all of this but the fact that no matter who donates blood…it needs to be tested before going into the blood bank……Their excuse is that that the ban cuts down on costs of testing…..BIG FU<KING DEAL…..my tax money pays for those tests…so STFU!!!!…..
And they(the uneducated Hatero public) constantly ignore that Straight people have HIV as well and may not even know it but can still donate blood…no Q's asked other then the usual and acceptable ones that is……
It's discrimination at its very best…..
I friend of mine on another website blasted somebody after this ignorant hatero said…"Fine let the gays donate…but only let them donate to other gays"……I mean when I read that I was like…."Are you out of your ever loving fu<king mind"….well my friend responded with this….
"And how exactly will that work? Will Gay men be required to wear a pink triangle from now on like in wwII Germany? Or before being given blood transfusions gay men are required to let the hospital staff know they are gay?"
(me) Exactly!!!!……..<3…Ronnie
9.
Billy | March 7, 2010 at 10:03 am
I tried to donate blood in high school, when the blood bank RV came around. Banners were posted for a week beforehand, and when the day came, the students were allowed to go out to the RV during class and donate. So, I went out there, and during the interview process, *that* question was asked. I gave an honest answer, and was turned away.
At that point, I only had one encounter with another boy at my high school. Still, a few fellow students with quite a reputation were allowed to donate blood, no problem. Not only was the whole thing humiliating, but they told me they would test the blood regardless. So, what’s the point, honestly?
If they want my blood so bad now, they’ll have to come suck it out of me, because no matter what, I won’t be giving it willingly now. Quite funny how this is on the heels of the Las Vegas story… http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/03/las-vegas-taxi-cops-told-to-treat-gays.html
10.
RAY in MA | March 7, 2010 at 10:10 am
Not sure if this is still relevant…
In the early 90′s in RI, the policy was that anyone could donate, but if you answered yes to the male/HIV ‘proclivity’ question on the form, they would simply throw out the blood. This allowed you to show up and “give blood” without being embarassed for not going!
So, I guess in this situation you can still donate, but your blood ain’t going nowhere!
Wasn’t that “KIND” of them to allow us to ‘conceal’ our identiites?!?!
11.
Tammy | March 7, 2010 at 10:30 am
“Now, the Senators seem to point toward a 12 month defferal for male-to-male sexual contact.”
This change in wording would essentially create no difference in practice. This 12 month defferal means that it’s OK to say you’re gay in theory, you just can’t actually be currently gay and donate blood.
Looks good on paper, and makes people feel like they are being all accepting and stuff, but it’s a round about way of not actually changing anything.
BTW, any bans against lesbians?
12.
John | March 7, 2010 at 10:38 am
How very “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
13.
Matt | March 7, 2010 at 12:43 pm
That’s exactly what I thought when I saw the “revised” deferral suggestion. Heterosexuals, even those with multiple, anonymous sexual partners, would still be able to donate unless a partner was a prostitute, or was known to have HIV But a monogamous gay couple is still banned, even if both have been tested negative for the disease.
If anything, this just means that now the “ex-gays” can donate (and only if most of them lie about it).
14.
Tim | March 7, 2010 at 1:17 pm
” If anything, this just means that now the “ex-gays” can donate (and only if most of them lie about it).”
Hello! There is NO SUCH THING as ex gays!
Matt PLEASE tell me you were kidding.
15.
K!r!lleXXI | March 7, 2010 at 1:34 pm
@Tim
You know, Matt used that word in quotes!
This means he also does not believe in “ex-gays.”
But since they choose to be called like that… why not?
16.
Matt | March 8, 2010 at 12:03 pm
It was a joke, Tim ;)
I personally feel that the “ex-gay” concept is nothing more than a (somewhat) cleverly disguised anti-gay political movement, designed to keep public opinion against us by casting doubt on the overwhelming scientific evidence that sexual orientation is a genetic trait.
They’ve got a convenient little financial racket going too, where they create the disease (self-hating gays), and then offer the “cure” (shaming them into celibacy, in order to appear “normal”).
It’s destructive and shameful and, if I believed in hell, I’d be convinced that’s where the movement’s leaders were headed.
My heart goes out to those who’ve been shamed into a life of self-hate and self-denial at the hands of those monsters.
17.
Randy | March 7, 2010 at 10:36 am
Actually, only about 75% of people will test antibody positive at 3 weeks. 95% test positive at 6 weeks, and >99% at six months.
PCR can detect virus within hours of infection, but is vastly more expensive; only the antibody testing is actually reasonable. The window period makes a 12-month waiting period reasonable for any risky sexual behavior.
18.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 10:44 am
So anybody who’s had non-monogamous sex has to wait at least twelve months, right?
Wait, that’s not what they’re saying.
19.
John | March 7, 2010 at 10:52 am
Is unprotected sex in a long-term, monogamous male/male relationship is considered “risky sexual behavior?”
My husband and I have been together 16-and-a-half years and have been 100% monogamous the entire time. Since we’re monogamous and disease-free, we haven’t used condoms for a long time. I’m not sure if you’re saying we should be prevented from giving blood because of this or not.
20.
Ed-M | March 7, 2010 at 11:12 am
So gay and bisexual men who have even protected sex with other men of are excluded, yet a woman who has had unprotected sex with a closet gay or bisexual man, who has had sex with other men before she slept with him and it’s at least a year since she slept with him can go ahead and donate blood!
This also applies to men who were raped, gay, bi or straight.
WHERE’S THE COMMON SENSE OR JUSTICE IN THIS!?
21.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 11:33 am
The problem with Hatero DOLTS and their questioning is that they ASSume people are telling the truth when the answer those questions yes or no depending on what the question is…..so so so naive and ignorant….saying, thinking, and actually being are all completely different things…..I don’t know my blood type (I know I should know that) but this whole crap has given me the desire to find out, go to donate, and lie when they ask those invasion of privacy questions….just take the fu<king blood and test it…..you are required to do that regardless….and that is what my tax money is used for……again if you are going to take our money…you are not constitutionally aloud to deny me anything….give me equality or tax me less….its as simple as that……JMHGO……<3….Ronnie
22.
Michelle Evans | March 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Interestingly, it is probably not the LGBT community that the blood donation centers should be worried about with regard to people telling untruths. As we have seen repeatedly over the course of Prop 8, and all the rest of this garbage, it is the supposed “Christians” who are the ones who like to lie in order to move their haterosexual agenda forward.
Look at the Minnesota hearings and how that guy took some study out of a dark place on his backside to make up the idea that they have studied gay marriage for nine years in Sweden when they have only had it there for two! He had to have known it was a lie, but he didn’t care because it proved his point that being LGBT is bad. The examples are too numerous to mention, but we saw them all during the trial and will continue to do so as they get more and more desperate.
Earlier in this thread it was mentioned by Billy about how he answered honestly about being gay when he tried to donate blood. I was honest when they asked me questions at the hospital, too. I’m sure we all would do that. In that vein I would ask Ronnie and anyone else to not go and donate blood by doing it dishonestly. We have our integrity as a group and no matter what, we need to keep that.
