BS: The last great prejudice?

Subject: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Big Ballad Singer
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 03:30 PM

I saw the thread on "what laws would you scrap" and I was going to answer there, but I thought I would start a new discussion/thread/fistfight/screaming match here instead.

When I think of the founding of my home nation, the United States, and the freedom movements that have risen over the centuries throughout the world, I continually come back to two words that reverberate with my spirit every time I hear or read them in the context of law or public policy:

WITHOUT REGARD.

Liberty, freedom and opportunity ithout regard to race, color, creed, country of birth, sexual or relational affection or proclivity... such wonderful words when used to express a liberty that every single person here should enjoy.

Sadly, however, there is plenty of talk about equality and tolerance in this nation (and others, of course), yet there is a HUGE disparity between the force of idealistic language and the present reality under which we live.

In short, while there are many hatreds, oppositions and so on in the world, I believe there is ONE GREAT PREJUDICE left that tops them all... I believe the prejudice of law against same-sex relationships, unions, entitlements under insurance and pension laws, etc is the leviathan that the so-called "liberals" still aren't fighting against hard enough. I believe the ages-old dominionist "theology" (so-called) of CERTAIN narrow-minded proponents of religion is still like an old, rusty chain that holds us back and keeps us limited in our potential to forward the human race.

Yes, there are religious wars, race wars, social and economic class wars and ALL of those things have the threads of both freedom and bondage running through them. This last GREAT prejudice in my country, however, is the ONE that I believe is really in the way of our ability to finally realize the Founding Fathers' ambitions of a land where every man and woman would be at liberty to pursue their happiness on their own and in their own way.

It's ironic that there are comedians of one race that will mock another, there are "pundits" representing one view that will skewer others on the air or in print, but the "gender identity" or "sexual orientation" issues seem to get ignored, treated as a disease or mocked and trivialized, at least by the so-called "straight" majority. Those are the same things that once typified the racially-prejudiced climate of our nation in centuries past.

On this anniversary of the struggle and victory of many brave men and woman to win independence from dictatorship, perhaps I have shed some light on what I think remains the "elephant in the room". Perhaps I will amuse, offend or confuse some or many.

All in all, I hope this opening post sparks at least some beneficial dialogue.

Free Means Everyone, Or It Means No-one.

Regards,
BBS

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: pdq
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 03:45 PM

In the United States, only about 2% of women and 3% of men are homosexual.

I think BBS could replace "elephant in the room" with "mouse in the garage" and be more accurate.

What we are all entitled to is freedom from crime, threats and violence. That means all people, not just certain select groups.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Newport Boy
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 03:52 PM

I know nothing about the position in the US, but this appeared in yesterday's 'Guardian'.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 04:22 PM

In the UK the 'elephant in the room' is bisexuality.


In the United States, only about 2% of women and 3% of men are homosexual.

Are you sure?

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 04:24 PM

In my honest opinion.... Life in all its forms is full of choices... and we all make them... we are influenced by our learning in the 'formative years' and we move on through the tender age of adolescence.. a time of experimenting.... towards adulthood.... during these first years of life we find the things we like and don't like... for some that is easy.... but because we find we like something there is no guarantee that the liking we have is right or proper or should even be acceptable.......... We are not born with particular persuasion... be it religion, sexual preference, type of school, type of work... we form a liking for them individually.... this does not make what we like right!!!!!!... We may have a penchant for burglary... does not make it right... we may have a penchant for violence... does not make it right..... but our society is allowing things to become acceptable because there are people who have formed preferences who campaign for their 'rights'........ it does not make them right....... No they weren't born to burgle... to hurt others... to....... to......to........... I'll leave the blanks for you to fill in......

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 04:31 PM

The world was never made worse by people loving each other, no matter who.

It has been made worse by people exploiting others' weaknesses, and by people being afraid of their own feelings, and by people looking for someone they can legitimately hate.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 04:47 PM

Georgiansilver, you seem to be equating homosexuality with burglary and violence, and putting them all down to nurture as opposed to nature. If that is the case, I have to strongly disagree with your opinion. I hope I've misunderstood you.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Big Ballad Singer
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:23 PM

The problem, too, is that we still have to throw around percentages. Why do people have to be "black" or "Republican" or "heterosexual"? The prejudice is what gives meaning to statistics anyway. If there were, for instance, no discrimination in employee/spouse health benefits from corporate employers, then everyone who qualified would simply qualify based on their work history or whatever the determining factor is, rather than their declaration of being "this" or "that".

