Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyApril 3rd, 2010
There is an article in the LA Times about hemophiliacs who oppose loosing the blood donation rules to allow gay men to donate blood in some circumstances. But while the human interest story was touching, what struck me were the following facts:
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Richard W. Fitch
April 3rd, 2010
The ban made sense back in the early 80’s, at a time when the nature of AIDS/HIV was still only vaguely understood. With the advent of faster and more reliable testing, both of people and blood components, the ban is an affront to those who remain negative for years. Even the International Red Cross is squarely opposed to perpetuating the ban. Is it just due to the social conservatives, that anything related to ‘teh gays’ is repugnant??
Eddie89
April 3rd, 2010
So, let’s get this “straight”.
Any man that has had sex with another man since 1977, even once, is prohibited from donating blood in the United States. See link, HIV, AIDS
I’ve only had sex with one man, my husband of almost 14 years, and that started in 1996.
Neither of us has any diseases, we live very healthy lifestyles, non-smokers, light drinkers and we’ve been tested for HIV/AIDS several times for insurance needs, etc.
Yet, we can’t donate blood.
On the other hand, there are heterosexual college boys having sex with multiple female partners almost every day of the week and they take their blood without issue.
This is discrimination, plain and simple.
David Malcolm
April 3rd, 2010
Do they not realize that most people these days who are having tons of crazy assed sex probably don’t want to give blood anyway?
Burr
April 3rd, 2010
Just a testament to how advanced testing is nowadays..
The questionnaire is ultimately meaningless without the scientific test backing it up. When people feel the questions are unfair, it only encourages them to lie, and that’s no good for anyone, test or not. It needs to be changed to something more accurate and to the point that applies to everyone’s sexual behavior across the board.
Burr
April 3rd, 2010
The main obstacle is the FDA, and its utter slowness to react to anything, which is not limited to blood bank regulation. Not to mention its “cover your ass” bureaucratic attitude towards decision making. It’s definitely the safer call to just leave the ban as it is..
hb
April 4th, 2010
One could argue that the low level of contamination is due to the strict rules, but… one would probably be wrong.
It’s time to take a good, long, look, and change the rules.
Samuel
April 4th, 2010
Here is a total contradiction I have never understood: The FDA bans anyone who has engaged in gay sex since 1977. This covers everyone in the USA. Now the military is supposed to have the most crucial blood supply of all. Their blood pool is used in the most critical battle situation and is considered a crucial element of national defense – YET THEY WELCOME GAY BLOOD! There are obviously gay soldiers plus others such as Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez who acted in numerous gay porn flicks (before enlisting in the Marines). Remember, HIV testing has nothing to do with this because the FDA, Red Cross, etc all have access to the same tests as every military branch.
Matt
April 4th, 2010
Back in the mid-90s–when I first came out–my straight housemate seemed to have a different woman over every 2-3 weeks and he was also one of those regular blood donors who gave as often as allowed.
Prior to coming out–as uncomfortable as I was donating (I am really bad with needles), I gave as often as I could tolerate since I am O+. After I came out, I refused to lie, so I stopped giving. When I have not been single, I have always been serially monogamous, with HIV tests at the beginning of each new relationship. I know that they test the supply and it really pisses me off that I can’t give blood.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Red Cross put blood mobiles at college Spring Break destinations, with all of the bed-hopping that goes on there, but I can’t give without lying even though I have been in a relationship now for over four years.
If they drop the ban, I will start giving again.
Fred in the UK
April 5th, 2010
@Samuel
The blood supply of the military is the most vulnerable to shortages. Its easy to imagine a surprise attack by the enemy leading to a bloody battle in a distant theatre of war. In civilian life back in the US, the demand for blood is a lot less volatile and its easier to move it, from areas of surplus to areas of demand in time. Also I suspect, that in the military there are fewer patient’s whose need for transfusion is debatable compared with in civilian life i.e. military doctors have much less option to be relatively conservative with their use of blood in times of shortage.
Given the above policies that make modest reductions in complications of blood transfusions (including infections) at the expense of making reliable blood supplies more difficult may, on balance, do more good than harm in civilian hospitals but not in military ones.
Lukas
April 6th, 2010
I don’t really care that there’s a blood donation ban in place…. If they don’t want my blood, that’s fine. Then they should stop bitching and complaining about blood shortages. Plain and simple.
Leave A Comment