[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[MadImmortalMan]

Don't forget that kid who committed to Rice because the coach wrote a letter to his cat. Totally gay. 

[Martinus]

Dead Teen's Organ Donation Rejected Because He Was Gay

By Mark Joseph Stern

It's a sad fact of life that some of the greatest injustices sparked by anti-gay animus arise after death. The government seizes money that belongs to your widow. The state tries to keep your spouse off your death certificate. A pastor cancels your funeral because of your "blasphemous" lifestyle.

Here's a new inequity to add to the list: The FDA rejects your organ donation—simply because you're gay.

That's what happened to A.J. Betts, a 16-year-old Iowan who committed suicide after a year and a half of ceaseless bullying on account of his orientation. Betts had always hoped to donate his organs after he died, and though some were successfully transplanted, his eyes were turned away and tossed out. Why? According to the Food and Drug Administration, a male donor who has had sex with men in the last five years "should ... be ineligible" to donate some tissues, including eyes. (This policy is especially perplexing given that donors are screened for HIV before any organs are harvested, and Betts was permitted to donate other organs, including his heart.) Because Moore's mother couldn't prove whether Betts had had sex, his eyes were discarded.

The FDA's anti-gay organ policies spring from the same insanely homophobic casuistry behind their anti-gay blood ban: an outdated, utterly irrational belief that all gay men are HIV-ridden disease vectors. Never mind that modern HIV tests can detect the virus from the moment of infectiousness, or that men who have sex with HIV-positive women and sex workers are only deferred for a year—or that a categorical ban on gays is just plain bad science. Other countries may lift their own gay blood bans, and medical experts may urge the FDA to revise its policies. But here in America, gay men's bodies are still seen as blighted, dangerous, and infected.

Presumably, the medical community's passionate opposition to the FDA's discriminatory policies will lead the agency to revisit them soon. Until then, however, people like Betts, who suffered so much pain in life, will have to suffer one more injustice in death. Betts killed himself because he couldn't live with the cruelty he faced due to his sexuality. Now his mother has been forced to carry that burden. It's a tragic situation, a completely unnecessary mess—and a depressing snapshot of gay life in a country still fettered to fears of the past.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/15/dead_teen_s_organ_donation_rejected_because_he_was_gay.html

How silly.

[garbon]

Oh slate, so dramatic.

[Martinus]

Luxembourg's openly gay Prime Minister Xavier Bettel has announced that he is planning to marry his long-term partner Destenay Gauthier, but will have to wait until ceremonies start taking place in 2015 following the country's Parliament passing same-sex marriage into law in June.

Bettel was speaking to the LA Times when revealing that it was he that had been proposed to by Gauthier, with the forthcoming gay wedding expected to take place "soon".

Bettel was open in giving away the odd detail about his engagement, as he told the LA Times "He asked me, and I said yes. I can't give you the date, because it's not official yet". To his credit, Bettel proved entirely relentless in his right to do as he wishes, public figure or not, as he added "I have just one life, and I don't want to hide my life".

With his ascension to power last year, Bettel has became the world's third ever openly gay head of government, joining an exclusive and pioneering club along with Elio Di Rupo of Belgium and Johanna Sigurdardottir of Iceland. However, he was sure to clarify that the success of his campaign did not hinge on the gimmick of his sexuality, as he insisted "But I was not the 'gay candidate.' People didn't vote for me because I'm gay or I'm straight".

Bettel credits part of this disassociation between his sexuality and professional image with the European way of thinking: "I don't know how in the States you think about it, but I think in Europe, what is important is people respect private choices as long as you are honest".

http://www.winq.com/2014/08/luxembourg-gay-prime-minister-announces-engagement/

Apparently, the deputy prime minister is also gay.

Gay-rule and aggressive tax-structuring-supporting tax haven? I think Luxembourg is my favourite new country.

[Valmy]

Oh sure had to put a dig on the US there.  The first country that allowed civil unions in Vermont.

[Eddie Teach]

Bettel has became the world's third ever openly gay head of government, joining an exclusive and pioneering club along with Elio Di Rupo of Belgium and Johanna Sigurdardottir of Iceland.

I don't think Hadrian tried to hide it very hard.

[The Brain]

Bettel has became the world's third ever openly gay head of government, joining an exclusive and pioneering club along with Elio Di Rupo of Belgium and Johanna Sigurdardottir of Iceland.

I don't think Hadrian tried to hide it very hard.

He hid it in Nileface.

[Jacob]

Gay-rule and aggressive tax-structuring-supporting tax haven? I think Luxembourg is my favourite new country.

Luxembourg has actually been around for a while.

[Valmy]

Gay-rule and aggressive tax-structuring-supporting tax haven? I think Luxembourg is my favourite new country.

Luxembourg has actually been around for a while.

Only since the Council of Vienna

[LaCroix]

How silly.

i know nothing about organ donation, but i recently looked into the ban on gays donating blood. if (1) the technology still cannot weed out 100% of HIV infected blood; (2) 2% of the U.S. population has male-to-male sex, but of all U.S. HIV infections, 61% are from male-to-male sex; and (3) there's not yet a reliable way to weed out the non-risk male-to-male sex participants from the high-risk participants ... then i don't think simply uplifting the ban tomorrow would be a good thing. the FDA seems to be willing to end the ban if it could be guaranteed that allowing gays to donate wouldn't increase the chance of accidental infections.

[Martinus]

How silly.

i know nothing about organ donation, but i recently looked into the ban on gays donating blood. if (1) the technology still cannot weed out 100% of HIV infected blood; (2) 2% of the U.S. population has male-to-male sex, but of all U.S. HIV infections, 61% are from male-to-male sex; and (3) there's not yet a reliable way to weed out the non-risk male-to-male sex participants from the high-risk participants ... then i don't think simply uplifting the ban tomorrow would be a good thing. the FDA seems to be willing to end the ban if it could be guaranteed that allowing gays to donate wouldn't increase the chance of accidental infections.

But what the statistical risk is in absolute numbers?

[LaCroix]

currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

[Martinus]

currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

[Jacob]

currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

How many extra people being exposed to HIV would be statistically significant?

[The Larch]

A former Miss Spain and current 1st Runner Up to Miss Universe came out today as a lesbian and announced her relationship with a house music singer and DJ.



I thought this kind of lesbian couples only happened in movies.