To me, (IMHO, for example) a man is a man with black skin, not a "black man". A "black man" is a man that has to fill and/or refuse to fill racial and ethnic and social categories or stereotypes, because it means something to someone that he be classified as such.

I long to see, and will work to see, a day when a person is just a person and we are valued for what we do, not what random genetic mutations combined with historical stupidity qualifies us to be called.

Take it from Dr. King... "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Every other classification must fall away the way that one has to a degree so far.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:29 PM

Smokey... I worked in Child Care for over thirty years and I truly believe that people make choices throughout their lives... many choices are made when young because of the 'ease' of choice..... because of likes or dislikes....... I kind of go along with the Freudian theories that we can become 'stuck' in a particular mode of behaviour.... because we relate somehow to it.... because we feel good doing it... I am certainly not saying that we don't inherit genes from our parents and even ancestors before that... what I am saying is that people have to make choices...... and they do it by likes and dislikes.... not by what is right or wrong....... That is what we call being individual.......... I believe in 'Creation' but I also believe that evolution takes place and that man/woman in the past has enjoyed homosexual relationships and that the genetics of these people may be passed on through generations.. even as far back as Biblical times(recorded in the Bible)... whether it is 'natural' or not is a matter of conjecture still...... whether it is right is not for me to judge...... Does that answer your question?

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:35 PM

I didn't ask a question, but thanks all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:36 PM

Oh, I think atheists are behind gays in US prejudice...

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: pdq
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:51 PM

"Every other classification must fall away the way..."

Fine, but now please explain why highrer education entrance forms do not deal with just two subjects: entrance exam scores and grades?

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:18 PM

Because entrance exam scores and grades are not anything like objective measures of a person's intelligence, wisdom, courage, grit, or even ability to do well in college.

What they primarily telegraph is their parents' income level.

There is no such thing as an objective measure of a human being.

So we take other things into account. Things that might account for why this grade or that test score are lower than somebody else's -- if this person had grown up in an affluent neighbourhood, they may well have scored higher than that person, not lower.

And because institutes of higher education think there might be more to education, and indeed more to being an institute of higher education, than pushing through wave after wave of high-exam-scoring cookie-cutter clones. There might be something, they may foolishly think, to having people from all walks of life and all socio-economic levels and all race/ethnicities rubbing elbows with one another.

Because although it hurts to say it, we are not a color-blind society. We are not a meritocracy. And until we are (and we may never be), then we have to sometimes make up for the fact that merit (whatever that means) is masked by other factors. Such as what part of town you grew up in, and how much money your daddy makes.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:30 PM

Good lord. Here we go again. A million posts won't solve the problem of homophobia.

Maybe a clone could combine this budding tragedy with the last thread that went on forever and only was a display of ignorance and intoloerence?

Maybe there should be a gay-rights-bashing permathread?

Come on. Get the fuck over it. It's 2010. SOME people are different. And unless they are fucking you the way you don't wanna be fucked by force, turn the other cheek.

Of course, I still disagree with Gay Pride parades and any display of sexuality "forced" on the general public. As I have said before, that's pushing it.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:55 PM

Spot on gnu, you can't legislate for human nature, get on with your own life.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 06:57 PM

Yes, you can legislate for human nature, that's why stealing is against the law... as is lying under oath, and a host of other natural behaviors.

But... SHOULD you?

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 07:24 PM

Either homosexuality is built into people, or it's a matter of free choice. I suspect that for some people it's the first and for others it's the second. (And the same goes for heterosexuality).

Either way it's nobody elses's business.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Big Ballad Singer
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 07:34 PM

Mrrzy said:

"...stealing is against the law... as is lying under oath, and a host of other natural behaviors."

Stealing and lying are not natural behaviors. Natural behavior is behavior that tends to protect, nurture and grow one's well-being. Stealing is necessarily injurious both to perpetrator and victim. Lying is just stealing an advantage or hiding a disadvantage using words. It, too, is hurtful both to its actor and its intended target.

Several comments have been made that, while stated in a way I would not choose for myself, definitely expressed my opinion very well.

NOTHING should be required of the citizens of any free society (in order that its citizens might benefit from that society's wealth of resources) except that they contribute, by which action they will also benefit as the community is supported and shares its resources. Exam scores and college entrance applications and all are rubbish, again, as they take into consideration all sorts of facts and criteria that do not and cannot address the value of a person's life and their willingness to live so as to put that value on display and seek it out in their fellow travelers.

