Zombie

Why are gay donors treated differently? As I said earlier blood policies are based on risk data around HIV infection rates. For example according to the US Centers for Disease Control website, US data shows: "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

I'm very sorry for your loss, Dark. The companionship of a loved pet is very special, and the loss of that companionship is hard for those who've not experienced it to understand. I hope in time you can find another companion to share your life with

Surely the problem isn't if people start trying to tie the church in with the state again by using the Bible to back up their arguments for how the Constitution should be upheld, but rather it's if any executive or judicial body allows such "arguments" to prevail - isn't that when they should be shot down for breaching your Constitution?

Phew, that was one driving, stabby, rhythmic ride to a teetering-on-the-brink pause just before an orgasmic climax. Might need some practice though to fit it all into 4:35

but when the heat abates ...

"I also believe in ... the separation of church and state" Um isn't that like saying "I believe in having a President"? They're both fundamentals of your Constitution. There is no choice ... they're both non-negotiable

The Rules of Masculinity are many and complex. But one of them is inviolable. Break that rule ... and this is what happens

Problem is around practicality - extra resources needed to establish "committed relationships" - it's a more effective use of always-limited resources to deploy these elsewhere - is partner A going to "fess up" when partner B suggests they both donate? I don't think so As I explained in the posts above "There does need to be a delay because there is a "window" of infection when HIV is not detectable - or maybe not reliably detectable". "you can now get an HIV test with an accurate result from four weeks after potential infection." That's just the way it is at the moment. You're right about str8s catching AIDS from each other, but in western countries - not Africa - that risk is deemed to be much lower than amongst the gay community because of the transmission history of the virus. In other words risk is determined from transmission data and all blood policies are - or should be - risk-based. If / when the risk data changes then the policies will presumably be changed too .

I guess it means the figures haven't yet been audited.

I thought crocs understood water ... :funny:

At the moment I'm reading Rambling Mann's Little Man. It's excellent. But that's not what this thread is about. In chapter 7. "What Do We Do Now?" there's this exchange “How did you guys find me?” I asked. “I GPS'ed your phone,” Heidi replied. “Excuse me?” I asked. “I have a homemade app on my cell that can activate the GPS chip in any phone and direct you to it like a compass.” She spoke very matter-of-factly. So I Googled "smartphone stalking" and found loads of sites including this one: "... domestic-violence victims told the story of a northern Minnesota woman whose abuser tracked her through her smart phone. When the woman went to a domestic-violence shelter, she received a text message asking why she was there. When she went to a courthouse to take out an order of protection, her abuser texted again, this time asking why she was in the courthouse and whether she was getting an order of protection." "Last year, there was a blowup over the Girls Around Me app, which uses the location-based social-networking service Foursquare to find women in the area who have checked in. The app, which was sold at the Apple App Store until it was pulled, allowed people to use Facebook to find the women’s full names and profile photos. There are many other stalker apps, including one that allows people to physically track others using data from their Flickr and Twitter accounts; it is aptly called Creepy." So, out there could be people or groups who know where you are. Right now. Creepy indeed. .

Um, maybe I'm missing something, but the second vid is surely about the ineptness of the TV anchorman And the first vid - I needed to turn on the subtitles. Were those kids really speaking English? As for the race thing, that's pretty depressing. Did the US learn nothing from the horrors of the 20th century?

Oh yeah, these babies are BAD!

|'ve already given you the reasons for this Kiltie .

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans Beautiful Boy, John Lennon

From today's Guardian ... "A £60m pledge from the UK government puts Reaction Engines' Sabre rocket on course to change space exploration for ever ... the spaceplane ... took a step closer to reality yesterday [Tuesday 16 July]. UK Minister for Universities and Science David Willetts confirmed the government's £60m investment in Reaction Engines Ltd." Now £60m is loose change in aerospace, but in difficult economic times to get any money from government is impressive. It's what it represents that is significant, that the company has achieved technical targets and demonstrated that the key technologies for the new air-breathing engine work - the money will fund the construction of a full-size prototype. After the technical triumph but commercial failure of Concorde the focus now is on what the market wants - and the market most definitely does want a lower cost single stage to orbit reusable space plane that uses an ordinary runway for takeoff and landing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/across-the-universe/2013/jul/17/sabre-rocket-engine-reaction-skylon .

Cronuts Has anyone here actually eaten one of these critters? I want one. And I want it NOW! http://newyork.seriouseats.com/2013/05/sugar-rush-cronut-from-dominique-ansel-bakery.html

Thanks for posting this paya. I actually did a blog on this yesterday with stuff that can't be posted in the Lounge - if anyone's interested or wants to post stuff that can't go here https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/504/entry-13712-gay-marriage-in-england-and-wales-to-be-made-legal-this-week/