If they don’t want our blood, then don’t give it to them! Of course the fundies would love to have our blood in other ways. Let us all agree that no matter what, we will maintain OUR humanity and our integrity even as they lose theirs.
23.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I was actually thinking of scaring the shite…out of them…gorilla warfare style….donating blood….and then calling them (anonymously of course) and telling them I am a HIV negative gay man and I donated blood…..throw them for a loop….donating is not the only thing….we can’t be tested to see if we are match for bone marrow, what if somebody in my family needs a kidney….I can’t because I’m Gay….its BS….just take the fu<king blood and do the fu<king tests that my hard eared tax money pays for it…..stop cutting corners…and do your f-ing job….I mean seriuosly it make want to prick myself with a needle and spread blood all over those Hateros and say I'm Gay DEAL WITH IT….ugggggggggg…..<3…Ronnie
24.
Michelle Evans | March 7, 2010 at 11:22 am
My wife and I ran into this situation just a month or so ago when we both tried to give blood. I was truly shocked when I saw the restrictions put on gay men, but also baffled that their ban did not include lesbians. The logic of one ban should also lead to the logic of the other, but then as lesbians we don’t engage in anal sex, which seems to be the one thing the hateros fixate on.
In my case, however, it proved somewhat different in that as a transgender person, when they found out about that they automatically assumed I was a gay man! I was sitting there in the hospital with my wife of 28 years, yet because I am trans, I must have had sex with other men. At least that was their reasoning. I was grilled about the entire process of being trans and going through transition. The nurse went way beyond the bounds of propriety with her questions. When I asked what relevance this had, she explained it was necessary for screening, but since I saw the list of restrictions at that point, I knew she was way beyond that and into just fishing for information.
Cherie and I often do talks at colleges, universities, etc, and sometimes the topic of the mechanics of transition come up, and I am more than happy to accommodate their questions. In this case, instead of trying to inform the nurse, I felt I was just piquing her desire for some sort of pornographic vision about transsexuals. I had never been uncomfortable about discussing this ever before, but she changed that with the manner of her questions.
In the end, they found an excuse to not accept my blood, so that is something I will never try to do again.
25.
K!r!lleXXI | March 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I think all heterosexual allies with good and rare blood should go to those blood banks and tell medical personnel that they are gay — be denied and leave. As a protest: we all are gay because we can’t stand aside and silently watch how discrimination is given the green light… If I were a heterosexual American, that’s what I would do, as a protest… and would call all my friends… and waste those medical worker’s time, so they would go to their superiors to complain…
They want blood — we want equality and justice!
<3 Kirill
26.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I used to feel guilty about not donating (I’m terrified of needles), but I just might do that next time there’s a blood drive and then make a really, really big deal out of it. That’s just utter bullshit. There’s a blood shortage in America, and they’re rejecting good blood because of bigotry? Strikes me as medical malpractice toward people who suffer from not getting the blood they need.
27.
K!r!lleXXI | March 7, 2010 at 1:39 pm
@Kevin S.
There is a good gay website called AfterElton.com… they like to talk about visibility and how important that is. I guess, this could be our chance to increase some visibility and raise a little hell. :) If you are terrified of needles, why not do just that and see how it goes! You go, girl! (*jokingly*)
28.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 2:07 pm
I checked it out – I’d probably be more interested if the limits of my entertainment exposure went beyond the weekly showing of LOST (which I won’t be able to watch when I return to NJ for spring break *grumble*), but I definitely agree that more visibility is important. So long as people are “learning” about what LGBT folk are like from the types of testifiers the Minnesota Senate heard last week, perceptions are not going to change. I was in the break room once with a co-worker when news coverage of a gay pride parade came on, and her reaction was something along the lines of “why do they have flaunt it?” I responded “why should they have to hide it?” but the since then, I’ve realized that’s only part of the answer. I think, as a straight guy, that while I initially believed in the marriage equality movement on the basis of, well, equality, reading and learning (and being on this website) has shown me more and more what the word “equality” really means. It’s not *just* about having equal rights, though that’s obviously a major part, but it’s also about getting people to understand that ones orientation doesn’t make them any different than ones skin color or ones gender or any other characteristics that come from birth, and that’s not going to change so long as people shield themselves or are shielded by others from that truth. So, my answer to my co-worker now would not just be “why not?” but also “because you need to listen.”
I realize that none of this is new to anybody here who has gone through the struggle for being accepted every day of his or her life, but K!r!lleXXI’s mentioning of visibility got me thinking about why it was important, and I felt the urge to share.
29.
K!r!lleXXI | March 7, 2010 at 3:55 pm
@Kevin S.
Thank you very much for sharing! I really enjoyed reading this comment! Dare I say it, I weeped just a teeny bit! This is what we want people to hear! This is what we want them to realize! “Because you need to listen!” Bravo!
30.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I’m glad you enjoyed it, K!r!lleXXI. I often express myself poorly, which leaves me hesitant to share deeper thoughts, but that just felt right.
31.
JQ | March 12, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Although I think it is unfair and medically nonsensical to ban ‘gay blood’, I think it is vitally important that those who can donate, do donate. I am all about a good protest, but there are people out there that need the blood. I can not, in good conscience, deny them what I can easily give (maybe a few tears, I hate needles). And although I agree that everyone should be able to donate -especially because it is such a vital need, I will continue to donate. And I will encourage others to donate.
We need a protest/action that sends the message that they are losing out on perfectly good and urgently needed donors -without putting people’s lives at risk.
If you have ideas about protesting while donating, I am all ears.
<3 from a proud donor
PS. I was deferred for 12 months when I was dating a bisexual man and I thought it was stupid.
32.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/07/Petraeus_Ive_Worked_With_Gay_CIA_Officers/
Posted on Advocate.com March 07, 2010
Petraeus: I’ve Worked With Gay CIA Officers
By Advocate.com Editors
“After the 10 seconds of awareness wore off, the focus was on the professional attributes,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, adding that he believes “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “something that can be worked through, frankly.” – General David Petraeus
(me)….he supports the plan to review the policy….all that really needs to be said…is Repealed…if you don’t like it move to Uganda……and let that be the end of it…..<3…Ronnie
33.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 1:09 pm
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/07/Pro_Gay_Wrestler_Wins_ACC_Title/
Posted on Advocate.com March 07, 2010
Pro-Gay Wrestler Wins ACC Title
By Advocate.com Editors
“Hudson Taylor, a University of Maryland wrestler who gained notoriety off the mat for his ardent support of equal rights for gay and lesbian people, won the 197-pound class at the Atlantic Coast Conference championships on Saturday, Outsports.com reports.”
(me) another credible soldier of notoriety for our side…and all they have is Lauren Ashley….bwaaaaaaaaa…..
“Outsport’s Jim Buzinski, who interviewed Taylor in February says the wrestler “is one of the most unique athletes I’ve ever spoken with, and his support for gay rights is inspiring and rare among straight athletes.”