Take something like an automated machine at a fast-food restaurant. All things such as sanitation and employee competence being assumed to be equal for this analogy, it obviously does not make ANY difference whether the person operating that machine is gay, straight, Republican or uses or fits under any label that exists. All that matters is that two people, the employee and the consumer, are sharing space and are exchanging resources for the betterment of them both. One gets money, the other gets his JollyBurger or whatever. One produces what is necessary to contribute toward the food, the other is producing the food. The consumer, then, is himself a beneficiary of the same system of contribution and mutual benefit... he (fr'instance) has a job that he used to earn the money he is now trading for the food. All this, and the only requirement is that the willingness to exchange and the resources TO exchange are there.

If it doesn't matter what your orientation is when you are trained to operate a machine, why does said orientation matter when you need FMLA time for your loved one dying of cancer or AIDS?

One day, we will be free of both the fears of the ignorant fools who ruled this land by fear and corruption and we will rid ourselves of their idioms, too.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: pdq
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 07:42 PM

"One day, we will be free of both the fears of the ignorant fools who ruled this land by fear and corruption..."

Dream on. Things are getting worse by the day, not better.

By 2050 we may have a world with 15 billion people and not enough food or water for all. People will mug each other for food. They will kill and eat your pets. I won't be here then, thank God.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:05 PM

But, pdq, with any luck people will not be killed merely because they turned the other cheek.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: mauvepink
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 11:02 PM

"We are not born with particular persuasion... be it religion, sexual preference, type of school, type of work... we form a liking for them individually.... this does not make what we like right!!!!!!"

I would tend to 'argue' against the sexual preference and not being born with one. We may not express it early on but there is now lots of evidence to suggest that sexuality is set in utero. That does not mean that some fluidity is not shown in life over sexual preference, but that is more to do with bisexuality being established. Nurture, in this case, could only be expressive if the Nature was already there. I, personally, am still convinced one cannot be made to be gay, bi or straight no more than we can be made to have genuine blonde hair, blue eyes, etc., etc.

All this said, I also note your comments to Smokey later on in the thread so can see you are quite open to other ideas too. Alas, Freudian theories and I seldom get along very well but that is because I consider his ideas to be so very sexist and predjudicial to women generally (IMHO).

As far as the thread goes I think it is an honourable stance the OP makes. The last great predjudice is probably prejudice itself. Without prejudice life would be so much better for so many. I fear prejudice is firmly entrenched in nurture and is only natural in so far as it is a human behaviour. Stealing and lying (or at least deceipt) are natural behaviors shared by other animals (where there is either a survival or a reproductive advantage) mostly.

"Natural behavior is behavior that tends to protect, nurture and grow one's well-being" may be from a psycho-sociological point of view, but in the true meaning of the word natural (to do with Nature), not all expressed behaviours have such noble outcomes. Infanticide is a natural behaviour, and extremely common in many animal groups, with very good reasons within evolution for it to happen, but in humans is considered completely unacceptable by most social groups.

Some things will never be acceptable in a civilised, caring, society. We are getting better now at identifying further areas of behaviour and what is at the bottom of it evolutionarily. Hopefully we will get better at not displaying prejudices even to those behaviours that are unacceptable (for instance I never see a time coming where paedophilia will be acceptable within society) by being able to treat those who suffer from them with humanity and compassion. We may need to segregate some from society but that does not mean we cannot treat them humanely.

As true equality bites and becomes more mainstream the labels will not mean anything any longer and we will all be able to see each other for the very thing that makes us all unique: our individuality combined not with WHAT we are, but WHO we are

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Jul 10 - 11:15 PM

All good single men over the age of 35 are gay, except for a few priests. That is a lot more than 2%

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 12:05 AM

A few moments on the internet shows that the figures stated by pdq represent the number of survey respondents who identify themselves as homosexual. That is likely to be much below the number who experience homosexual attraction partly because of the definition itself and partly because respondents will under-report.

All the commentators that I found who attacked the Kinsey derived figure of 10% were plainly interested more in an agenda than fact, and appeared to define "homosexual" as referring to the lifelong exclusively homosexual in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:53 AM

Mrrzy, you can make all the laws you want, they never stopped people stealing, and laws will never stop predjudice, get it ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 05:53 AM

I suppose that it all depends on where you live. I've read that there are deep pockets of prejudice (of all kinds) in the American Mid-West - although never having been there, I've no way of knowing how true that is. Nevertheless, here, in vibrant, multi-cultural, urban Britain, anti-gay prejudice undoubtedly exists - but it appears to be confined to certain sub-sections of society.

