Brontoforumus

Also, the TPS held down a man, tasered him and joked about getting AIDS from the suspect

And they wonder why they didn't get invited to Pride.

I still can't believe the CBS still doesn't take blood donations from gay men. Sure they keep reducing it, but it's seriously fucked up that they haven't abolished that restriction yet.

(To non-Canadians: Yes they'll accept donations from gay men... but only those who've been abstinent for a year. Meanwhile their own resources states that HIV is only undetectable through current testing for about 10 days after sex).

Büge wrote:Also, the TPS held down a man, tasered him and joked about getting AIDS from the suspect

And they wonder why they didn't get invited to Pride.

Wow, I think I filled my Police Abuse Bingo card off of that video.

Mongrel wrote:I still can't believe the CBS still doesn't take blood donations from gay men. Sure they keep reducing it, but it's seriously fucked up that they haven't abolished that restriction yet.

(To non-Canadians: Yes they'll accept donations from gay men... but only those who've been abstinent for a year. Meanwhile their own resources states that HIV is only undetectable through current testing for about 10 days after sex).

Would you support a (time for detection + reasonable extra threshold for safety) ban on anyone who engages in receptive anal sex?

Probably. Having a universal standard delay for high-risk groups, regardless of sexual orientation would likely allow more donations under a fairer system. But I think the real issue isn't the type of sex so much as it is promiscuity or having a new sexual partner or a recent unknown hookup.

Currently blood storage is limited to a maximum of 42 days or six weeks, so instituting a mandatory testing delay on all blood samples of say, two weeks, significantly impacts the use of that blood (as I understand it, blood is mostly processed first-in-first-out, but there are exceptions such as neonatal or cardiac procedures requiring newly-donated blood).

As far as I can tell, testing for all samples is mandatory and they're only released after testing is complete, so the only issue is recent infections which can bypass testing. In such cases blood services rely on pre-screening to verify if someone falls-into a high-risk group. Since more than 80% of donations are repeat donations, generally once someone has been screened once and proven to be a reliable donor, their blood won't have to be held up in testing (unless they're particularly promiscuous or something).

So a time ban is really going to mostly affect a subset of new donors, who are already a minority. This would probably be offset (I don't know how much) by allowing, say, gay men in monogamous relationships with no evidence of infection to donate under the same conditions as anyone else in a long-term monogamous relationship.

What the fuck is this shit... he's trying it AGAIN?

AGAIN?!?

Lawful Good (insert sarcastic sneer here)

She has spent the majority of her 20 years on this earth in prison, in hospital, or in juvenile hall. Disowned and turned out into the street at 8 for identifying as female. What the flying feudal fundie fuck.

Whatever you do, don't read the comments is all I'll add...

BIG GAYS CLOGGING UP THE ROADS

HUGE GAYS

MASSIVE GAYS

One presumes that once pride weekend is over, there are no longer gays in the city.

Friday wrote:BIG GAYS CLOGGING UP THE ROADS

HUGE GAYS

MASSIVE GAYS

"This is Unit 44, we got a critical mass of floppy wrists between Fifth and Seventh Ave all up and down Broadway, over"

"Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have Car 69 on it asap. How's Upper Park looking?"

"Fahbulous...Jablonski's gettin his face painted and I've got two more nails to go. Toodles!"

atog wrote:"This is Unit 44, we got a critical mass of floppy wrists between Fifth and Seventh Ave all up and down Broadway, over"

"Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have Car 69 on it asap. How's Upper Park looking?"

"Fahbulous...Jablonski's gettin his face painted and I've got two more nails to go. Toodles!"

thanks for jumping into the queer issues thread to drop a bunch of homophobic jokes

TA, maybe the execution was poor, but a more charitable reading of Starr's post is that she - like everyone else - is making fun of the sign (and the ignorance behind it), rather than anything directed at The Gays.

Doing that by way of a bunch of incredibly homophobic stereotypes, acting like anything involving The Gays™ must be a bunch of hyperfem dudes talking like they're working a drag show, is perpetuating homophobia even if you're doing it to make fun of a sign. Far more ignorant than a badly worded sign.

Sigh.

TA's got a point.

Büge wrote:TA's got a point.

Yes, and he expressed it as he always does.

If you would like to speak to Starr about the way she expressed herself - which would be perfectly understandable - she's over in the living room right now.

Lurking these threads is like pretending to sleep while you listen to your family fighting downstairs.