(me)….SCORE!!!!
“Taylor wrote the journalist: “I am getting the most moving emails from people around the world. I mean, supporting the LGBT community is such a no-brainer to me. I couldn’t imagine it any other way.”
(me) You hear that Lauren Ashley and Haggie…..get with the program HA8TERS………..<3…Ronnie
34.
Richard W. Fitch | March 7, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I was closet somewhat active in college, then got married and didn’t really come out until my early 40′s. Durning those inbetween years I had donated over 5 gallons of blood, in good conscience. So now I don’t care one way or the other. I did my part when I could. Now the combination of medications and ‘teh gay’ prevent any more.
35.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 1:15 pm
The woman has lost her fu<king MIND………..<3…Ronnie:
36.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 1:17 pm
also form advocate.com
Posted on Advocate.com March 07, 2010
Sarah Palin Compares Herself to God
By Advocate.com Editors
“One of her supporters sent the former Vice Presidential nominee a Biblical passage from Isaiah 49:16: “See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.” In that passage he says, “I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you,” says Palin. “And I’m like okay, I’m in good company.”"
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/07/Sarah_Palin_Compares_Herself_to_God/
(me)…..ummm….OK…..<3…Ronnie
37.
fiona64 | March 8, 2010 at 8:56 am
“I have engraved you on the palms of my hands”
Maybe that’s why she writes her crib notes there.
/snark
Love,
Fiona
38.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Sarah Puklin is certainly wildly popular among the Christian “pro-life” groups! <3 David
39.
Bob | March 7, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Okay Trakkers, this one needs attention, this is freakin scary, is this a disciple of God or a politician???????
This is what politics has come down too, we’re in for TROUBLE, it there are no ALARM BELLS going off, someone is asleep at the switch.
Discipleship regards spiritual matters which transcend the physical, rather than engage in a lust for power.
This is one twisted puppy, claiming direct revelations from God, who is leading her in a quest for political position of influence.
Even more scary for the world, is that she has a stage, and people who would actually vote for her, what has happened to the United States (which aren’t so united). They are participating in these debates, engaging in them, this woman was an actual vice presidential candidate in the last election, the religious right loved her.
Really is this a sermon or political propoganda, it’s time to ask that question.
We stand with the poor and the dienfranchised when we look at this. If the poor want to eat, find shelter, have health care, they got to buy into this Christian Religious Right garbage to get it.
The poor pay, first by donating at the church they attend, the Catholic Church has lived off the guilt offerings of the poor for eons. The reformation was directly aimed at the POPE for bullying the ignorant to buy their way into heaven.
The poor pay, taxes to the gov’t, which in turn gives it to the Churches to dole out to the poor, after of course they first pay themselves, then use the donations as a carrot dangling in front of the noses of those who conform, to the norm of whichever church happens to be doling it out.
The poor pay by giving away their innocence which is replaced by some religious dogma thrust upon them.
The First Nations in Canada, where finally offered an apology by the Gov’t , the prime minister actually said they were sorry for trying to Kill the Indian in the child. The Natives in Canada have spoken out loudly telling people to keep their hands off, their children.
This is a place for coalitions, we stand united on this front, we could expose this confusion in politics ,
THEOCRACY or DEMOCRACY
One last comment, the one country we could rage a war against is The Vatican, (that one devious little country withing a city which uses anything it can in it’s attempts at controlling the world)
40.
Bob | March 7, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I just can’t stop, re the Palin video, separationg of church and state,
Re. coalitions, check out http://www.au.org americans united, these people are working on defending the separation,
re Indigenous Peoples, across the globe, have been fighting this for ever. like I mentioned the Canadian experience, like the Australian, Canadian gov’t partnered with the churches to destroy native spirituality, it didn’t work, it’s an expensive DEADLY alliance, Indigenous peoples understand what is happening to the LGBT people of the world. we’re similar in the sense that we are in every country. Coalitions !!!!!!
41.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Have you seen the Keith Olbermann segment with Rob Boston of AU?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/35339907#35339907
42.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Thank you Kathleen for the link to the story. These kind of “people” and I use the word the loosely, since from my perspective they are little more than religious wind-up dolls, who believe everything that is spewed-out regarding the separation of Church and State being only a one-way separation. I have long believed that if America falls, it will be largely due to the chanting and beating of war drums from the “Reiligious Right”, which I believe they are neither religious or right (as in correct). <3 David
43.
Ed-M | March 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm
@David Kimble #41, their non-sensical one-way separation theory if implemented as law will lead to only one thing: the oppression of the less populous religions and less activist to the benefit of the more populous, more activist religions. This is because as the most populous, activist religions get control of government, they get to pass laws against the smaller, less activist religions that they don’t like. In Uganda and VA it is already happening against LGBT people… My god… I had hoped I’d never talk about a corrupt third world country and a US state doing essentially similar things with the same object in design…
44.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 6:10 pm
No, Ronnie, she has NOT lost her mind. My mama used to tell me that you can’t lose something you don’t have to begin with.
45.
Bob | March 7, 2010 at 6:52 pm
@Kathleen, thanks for the link, there are others out there, aside from the LGBT community that are concerned about the blurring of the lines, wow something to unite around
@David, you actually said if the U.S. falls, imagine that, who would have thunk anyone would even venture to think that, maybe it’s not if but WHEN
Consider the major war they have waged is against terrorists, thats like against thoughts, first the ones they’re after in other countries, are actually, indeginous groups hiding out in caves, spreading ideologies and hatred in ways that are so brilliant, after all these years they haven’t been stopped.
Not to say the waging of war on home territory against equality for all, only leads to discent or home grown terrorists, who would fight for their own freedom FROM religious dogma, with which they disagree.
46.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 1:16 pm
How’s this for a kicker. I have chronic Lyme Disease. As a result, I happen to know that the tests available to confirm active Lyme infection are woefully ineffective; they’re kind of hit and miss at best. So, “testing the blood” isn’t going to be able assure that blood is free from borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that cause Lyme Disease, especially if they do antibody tests, rather than PCR.
Further, the medical literature is full of documentation of people who have been through the prescribed courses of antibiotics who still have active Lyme infection. This is particularly true if you follow some of the more conservative guidelines that consist of a mere 30 days of oral antibiotics.
I’m a case in point. I’ve been off and on various courses of antibiotics, both oral and IV over the span of 10 years – the longest was daily IVs for 1-1/2 years. After nearly 2 years off antibiotics and feeling pretty good, I’ve relapsed again, latest tests show continued active infection and I’m back on daily IVs.
Yet the Red Cross’s guidelines for donating with respect to infection are “If you have a fever or an active infection, wait until the infection has resolved completely before donating blood. Wait until finished taking antibiotics for an infection (bacterial or viral). Wait 10 days after the last antibiotic injection for an infection.”
So, during that period I was feeling good, I just needed to be off my ABs for 10 days and they would have let me donate blood?