In the road in which I live there are two gay couples and I have never heard a word of prejudice directed against them (you would, of course, have to ask them if they had actually experienced any prejudice). In the circles in which I move, to express any anti-gay sentiments would be social death! People would be queuing up to express their dis-pleasure.

Prejudice against minorities seems to be, unfortunately, a fact of life. But it appears to become a major, toxic problem when a particular state enshrines it into law (eg anti-semitism in Nazi Germany).

From my perspective prejudice against gay people is a relatively minor problem compared with the 'biggies' like: income inequalities, war and environmental degradation.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 06:22 AM

Reaction to the word 'paedophilia' indicates that this is the new subject of witch hunting, unrestrained by normal legal procedures, especially within prison walls.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 09:45 AM

Homophobia is not the last great prejudice. Long after it has turned to a faint cartoon memory, people will still distrust money, and will be prejudiced against the lack of it as well. Too much or too little. Somewhere in between, sharing the strife of making a living but not being too successful, will be the safe ground as it is now.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM

In today's Times, I read that moves are afoot to allow male homosexuals to donate blood......if they have not had sex with another man for five years....how would we police that?

The last great prejudice?.....Hmmm let me think, would you be unprejudiced enough to allow your child to receive blood from a practicing homosexual.......If you say yes, you are either a liar or an idiot!


Just another example of "human rights" gone mad.

Activists say that allowing male homosexuals and introvenus drug users into the blood donation pool, would only increase risk "slightly"

What a pathetic lot you "liberals" are!

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 01:41 PM

Ake, get off that horse. You can't ride it.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: mauvepink
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 01:50 PM

The policy and review is quite specific. It is right that such apparent discrimination against gay men be looked at again. Discrimination against homosexuality is totally unacceptable. However, the NBTS is not discriminatory against homosexuality itself, it discriminates against various sexual behaviours.

Personally I feel the whole human tissue donation thing relies on the honesty of the donors in any case. There are many heterosexual people out there who exhibit far more risky sexual practices than many gay men do. THAT, for me, is where the discrimination happens. The assumption that the default heterosexual setting for behaviours is always safe. It is not. There is also a high frequency of bisexuality that goes uncharted/unnoticed in society. You can never guarantee anyone being totally honest about sexuality questions.

The NBTS checks all products and, whilst there is a small chance now of certain viral disease getting through, it is considered right to not drop their guard. It is under review and that is right too.

I see no problem in gay men giving blood. The onus should not just be on them but on ALL donors to be totally honest about their sexual behaviours and base whether they dontae or not on that. Gay people also require blood donations from time to time: why should they be denied the opportunity to donate?

If my life depended on it I would not give a damn where the blood came from within the UK. I would need to survive there and then. I suspect I may be more grateful and gracious to the donor as long as they have been honest about their donation. Don't assume that just because the product came from someone straight that it is disease free. The NBTS does not and neither should you! Sexuality is not, nor should be, the issue here. Honesty most definitely is.

That may be pathetic to some but but at least I would be alive. How many bigots, if push came to shove, would die for what they believed in?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 02:26 PM

Saw Spamalot last night - plenty of pretending to be pooves in that, maybe some of the actors weren't pretending!!

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 03:10 PM

All good single men over the age of 35 are gay...

That really is cobblers.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:36 PM

All good single men over the age of 35 are gay...

Sorry, LadyJean, but I have to agree with McGrath. Cobblers indeed!

I'm not gay and I never was. Got married when I was 46.

And—during the time before that, I was (ahem) neither priest nor monk.

It was a matter of finding the right woman.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Smokey.
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:39 PM

I think it was a joke, McG..

unlike 'all women who don't fancy me are lesbians', which is obviously true.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:43 PM

Wal, now SMokey, maybe they're just worried you are a lesbian!??! It gets so hard to tell anymore with so many folks wanting to get it on with good-looking women...



A

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: mauvepink
Date: 04 Jul 10 - 04:45 PM

The are several expressions of that ilk...

