Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Since the AIDs crisis in 1983, the FDA banned men who have had sex with men from ever donating blood for life--until now.
Although the percentage of homosexuals that have contracted HIV is greater than heterosexuals, LGBT activists are still claiming that the policy is unfair and stigmatized. From a health and science perspective, experts are saying that the 1-year policy is enough time to know if a gay person has contracted HIV and whether he is eligible to provide healthy blood.
The arguments that heterosexuals also have come in contact with HIV, use/share infected needles for drugs, and/or have high numbers of sexual partners are not enough for policy makers to accept blood in a fashion that does not stigmatize gay and bisexual men. Such options are claimed to be expensive, and financially unethical. The celibacy period is the best option at this point to allow gay and bisexual men to donate without increasing the spread of HIV. As science and treatments progress, there is hope to eradicate HIV risk and potentially remove policies that exclude gay men.
Friday, December 11, 2015
The elected SLC Mayor is wasting no time meeting with the most influential groups in the city to get things done. She already asked almost all the city department heads to resign for a review. Now she is discussing city issues with LDS leaders.
Although LGBT issues were not discussed during the meeting, Biskupski left a letter to Mr. Christofferson, LDS apostle, addressing her (and other citizens) private concerns about the anti-gay policies recently released.
Biskupski is already tickling me to death. She is jumping in head first by choosing the best heads of departments (in terms of who will work with her and get things done), she is meeting with the looming conservative power in the city as a democrat, and she is sensitively representing the thoughts of the city's citizens.
I find it extremely wise of her to not focus on the anti-gay church policies in the meeting, as they are not relevant to city policy. But noting that she is putting in a private word to express her constituents' concerns shows she is doing what she can.
The church's policies leak into secular activities because of it's huge influence. Honestly, I think the anti-polygamy policies are just as hurtful. The argument, "we are also bad to group A, so it makes sense to be bad to group B" isn't a great one.
When people here say that "it is a sin and that will not change", remember that what is sin in the LDS world does change. IE: blacks, polygamy, alcohol... etc. The constancy in the LDS church doesn't really exist.