Louisiana boy punished for talking about gay mom

.

Josh,

Thank you for your apology. Accepted.

But, I've NEVER gone by the diminutive you called me. Since the thread which I started telling the members I was changing my user name to T Lee, I've never signed any of my posts as anything other than Tim or T Lee (as far as I recall, and IF I did, then whatever that name was would be ok also, but the diminutive you used is not and most if not all members ought to know this LONG ago, well before the forum change).

Tim

>>>>The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again.">>>>

And decided that this is what happened instead:

>>>My reading of the article gives the impression that more probably the teacher overheard and corrected him for saying that his mother was ***** or that gays were QUEERS.>>>

Since the child didn't have to write the word '*****', I can't see where you jumped to that conclusion or 'probability'.

TONI

What's in a name if the activity is the same? Why the need for a change of terms? For the same reason the "Gay Men's Disease" was changed to "Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" and that description forced on the medical community who had already given it the most truthful description.

The terms may change, but because the activity is the same, all new terms will eventually become the same as their predecessors. It is not the term or word that is as important as the activity they relate to.

Not that you don't already know this, but "*****" is a derogatory term and "gay" is not. And that stuff about AIDS is a figment of your imagination.

"Lou Gehrig's Disease" is a popular term but that's not the technical name. It's ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. "Gay Men's Disease" was an early popular term for the disease medically known as AIDS.

it was labeled Gay Men's Disease BEFORE it acquired the AIDS acronym.

Although this is a little bit off subject, I know how you like "conspiracy theories" so thought you might get a kick out of this one (I know I sure did):
http://www.larouchespeaks.net/extravaganza/Alim%20Muhammad.html

It was referred to by several names for a few months before the term AIDS was settled upon:

http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm

The disease still did not have a name, with different groups referring to it in different ways. The CDC generally referred to it by reference to the diseases that were occurring, for example lymphadenopathy (swollen glands), although on some occasions they referred to it as KSOI, the name already given to the CDC task force.

In contrast some still linked the disease to it's initial occurrence in gay men, with the Lancet calling it the 'gay compromise syndrome', whilst at least one newspaper referred to it as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency).

In June a report of a group of cases amongst gay men in Southern California, suggested that the disease might be caused by an infectious agent that was sexually transmitted.

By the beginning of July a total of 452 cases, from 23 states, had been reported to the CDC.

Later in July the first reports appeared that the disease was occurring in Haitians, as well as haemophiliacs.

By August the disease was being referred to by it's new name of AIDS. The word AIDS was an abbreviation of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. An anagram of AIDS, SIDA was created for use in French and Spanish. The doctors thought 'AIDS' suitable because people acquired the condition rather than inherited it, because it resulted in a deficiency within the immune system, and because it was a syndrome, with a number of manifestations, rather than a single disease.

Lyndon LaRouche is amusing only because he's too crazy to be a real threat to win an election.

Josh, that article left something out. Before they understood what was causing it, doctors and hospitals called it "the wasting disease", due to its effect.

Thanks, J. However it was never offically called "Gay Men's Disease" as James said it was.

The page states:

But a spokesperson for the Pacific Northwest region of the Red Cross said the organization is not at fault.

Lance Trainor said the guidelines are established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"It is a guideline given to the blood donation industry by the FDA and all blood collection industries are required to abide by that rule," Trainor said.

So contrary to what you said, it is not a "Red Cross Policy," but I would agree that it should be revisited now that we know more than we did then about incubation periods for AIDS, and the methods by which it can be transmitted (heterosexual sex and needle-sharing for example).

.

Red Cross Policy is to abide by Federal rulings.

It is also a Red Cross policy to not allow persons who had tuberculosis (and other infectious diseases) in the past to donate and for the same reason--reducing the risk of contamination of the blood supply.

Right, but the Red Cross didn't set the policy; they only follow it. Regardless, it sounds like the policy is outdated and should be modified to take into account the knowledge we have now that we didn't have then.

policy and thus Red Cross Policy.

It is included in their written guidelines.

Hi, Ed.

So why not eliminate everyone above the age of puberty from the prospective donor list, because of the high risk of other blood-borne STDs? And given the antibiotic-resistance problem, don't say "because the others are treatable!"
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

which anyone with a scientific background or bent should readily recognize. ESPECIALLY when the exceptions process has been authorized and utilized if the Blood center so desires.

My daughter was turned away at age 17 three days ago at their school blood drive due to low blood pressure. Long distance runners often have lower blood pressure than others and hers was 100 over 48 and they wouldn't take her blood. Too bad for them, they missed out on some good blood.

Hi, Ed.

Neither my wife nor I can now donate, as both of us have had small (stage one) squamous cell skin cancers removed.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I've had about 200 of those removed, got about 150 awaiting next visit to the doc for liquid nitrogen treatment.

I've never heard of that being a blood donation factor.

Ian

I had mono when I was a teenager. Since that is a form of hepatitis and never completely leaves your system (it just goes into permanent remission), I was once rejected by a hospital when I tried to donate blood for an ill relative. I was told that because of the mono, I would never be able to donate blood.

I have been unable to donate for years because of a past medical history of tuberculosis, malaria, yellow fever, and jaundice of unknown origin (mostly exoic souveniers of the "Join the army, travel to exotic places, meet exotic people, kill them." period of my life).

With cancer you can indeed donate providing the standards are met (although medical personnel at the center have an option to disallow for cause):
Cancer
Acceptable if the cancer was treated with only surgery or radiation, and it has been at least 5 years since treatment was completed with no cancer recurrence. If your cancer was treated with chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or immunotherapy, you are not eligible to donate. If you had leukemia or lymphoma, including Hodgkins Disease, you are not eligible to donate. Some low-risk cancers including squamous or basal cell cancers of the skin do not require a 5 year waiting period.

Precancerous conditions of the uterine cervix do not disqualify you from donation if the abnormality has been treated successfully.

You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation.

So is it chemo, hormonal therapy or immunotherapy, that is disqualifing the two of you? None of the above for simple squamous cell cancer are normal practice.

Do you know why gays are at bigger risk (which doesn't mean that they are the exclusive source of spreading it nor that they started to spread it!) than straights to aquire HIV, James?

is a more highly effective manner of sexually spreading HIV virus than normal sexual relations between a man and woman. One thing always overlooked when people point to spread of HIV among heterosexuals in Africa is their version of "safe sex" to avoid pregnancy which is sodomy. To what extent that accounts for the spread of the disease there I don't know exactly, only that it's been reported to be common practice.

...that anal intercourse is more likely to cause bleeding and it is thru blood exchange that AIDS is transmitted. I probably don't have to tell you that anal intercourse is also practiced by many heterosexuals, albeit only occasionally in most cases.

.

and the spread of aids.
It seems pitiful that aids is spreading in Africa because of a lack of a safe preventative.
I wonder if the africans would use condoms if they were available, and free for those with little money.

And in fact they need a method of BIRTH CONTROL they can afford regardless of AIDS.

Ian