As it turns out, I, personally, would be disqualified because they disqualify anyone who’s ever had a babesia infection. That same generous tick who shared the lyme bacteria, passed along a strain of babesia unique to the west coast of the US. But a LOT of doctors don’t know to test for that. So, there are plenty of people with Lyme who likely have a babesia co-infection and don’t even know it.
Frankly, my own epic battle with an infection leads me to distrust the blood supply. I’ve become acutely aware of how many pathogens we know so little about.
But the point is, I think their criteria are somewhat irrational. It seems that some of their guidelines have less to do with pure science than with the perception of safety, hence much of it is based on prejudice and stereotypes.
47.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“Frankly, my own epic battle with an infection leads me to distrust the blood supply. I’ve become acutely aware of how many pathogens we know so little about.”
This is so true, in my time, as a nurse in Seattle, I witnessed pathogens that we have little or no knowlege about, let alone a test to detect. Yet, with all the tests we have to detect HIV and (gay bowel disease – my little dig at stupidity in action), I truly wonder if somehow they think they will get the “gay” by a blood transfusion! [my chuckles for the day]. <3 David
48.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“I truly wonder if somehow they think they will get the “gay” by a blood transfusion!”
David K…they do actually believe that to be true….that other website I mentioned earlier…Several dingbat hateros said that…..One person said….”Gay blood will turn a heterosexual man gay!”…..and then my friend asked “Does AA men’s blood turn Caucasian men’s blood AA?”….no answer…..
I mean seriously WTF…..When I read that…I think I lost brain cells….JMHGO…..<3…Ronnie
49.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Yes Felyx, as someone who now has more experience with the medical profession than I ever thought I would in my entire lifetime, I refuse to deal with any of them as anything more than an adviser. I figure what I’m paying them for is to offer me the benefits of their education and experience so that I have as much information as possible to make an informed choice. But it is always my choice. Any health care worker who doesn’t see it from that perspective has no place in my life. I can’t count the number of doctors’ offices I’ve walked out of, usually after giving them a piece of advice of my own. (evil grin)
50.
John | March 10, 2010 at 9:31 am
Like in the classic M*A*S*H episode where the bigot didn’t want to get any black blood? So they dyed him brown from head-to-toe in his sleep after the transfusion? That was abso-f’ing-lutely beautiful.
51.
Felyx | March 7, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Funny you should say that Kathleen….I am horrified with the medical profession. I can forgive policies made on best guesses in the absence of science….after all, what are you going to do? But to make policies when the science is there…and has been for decades!!!!
As a nurse I am avid about telling people to take control of their own care. DON”T EVER just believe your doctor!!!! Certainly consider the opinions of the doctors and nurses and whoever but DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!
I know a doctor that did pediatric spinal taps because the hospital gave her bonuses per procedure. (She was lesbian BTW…just to show no one is immune.) She gave 1020% more Spinals than any other physician! It was almost routine with her. Do you think the hospital would say anything? Hell no! Too much money involved (oh and you don’t question the integrity of the professional….at least not with that much money involved.) Why is this scary? The risk of problems FOR LIFE due to spinal taps are terrifying! And she had no regard for the lives she was affecting! And the parents? Well if the doctor said to…..
Too much of medical policy is based on perception. Clearly established practices are violated so that everything looks good. Skilled Nursing Facilities are known to create drug abusers since giving narcotics makes clients happy! Hey, makes for good perception.
One SNF covered up a sick molestor who would feel up the mentally challenged women in its facility. I did everything I was supposed to do to prevent and report it….afterwards I found myself fighting for my job!! I did not know that the world was even like this…turns out the administration KNEW about this and had documentation going back seven years!!! Someone slipped the papers in my notebook (I suspect, but I still don’t know for certain, but I thank them for there bravery.) Once I copied and sent the documents to all the relevant social service and state agencies suddenly all the pressure and harrassment disappeared.
Perception is still to active a force in the human experience. It makes for poor laws, poor medicine, poor treatment of others poor living in general. I have hope though…we are still growing as a species.
Rant brought to you by…
Felyx – Proud sponsor of handwashing and REALITY
and by the letter
B as in Be Informed!
52.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Oops. My comment above was meant to thread here.
53.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“Skilled Nursing Facilities are known to create drug abusers since giving narcotics makes clients happy! Hey, makes for good perception.”
@Felyx – this depends upon the State – in Washington State, where I had my license, this was not the common practice, since the State had very definitive rules regarding drugs and what could be used and what couldn’t. The State viewed narcotics as a form of “restraint”, so unless doctors had a very good reason for prescribing them most were considered PRN medications and only used for pain management.
Additionally, at the facility I worked, there was a former doctor, who some had dubbed “Dr. Vicodan”, he had prescribed the medication for himself and became addicted to this drug. He was admitted to the facility to try and get him off the Vicodan, yet we had little success in his time at the facility. <3 David
54.
Felyx | March 7, 2010 at 6:08 pm
David, NC is no different. These rules and regulations are national. In fact, we in NC have some of the most stringent rules, regulations and oversight in the nation! (Not the least of which is reactionary to the horrific scandles in NC in the 70′s80′s.) NC has been recognized as the leader in SNF care in so many areas…but that is not the point….the nurses still do it and the administration (who are not licensed medical professionals) encourage or even mandate it.
It is no more legal or ‘commonly (legally) practiced’ here than there….but it is UNCOMMONLY practice way too often. I have worked all the way up from Florida to VA…I would be shocked if your facilities in your state were any different. It is not state dependent as far as I can tell, it is facility dependent.
Regardless of nitpicking over minutia….if you have not noticed any perception based policies in your particular facility or state then you are either blind or purposely not looking!!
Anyway, don’t spam me anymore about individual examples that you might disagree with, please stay on topic regarding policies based on perception in lieu of science.
Felyx….with a bit of a raw nerve.
55.
RAY in MA | March 7, 2010 at 4:02 pm
And now for something totally differenet. (in the spirit of Monty Python)
Is there a prize for “Off Topic” here?
This may qualify…(wanna feel small and insignificant?)
Take a Sunday break from the world of Anti-Gay Oppression…
In California, you have the Rose Parade…
In China, they have this:
http://www.wimp.com/chinesecelebration/
(Picture trying to organize a “no on Prop 8″ campaign here!)
56.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I think they should work on setting the record for the world’s largest flash mob! :)
57.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Thanx RAY in MA, that was definitely a wow – the Chinese certainly have spectacular celebrations. <3 David
58.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Yes, and have you noticed that in China, Korea, and the other Asian/Pacific rim countries that for celebrations, they break out the rainbow? As an example, I remember watching M*A*S*H and in one episode, Hot Lips was making a dress for a young Korean lady who was gedtting married, and the dress was layered with each layer being a different color of the rainbow. Also, when Klinger proposed to Soon LI by bringing her the wedding dress he was using in his attempts to get a Section 8, Soon Li thought it was a funeral dress, and Klinger had to explain to her that in the US, wedding dresses were white, rather than rainbowed. Could it be that they know more about equality that our “conservatives” here in the US?