The most common one usually goes "All the good men are either already married or gay". Of course, women don't mean that really. The answer I reserve for anyone who tries to chat me up, who then go on to call me a lesbian when I say I am not interested, is "With you as the alternative, do you really wonder why?" lol

There are male equivalent sayings I am sure.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:45 AM

Mr Burke, I have spent many months defending and explaining my stance on the promotion of homosexuality in society, without resorting to abuse of homosexuals. I find your verbal ejaculations an irrelevance.

mp.....after months of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have come to the conclusion that you are as you write, a peron of incalculable naivety.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 09:13 AM

LadyJean

All good single men over the age of 35 are gay

Perhaps you'd like to drop round to my place and we can discuss the issue in depth.

The Snail (59)

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: mauvepink
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM

If I write with incalculable naivety then so so be. if I have incalculable naivety so be that too. There are worse things to be accused of I dare say ;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: mauvepink
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 12:57 PM

Dearest akenaton, I should have also added, for clarifications sake, that I have not asked for nor expect the benefit of your doubts. There would be better places for them to be used :-)

But thank you any how

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 01:12 PM

After reading your weaselly bigotry over years, ake, I'm forced to conclude that you are seriously sexually screwed up.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 01:15 PM

I don't think that allowing gay guys to give blood or not is in the same class as allowing them to get married. My own preference would be that ANYONE wanting to give blood be tested for disease, and that everyone be allowed to marry who they want.

I agree that legal restrictions on gay people is the great civil injustice of our time. It's not illegal to be poor or atheist. It is true that the laws are stacked against poor people and atheists, but, in general, they have the same rights as religious folks and the rich. But it is actively against the law to be gay, at least if you want to get married, own a home, visit your spouses hospital room, etc. There is a list somewhere of about 1000 U.S. federal monetary advantages to being married. These advantages are denied to gay folks.

This is something we can fix through the law. Legal discrimination against blacks was the norm, both legally and socially. In the 60s we changed the laws and now, for the most part, racial bigotry is socially unacceptable. Until we get the laws changed for gay people we will continue to condone an officially discriminatory legal system and we will have people who think the law allows them to be sexual bigots without any social repercussions.

Besides, all that thought devoted to what other people are doing in bed is icky.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 03:59 PM

Ah, OK, you can legislate against it all you want, people will still do it, yes, I agree to that. But if you get caught, you get punished...

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 04:35 PM

Homosexuality isn't necessarily about having sex; just like heterosexuality there is an emotional aspect to it which can be independent of sexual activity.

Why do some people feel the need to assert their heterosexuality at the merest mention of 'gaity'? Given the variety of conclusions which can be drawn from it, I can't see it really does them any good whatever they actually are.

99.99% of the time it doesn't matter to me what people are, and I couldn't care less what they think I am.

Don't they test donated blood for disease in the U.S.?

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 05:12 PM

True, some gay men are promiscuous and thereby tend to pick up and spread diseases. It might be pointed out that promiscuous heterosexuals do also.

Another modest proposal (he said, Swiftly):

I suggest that because a small percentage of gay men get drunk, then get behind the wheel and cause automobile accidents, no gay men should be issued drivers' licenses.

(Hi, Ake!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:02 PM

Akenaton says: I have spent many months defending and explaining my stance on the promotion of homosexuality in society, without resorting to abuse of homosexuals.

I consider making judgments about a group as a whole based on the actions of a tiny minority of that group to be abuse.

I consider advocating the denial of the same basic legal rights you and I enjoy to homosexuals to be abuse.

I consider any derogatory discussion of a person's sexuality to be abuse.

I disagree that you don't resort to abuse of homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:14 PM

...and I always thought that the last great prejudice was against cannibalism. Or maybe bodhrans.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:30 PM

Don't they test donated blood for disease in the U.S.?

To an extent, of course they do. But a full battery of tests is very expensive, so they're more likely to do the less expensive screens, and even with the more thorough testing, some disease can still slip through. This is why they don't want you donating if you just came back from someplace that has endemic malaria. It's not just gays who are asked not to donate; there's a whole raft of questions they ask you to determine the chances you might have a blood-borne disease. They try to dissuade people from donating who have a high risk of having infected blood. And in this country at this time, unfortunately, that includes gay men as a group.

Anybody who is interested the AIDS epidemic could do a lot worse than reading And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts, a very thorough history of its early years and the original epidemiology and subsequent lab science that discovered its etiology and modes of transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:32 PM

I fear it may be a good while yet before humanity runs out of prejudices. If we run out, we'll just invent some.

Subject: RE: BS: The last great prejudice?
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 10 - 06:52 PM

We won't, of course, ever run out of prejudices. We can, however, to try move away from having them ensconced in our laws.