Hyperbole? Well let's consider what I said "Historically marriage was always about property rights within social groups." I guess you accept this is fair? "It is NOT a Christian institution and Christianity does NOT own marriage." Anthropolgy shows that from early human history marriage has been a matter of custom and law - "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit" [source Edward Alexander Westermarck The History of Human Marriage (1903) Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London] I guess you have no issue with this? "Marriage was around long before Christianity" See above "... and for centuries Christianity had no interest in it." I'm guessing this is where you do have an issue? Well consider this. From the early Christian era up to year 325, marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." [source Shannon McSheffrey (2006). Marriage, Sex, and Civic Culture in Late Medieval London. University of Pennsylvania Press]. In Rome, marriage was a civil matter governed by Imperial law until the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century. At that point the Christian Church courts took over and made marriage into a holy union. As we know the Christian Church's power continued to grow right through the Middle Ages. And that includes its dominance and claimed "ownership" of marriage but it wasn't until the 13th century that marriage was declared to be one of the Christian Church's Seven Sacraments - to be added to baptism and so forth. And it wasn't until the Council of Trent, 1563, that the Christian Church decreed that marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest. "Only when it realised there was brand value in marriage did it adopt marriage as its own and develop it into a nice little earner as well as a smart expansion of its scope of control over society." Yes, I'm using modern idiom to simplify - but I consider it is fair. Can you show why it isn't? To use old fashioned language "Marriage, is another sacrament that consecrates for a particular mission in building up the Church, and that provides grace for accomplishing that mission." Either way, I think you'll find the meaning is the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church As for your stats, what they do not show is the increasing % of non-Christian marriages that MUST be performed via civil marriage to be lawful, with the indigenous population often choosing to "live in sin" thus skewing the stats. Nor do they show the % of divorcee remarriages that CANNOT be performed in church ... and Britain has a very high divorce rate As for the voting, sorry you got this wrong. The bill was UNOPPOSED even by those Conservatives who had objected. As the BBC report says "MPs decided not to oppose a number of minor changes agreed by the House of Lords and approved the legislation on Tuesday." The reference to voting concerned earlier motions months ago.

In their case it will be a joke thing to hang the certificate on the wall ... probably in the lavatory

Thanks for this Kiltie. I agree that the various nations within the UK have clear and distinct identities and I firmly believe we all benefit from being together in one State. But "Scotland" has been banging on about this for so long now, I guess we English are getting a bit bored. So now you will have your vote ... and what will be will be

The Church of England is part of the State. This means in the UK religion is embedded into the State and its structures, with the Church of England as the "established church". Unlike the US where, under the Constitution, State and Religion are "divorced" ... ... allegedly So why isn't the UK dominated by religion as in other countries with state embedded religion - like Iran - but is in fact less dominated by religion than countries that specifically prohibit state embedded religion - like the US? The whole thing goes back to Henry VIII when he essentially sacked the Pope and declared himself - as the embodiment of the State - Head of The Church. That caused generations of religious conflict and oppression, but various historical events caused two things - the development of religious freedom, backed more recently by anti-discrimination law - the established church becoming more of a cultural background to people's lives, and not a bible-bashing God-fearing overbearing influence - we've been there and done that thank you The only place you will still find that is Northern Ireland ... and that remains a stark reminder for the rest of us. So - to answer your question Mike - why has the Church of England been excluded, prevented from conducting gay marriage? Because the CofE leadership were opposing the change. So there was a real threat of rift between established church and State - and the government was not prepared to see 500 years of history unravel to get this law on the books. So by specifically excluding the CofE that threat was neutralised. And the government could do it BECAUSE the CofE is part of the State. And the Church In Wales was swept up in the deal because, I guess, of its close links to the CofE. It's what's called realpolitik - you have an objective, you know you're not gonna get there in one go - so you do what you can at the time. And in time I'm pretty sure the remaining steps will be taken and the CofE and CinW will fall into line, but in the meantime the objective has been achieved After all what's all the fuss about anyway? Historically marriage was always about property rights within social groups. It is NOT a Christian institution and Christianity does NOT own marriage. Marriage was around long before Christianity, and for centuries Christianity had no interest in it. Only when it realised there was brand value in marriage did it adopt marriage as its own and develop it into a nice little earner as well as a smart expansion of its scope of control over society.

Same-sex marriage is set to become law in England and Wales later this week. Scotland is on course to adopt a similar change in the law. All main political parties in Britain have united to back gay marriage in Britain. That's - the Conservative Party - the Labour Party - the Liberal Party - the Scottish Nationalist Party This includes protections for transgender couples, which will allow people to change sex and remain married. The bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales has passed its final hurdle in Parliament. The government legislation is now due to get royal assent, after which it is likely to become law later this week. The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the bill, after the Lords approved the changes on Monday. It is expected that the first gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies will take place by summer next year. Under the terms of the the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, religious organisations will have to "opt in" to offering weddings, with the Church of England and Church in Wales being banned in law from doing so. 'Bulldozed' MPs decided not oppose a number of minor changes agreed by the House of Lords. Among these were protections for transgender couples, which will allow people to change sex and remain married ... During the Commons debate, equalities minister Maria Miller said people should be free to marry "regardless of sexuality or gender". The passing of the bill was "clear affirmation" that "respect for each and every person is paramount, regardless of age, religion, gender, ethnicity or sexuality", she added. Western countries are rapidly moving forward on gay rights - those that don't will increasingly look like reactionary dinosaurs, clinging to old fashioned and outmoded ideas. In the end it is MONEY that will bring all laggardly western countries together on this. Because if there is one thing every western country understands and values most of all ... it is money Money trumps EVERYTHING http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279

"a fool and his money are soon parted"

The clock for HIV testing starts ticking after the last date of MM sex ... tick, tock, tick, tock ... after 12 months you can then give blood. The HIV test can then be carried out immediately the blood is given - takes a matter of hours I believe - so there is no impact on the 28 days "shelf life" you mentioned which, as I understand it, is in fact 35 days for red cells and just 5 days for platelets. The reason for the blanket vCJD ban is, as I understand it, because there is currently no equivalent test to identify infected blood. So the risk remains in the UK blood bank system - although the incidence of cases has been very low - and justifies a continuing permanent ban, whereas the MM risk does not. As for audit ... well, you can't. The whole system is based on trust - it trusts that those who choose to give away a part of themselves do so for purely altruistic reasons. So the focus, rightly, is on screening via questions - making sure potential donors understand when they must exclude themselves. Btw - interestingly, the beef ban had no impact on McDonalds sales as people still bought chips and all the other high-salt-high-sugar-high-fat-nutritionally-valueless goodies