59.
JQ | March 12, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I’m pretty sure this is footage of the People’s Republic of China’s 60th Anniversary celebration. They had children, university students, and military members rehearsing for months for this parade. It was considered a very high honor to be able to participate and they had to perform perfectly to keep their spot. And as you can see, it makes for a mighty fine parade!
And the yellow field with red characters -that is all people holding placards/special hats. Watch at 00:46 for an awesome change of characters. Also, the rainbow fields are people with placards/special hats as well.
As far as human rights go, China doesn’t impress me, but man, do they know how to throw a parade!
60.
2Dogs | March 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm
This is a little off topic, but, I think, tangential. In Brian’s article is an example of invidious, pervasive, and corrosive internalized homophobia. (No offense intended, Brian. We’re steeped in it.) He writes, “I will certainly admit that gay men are known to be a smidgen more promiscuous.”
Don’t buy it. It’s not true. More promiscuous than what? Straight men!
It’s commonly accepted that in this species males tend to be more promiscuous than females. But you instinctively know that the promiscuity of straight men is every bit the equal of gay men.
However, by very happy coincidence (to my own way of thinking), the objects of some men’s desire happen to also be responsive men. Yes, imagine the potential!
61.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 4:36 pm
*If* there was any additional promiscuity among gay men, it couldn’t possibly be because they were denied access to an institution that’s been proven to stabilize relationships, could it? Nah…
I tend to agree with you that, on the whole, there’s no real difference between gay and straight men in that department. But if there was, marriage inequality would be the first thing I’d blame.
62.
2Dogs | March 7, 2010 at 4:43 pm
That’s a very good point, Kevin. In fact it reminds of yet another repression. I came out late– at 24. I wasted no time in trying to catch up with what my straight friends had been up to since the age of 14. Or at least you might think so from their conversations, in which every other sentence was about straight sex.
63.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 4:47 pm
As someone who talked it up quite a bit in his (slightly) younger days, I can tell you that was 98% bullshit.
64.
Ed-M | March 8, 2010 at 5:16 pm
@Kevin S #58: I lived in Boston in the 90s and sometimes a radio talk show host would inveigh against same-sex mariage and each time he did, all these straight men would call in and ask, “Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Let them be as miserable as we are!”
So, Kevin, I perceive you are correct… if we gay men are more promiscuous than straight men… it is strictly due to marriage inequality… and we are likely no more promiscuous than straight men want to be, and probably less…
65.
Felyx | March 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Actually frankly this talk over promiscuity is really off base. Why is even being considered a bad thing?
There is a culture in northern china that has what is called ‘walking marriages’. The whole idea of so called promiscuity is to promote group cohesion! This is found in quite a few cultures and in many species…dolphins and higher primates for instance.
And usually I have all my facts up front but tonight I am out of it, but wasn’t there a general, I think Alexander the Great that espoused the idea of an army of lovers as a way to ensure stability in the ranks as well as promote unit cohesion?!!
If I were in a marriage and my partner had a need to go out and experience something I was not interested in I wouldn’t say no. I just figure it would eventually work its way through his system and monogamy would take over as we got older.
This fuss over promiscuity is perception based IMO. Clearly we are ‘wired’ to do certain things. Trying to exert control over it is about as productive as shoveling water. Working with the behaviour to increase safety, awareness and self discovery is far more productive and beneficial.
In my personal life I have not really had the opportunity to be voluntarily promiscuous…but if I ever find something I want to do, I don’t think I am going to worry about other peoples perceptions…I am going to focus of safety and self discovery. I choose a path of happiness……Felyx…..hence the name.
66.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 6:52 pm
The promiscuity discussion wasn’t a value judgment, it was an acknowledgment that it exposes one to more STD risk, whether one is gay or straight.
67.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I’m a child of the ’60s — anyone want lessons on promiscuity on a global scale? :)
68.
K!r!lleXXI | March 8, 2010 at 6:46 am
As much as I am pro monogamy, I agree that controlling this, on governmental level or on couple’s level, is inefficient. We are who we are, and sometimes some of us want something on the side. People make too big of a deal out of infidelity. I think that lying is the real problem with infidelity, lying is what destroys marriages and relationships, not affairs per se. Honesty is the best policy, they say. Partners can be truly loving only when they are completely honest with each other, upfront about who they are, even about the possibility of having something casual and meaningless outside of their arrangement.
If two people cannot agree on that, they won’t be happy because: a) one of them will have to suppress one’s desire to phuck around, will develop a grudge on one’s partner overtime over that, or will choose to lie and cheat and feel bad about it, hating oneself and one’s partner for creating such circumstances; and, b) the other one (the one who will not tolerate extra-marital affairs in the first place) will regret becoming a suppressor to one’s partner and will also feel those unpleasant feelings from one’s partner because of suppressing or because of the lying and cheating covertly.
Honesty is the most important part of such relationship, along with true love. For me, not the unfaithfulness would be the problem, but the lying about it, covering it up and hoping this will never be revealed. Trust is everything. I may be talking platitudes and may sound naive. I don’t care. These are the terms. Take it or leave it. If I never have a relationship like this, then I will never have a relationship at all. I will not settle for anything less than complete trust and respect, besides the true love, obviously. I know how great it feels to be completely honest and open with someone you love, I had no idea before… this kind of openness creates the greatest kind of bond between two people, the bond the strength of which goes beyond anything else collectively… this bond, if taken care of, will never break, will never let you down, will never destroy you, but will always be something you can absolutely rely upon. Naive? Dunno. Maybe I’m just too much in love and I’m totally talking out of my… no, not ass… heart!
–Kirill, in ♥ with F
69.
fiona64 | March 8, 2010 at 9:01 am
“Alexander the Great that espoused the idea of an army of lovers as a way to ensure stability in the ranks as well as promote unit cohesion?!!”
The Spartans most assuredly did that. You can read Herodotus for contemporary factual accounts or Steven Pressfield’s excellent “Gates of Fire” for a well-researched historical fiction that is a far more entertaining read.
Love,
Fiona
70.
Ed-M | March 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Kirlii, I don’t know if “The 300″ ever showed in Russia, but here it met with great controversy because it showed the Persians as gay men and mad circuit / leather queens at that, and the 300 as nothing more than a fraternal organization intametely joined together by “male bonding” except they did not have sex!!!
Not only was that film homphobic, it was wildly inaccurate as well. The 300 most certainly did include sexual pair-bonding as well as affectionale bonding in their means for guaranteeing group cohesion…
71.
Felyx | March 8, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Everyone deserves health wealth and happiness…
Few of our brothers accept it. To the one that does, I will celebrate my life with you! Bratya and more!
72.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Amen, Brian! It is time for the legal community to listen to the blood banks and repeal this outdated legislation.
73.
mattbuck | March 7, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Hi Brian,
I’d just like to say that things aren’t any better in Britain. No gay or bisexual man is allowed to give blood, even if they practiced safe sex.
The University of Nottingham’s LGBT recently staged a demonstration about it (as they do every year) when the blood bank rolled in to town.
74.
Bob | March 7, 2010 at 4:55 pm
mattbuck, are you trakking from Britian, just wondering? how international is this chat, for sure there’s a Russian, I’m Canadian.
75.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I know the woman who posts as “Straight Grandmother” lives in France.
76.
Marjorie | March 8, 2010 at 3:26 am
I’m in Qatar. :-)
77.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Hey! My son did a play at UofN’s Lakeside Arts Center last year!
78.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 6:18 pm
I have also seen trackers from Australia.
79.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 6:19 pm
And isn’t there at least one tracker from Mexico?
80.
Bob | March 7, 2010 at 6:35 pm
come out come out wherever you are, trackers, declare your country of domicile, lets see how far away support comes from. join the Force TRACKERS unite
81.
dieter | March 7, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Hollywood inside info:
Matt Damon slated to play Liberace’s lover in an upcoming movie starring Michaels douglas as Liberace.
82.
dieter | March 7, 2010 at 4:52 pm
(cuz apparently they could not find any gay actors in hollywood..lol)
83.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 6:36 pm
They just weren’t looking in the right places. All the gay actors have steady day jobs on TV.
84.
K!r!lleXXI | March 8, 2010 at 4:55 am
I remember Matt Damon in Will & Grace‘s “A Chorus Lie” (s04e15), playing a straight guy who was pretending to be gay to get free tickets to Europe. Would be nice to finally see him playing gay for real.
85.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 6:07 am
Matt Damon did play a Gay character (maybe he was Bi)…..anywho….He was in “The Talented Mr. Ripley” with Jude Law and Gwyeth Paltrow………Granted his character was a few cards short of a full deck….but he wanted Jude’s character badly……..lol………..<3….Ronnie
86.
Billy | March 7, 2010 at 4:59 pm
I think in order to make an impact in the minds of people, we should grab their attention using group action. Here’s my suggestion: The next time there’s a community need for blood (it is advertised on TV that the local blood supply is critically low), get a group of glbt friends together and organize locally to all go together at the same time. Go through the entire process, but after they’ve taken your blood and put it in the bag, THEN tell them, “Wait, what was that one question you asked? Yeah, I’m gay. Oops. My bad.”
They will more than likely mark the blood to be thrown out. But, my point is, let them take it. Then at the end of the day, when they have thrown out 20+ pints of blood that could have been used to save lives, call them out on it publically using the media. Make it a protest using their own system against them.
87.
Bob | March 7, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Billy, I like it ,,,,,, raise a little hell
88.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Time for a video – <3 David
89.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Now THAT is when music was music! Thanks, David K!
90.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm
You’re welcome – I have always liked ABBA (for anyone, who is not familiar with the group – they are a swedish group, who were popular during the disco days of dance. <3 David
91.
Kathleen | March 7, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I’m afraid ABBA will forever be linked in my head with the movie The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert :)
92.
fiona64 | March 8, 2010 at 9:04 am
“Muriel’s Wedding,” baby.
“My life is going to be wonderful. It’ll be better than ‘Dancing Queen’!”
If you haven’t seen “Mamma Mia” on stage, and it comes through your town — GO! It was the best fun ever.
Love,
Fiona
93.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 9:11 am
OMG….fiona64….I love “Muriel’s Wedding”…..that premiered on LOGO last night…I have it on DVD…hehehe…. I don’t care what she wanted…she was a FOOL for giving up that golden olympic swimmer man GOD….Toni Collette is the most gorgeous ugly duckling ever…because she owns it…..I heart her….<3….Ronnie
94.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 6:02 pm
BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!………<3….Ronnie:
95.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Even better….I can’t….ROTFLMGAO!!!!….hehehehe….<3….Ronnie:
96.
David Kimble | March 7, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Thanx, Ronnie! Those were great – you are King (or is that the Queen) of videos. I need to go to bed now. good night all and enjoy! <3 David
97.
Ronnie | March 7, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Good night….tty2morro….<3…Ronnie
98.
Joe | March 7, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Because of the myth that HIV is a homosexual disease, HIV has overwhelmingly become a heterosexual disease. We must classify these on behavior, not just people, because HIV knows no gender and no orientation.
99.
Bob | March 7, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Academy Awards , The Hurt Locker wins, if anyone reads Michael Moores blogs, or gets his e-mails, read what he wrote about this movie. “no one walks out of this movie wanting to continue fighting seneless wars”
100.
Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 7, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Also, the movie’s director became the first woman to win that honor in the 82-year history of the AMPAS. Wonder how James Cameron felt about getting beat by his ex-wife? I say it shows she is the smarter of them.
101.
Kevin S. | March 7, 2010 at 9:28 pm
One made a movie of substance, the other played around in MS Paint.
102.
Michelle Evans | March 7, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Actually, Jim Cameron has been pushing for Katherine Bigelow to win this year. He felt she was well overdue and that this was a great flick, and she and the movie deserved the Oscar. That does not take away from the achievement that Cameron accomplished with Avatar. It was a heck of a lot more than playing around with MS Paint.
There’s a lot of bad press about Cameron, but he is actually a pretty decent guy, just that he demands the absolute best in whatever he does. I’ve had the pleasure to meet him on a few occasions, including advising him about a movie he has been working on for almost as long as Avatar that would involve the first human mission to Mars. Passionate doesn’t begin to describe this guy.
103.
2Dogs | March 8, 2010 at 10:56 pm
You are so right, Michele, about James Cameron– a class act. Avatar of 2009 is THE cultural high water mark in the history of film– akin to or more than Wizard of Oz, Fantasia, 2001, Star Wars, etc.
I’m sorry, but Hurt Locker will b comee a minor footnote and joke in film history– as little remembered as Crash (remember that!??) which won over the real best film of 2005 Brokeback Mountain– a cultural game changer!!
Can anyone have any respect for some 6000 random Academy voters who elected Hurt Locker? I mean, seriously, US box office alone: Avatar $704 million; Hurt Locker $12 million. Hello!!!
I’m all in support of women and ALL other “minorities” winning, but by MERIT, not through Academy petty politics and animosity towards a towering genius James Cameron.
Avatar is already the most money making move OF ALL TIME, with world box office of well over $2 BILLION.
Not the best film? I know $$ doesn’t necessarily mean quality, but I know 500 million movie goers who will testify in Avatar’s favor. And whose lives have been forever changed.
104.
fern | March 7, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Rules, really I understand this one derogatory but rules and so called laws make me wonder. The best example I have is, the police in Belgium went on a zeal strike and they legally brought the country to a stand still.
Sunday 10 AM beautiful springtime day in N.Y., I decided to have a beer, I Came from 42nd street where I had been hustled by male and female hookers and a few dope dealers (I loved it), but I couldn’t get a beer.
My opinion on this blood law is, if my country discriminates against me and my blood, my country doesn’t deserve it.
105.
fern | March 8, 2010 at 1:08 am
Looking at the strategic angle, it’s good to go after that law and other stuff like that, a little like the “Taliban” a suicide bomber here and ambush there except you’re doing the legal guerrilla a chip here a chip there and finally proving the uselessness and stupidity of DOMA and DADT, followed by Olson & Boies for the “coup de grâce”.
106.
Tim | March 8, 2010 at 1:48 am
All you Trackers are a wealth of knowledge and entertainment! Sorry, I do not live in a far away land like Russia, I live about 50 miles north of where the trial ( Perry vs Schwarzenegger) took/ taking place. I just wanted to say I love being a “Tracker” along with all of you. I don’t post comments as much as most of you but I’m here in Sonoma Ca. and you people Gay and straight are an amazing group of people and I love reading all your comments! Thank You to the Courage Campain for bringing all of us together! I’m learning alot ! Ronnie,David,Richard,Felyx and the rest of you, keep tracking! Together we will prevale! Love Tim…
107.
Gregory in Salt Lake City | March 8, 2010 at 6:04 am
I agree Tim! I appreciate the amazing wealth of knowledge by this bunch…thanks to all! Seems every topic that gets posted is relevant to my world and I appreciate the insights and discussions. The donating blood issue has been on my mind but didn’t know what to do about it. I work for a healthcare organization and just last week I got several emails begging us to donate blood. I want to help but not eligible. Plus, like John at the top of these comments said, its frustrating to feel pressure to donate in an office setting.
108.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | March 8, 2010 at 7:16 am
Thanks, Tim. And for anyone who has not already heard, there is a group on FB asking every LGBTQQI couple in America to visit their local courthouse to apply for marriage licenses on April 15. I think all of us should do it, and have the media there so that when we are denied, the whole country can see that we are just like them–everyday married folks trying to live our lives in the open without fear. BZ and I are going, and I am letting the media know in advance.
109.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 7:30 am
I would totally do that…..one problem….no boyfriend…. : ( …..<3….Ronnie
110.
Tim | March 8, 2010 at 1:54 am
oops! Prevail is the correct spelling. Don’t Judge Me! lol
111.
Marjorie | March 8, 2010 at 3:32 am
For what it’s worth, I’m *still* ineligible to donate blood because of living in the UK, due to fear of mad cow disease — and I’m a strict vegetarian. So the blood donation rules are nonsensical for more classes of people than gay men (not that that makes it any better).
112.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 6:58 am
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/08/Uganda_Lesbian_Couple_Speak_Out/
Posted on Advocate.com March 08, 2010
Uganda Lesbian Couple Speaks Out
By Julie Bolcer
“Time magazine offers a window on the life of Kampala-based lesbian activist Pepe Julian Onziema and her partner, who bravely live in repressive circumstances where, for a woman, “wearing a suit can be a death wish.””
(me)….Can I just say how awesome I think her name is…and a suit?….really?……..<3…Ronnie
113.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 7:12 am
This article goes into more detail:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1969667,00.html
POSTCARD FROM KAMPALA
Being Gay in Uganda: One Couple’s Story
By Glenna Gordon Monday, Mar. 08, 2010
“introduced a bill that, if it becomes law, will further criminalize homosexuality in Uganda. “Aggravated homosexuality,” according to the bill, will become a capital offense. Anyone who doesn’t report a known homosexual within 24 hours will be subject to punishment of up to seven years in jail.”
(me) I mean “Aggravated homosexuality” I say in a deep mocking voice…..how do you annoy homosexuality?
“To be gay in Uganda is to be hopeful, always, that things will get better. Onziema hopes, believes, she and her partner will marry one day. They’ve already talked about buying a new suit at the shop on Entebbe Road for her, and a white dress for her partner.”
(me) This is the epitome of strength, courage, and Love….that being within the very grasp of a national law of genocide….you still have hope that things will get better…..can I just tell you that after reading this…my heart is literally in my throat…….<3….Ronnie
114.
Kevin S. | March 8, 2010 at 8:23 am
how do you annoy homosexuality?
By constantly repressing it. Wait, so who’s guilty of aggravating homosexuality again?
115.
fiona64 | March 8, 2010 at 9:07 am
“Aggravated,” in the legal sense, is not the same as “annoyed.” For example, one of the many things of which my sociopath biological brother was found guilty was “aggravated attempted homicide.” In this case, it means he tried to kill a police officer in the line of duty.
I suspect that, in this case, “aggravated homosexuality” means being sexually active.
Love,
Fiona
116.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 9:13 am
I think they are using it to describe people who support gay people….I think that is the wrong use of the word…IMHGO…..<3…Ronnie
117.
K!r!lleXXI | March 8, 2010 at 9:14 am
I can’t watch this anymore…
This is the explanation. You, guys, here are making stuff up. :)
118.
fiona64 | March 8, 2010 at 9:32 am
Thank you for finding the definition, Kirille.
I wonder how someone could be a “victim” in the way described in the definition Kirille provided? I do not know the age of consent in Uganda in general (I suspect it’s actually quite young).
Oddly enough (or perhaps not, depending on your perspective), there are laws in some states that say that an HIV+ person who has intercourse without disclosing his or her disease state is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.
Love,
Fiona
119.
Kevin S. | March 8, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Fiona, I understand the difference. I was using a little wordplay to turn it around. ;-)
120.
Ed-M | March 8, 2010 at 6:35 pm
The term “aggravated homosexuality” also includes a “serial offender” and defines such as one who has committed the offense of homosexuality or a related offense. And all the related offense is spelled out in the bill. So-called “aiding and abetting homosexuality…” physical contact that could “lead to an act of homosexuality” (i.e., no PDAs)… not reporting a “known homosexual…” and so on. This will leave no room for a closet in Uganda. All LGBT people will be humtyed down, even abroad, if this insane bill passes. Even friends, family, coworkers and service providers especially professionals in the caring professions will be caught up in this insane “aggravated homosexuality” death penalty charge if it can be proven they have committed multiple offenses in sequence, and it will probably be “proven” due to blind prejudice.
http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com/2010/02/ugandan-kill-gays-bills-is-worse-than.html
And even the antigay pastor Martin Ssemba could get caught up in this and get killed by the State if this bill were eneacted and he continues to show extreme gay porn in Ugandan churches. He’s had two such presentations already and I doubt he’ll stop!
121.
Kevin S. | March 8, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I also doubt he’ll be prosecuted even if he doesn’t. They’ll excuse him like Sarah excused rush. I wouldn’t want to be a satirical cartoon in Uganda that even mentions homosexuality, though!
122.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 8:20 am
http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Entertainment_News/Barr_Tones_Down_Attack_on_Osmond/
Posted on Advocate.com March 08, 2010
Barr Tones Down Attack on Osmond
Roseanne Barr seems to be softening her harsh words for Marie Osmond, whose son committed suicide, some speculated, because he was gay and Mormon.
By Julie Bolcer
(me) I find this interesting because I don’t think she toned down shite….I think her first statement was made out of anger….and I think the following is making the statement for P.C……
“Mormon women are some of the world’s strongest women,” said Barr. “Marie is going back to work in her Las Vegas show the day after her son’s funeral. She is that strong in her focus and determination, and I do admire that. Good Luck on all you do, Marie. You have so much power to turn the wrong things around!”
(me) Knowing Roseanne’s work and personality…once she gets over the anger….her comedy and sarcastic side comes out….I think it was a dig at….”How dare you go back to work the day after…this isn’t a cold or some under the weather moment…..your son just killed himself …you just put your son in the ground…..you heartless mormon B!tch”…….but don’t quote me on that…..<3…Ronnie
123.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 8:25 am
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/08/Antibullying_Bill_Passes_in_Wash_State/
Posted on Advocate.com March 08, 2010
Antibullying Bill Passes in Wash. State
By Julie Bolcer
“According to the Human Rights Campaign, “the Senate vote was 48 – 0 and the bill had previously passed the House 97 – 0.”
(me) You hear that Hateros?……start teaching your kids to be tolerant and respectful or they will suffer the consequences…..JMHGO…..<3….Ronnie
124.
Alan E. | March 8, 2010 at 8:42 am
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-Words
“81 Words”
I listened to half of this segment on This American Life on Saturday. This is the story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.
125.
Alan E. | March 8, 2010 at 8:42 am
It’s from 2002, but still relevant today.
126.
Sheryl Carver | March 8, 2010 at 9:32 am
Just saw this on ontopmag.com. I have no idea if it is correct, but looks like the livebloggers will need to warm up their fingers again for more marathon typing.
The closing arguments by both sides in the legal battle over California’s gay marriage ban won’t be broadcast, the Ninth U.S. District Court announced last week.
Speculation that lawyer’s final arguments in the high-profile trial considering the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban narrowly approved by California voters in 2008, would be broadcast jumped after the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the court might consider such an option.
“Despite a rebuff from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bay Area’s federal judges are again proposing to allow cameras in their courtrooms, a plan that could lead to telecasting of closing arguments in a suit challenging California’s ban on sex-sex marriage,” the paper reported.
The Supreme Court blocked a plan by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to broadcast the trial from his San Francisco courtroom to other federal courthouses and post delayed footage on YouTube, the video-sharing website owned by Google.
In appealing to the Supreme Court, Proposition 8 lawyers argued that public broadcast would intimidate their witnesses.
In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court chastised Walker for shortening the usual comment period. The court said the trial was too “divisive” for the court’s pilot project and suggested it should start with a more routine case.
Final arguments will not be broadcast, the court announced on its website.
“Certain recent articles have reported incorrect information about possible broadcasting of closing arguments in Perry et. al. v. Schwarzenegger et. al.,” the court said.
The court said that the request to broadcast the trial was withdrawn by Judge Walker on January 15, 2010.
“Broadcasting closing arguments would require Chief Judge Walker to request that these arguments be included in the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program and approval of that request by Chief Judge Kozinski. No such request has been made,” the court said.
Closing arguments in the case have yet to be scheduled.
127.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 10:34 am
If this is true…..Who paid off the Judge?…..<3…Ronnie
128.
Ronnie | March 8, 2010 at 10:35 am
Who paid off Chief Judge Kozinski?….that is…..<3….Ronnie
129.
David Kimble | March 8, 2010 at 10:22 am
“The court said that the request to broadcast the trial was withdrawn by Judge Walker on January 15, 2010″ – welll this sucks! Geez, and here I was hoping to be able to view the closing arguments! <3 David
130.
Josiah | March 8, 2010 at 11:25 am
This is a minor point, but even if the ridiculous ban on gay men giving blood is revoked, Brian won’t be able to give blood — because the ban on people who’ve lived in the UK is still in place. It’s a lifetime ban, even though there’s no evidence whatsoever that the prions which cause BSE (mad cow disease) can be carried in the blood, or transmitted through blood. I’m straight, and banned from giving blood because I spent a year in an exchange program at a school in the UK between 1989 and 1990.
So in addition to stupid restrictions based on outdated prejudice, they have stupid restrictions that are based on outdated fears. It’d be nice if they fixed this minor problem while fixing the major problem of the gay donor ban.
131.
dieter | March 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm
poor poor Uganda:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/03/uganda-preferred-trade-status-to-be-reviewed-state-department-seeks-report-on-criminalization-of-homosexuality-in-africa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HrcBackStory+%28HRC+Back+Story%29
132.
Fiona | March 8, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I understand the original poster’s frustration. I also cannot give blood because I lived in the UK, because they are worried I may have CJD. And I am a VEGETARIAN.
Blood donor policies are quite ridiculous, no?
To a certain extent I understand it. They have a responsibility to remove people who have undertaken high-risk behaviour, like living in the United Kingdom. They ned to make sure the blood supply is safe.
If I walk in and tell them I’m a vegetarian, they have to start making more subjective judgments. They might have to ask questions about what I mean by vegetarian. Did I drink milk? Might I have ingested lard? Etc.
It’s the same with the gay sex high-risk behaviour. The point is not that you had sex. It’s that you engaged in high risk behaviour. They don’t want to get into a discussion about the details. Frankly, they probably couldn’t train their staff to be able to deal with that in a sensitive and sensible manner.
133.
Rose W. | March 9, 2010 at 8:17 am
There’s a reason I flat out refuse to give blood.
Also, I hear that the Red Cross, though it’s not in their official policies, won’t let transsexual individuals donate.
134.
Rich GS | March 9, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I thought all blood was screened before use. I’d be surprised if hospitals allow use of blood that hasn’t been tested for all potential undesirable qualities. If you had an operation that required the use of donated blood, wouldn’t you yourself want to be certain it wasn’t contaminated? Fear/bigotry regarding gay men and misinformation about AIDS are really what’s at issue here, I think.
135.
Alto | June 14, 2010 at 2:43 pm
In what can only be described as an yet another attempt to further the divide, the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted 9 to 6 against lifting the ban on allowing gay men to donate blood.
The article is here : http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/03/07/equality-of-blood/#comments
Clearly, the progress of modern medicine has been pushed aside in favor of discrimination. At least 6 of those that voted are capable of independent thought.
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts.”–Daniel Patrick Moynihan
136.
Kathleen | June 14, 2010 at 2:54 pm
What makes this even more over-the-top absurd, is that they were only voting on whether to change the current rule (banning donations from any man who has had sex with another man since 1977), to one banning donations from any man who has had sex with another man within the last five years. They still couldn’t get a majority to vote for the change.
137.
John | June 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Knocking it back to five years would still make it impossible for most openly gay men to give blood.
I suppose if my husband were to die before me, and I lived at least five years after, then I could donate under those rules. Golly. How special.
138.
Alto | June 14, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The link didn’t come through correctly. I’ll try again:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
139.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | June 14, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I got it just fine with the previous link. You just have to click the ad away first. Thanks for the link, Alto.