Why do canada's age of consent laws discriminate against

>>7802749

*because america

>>7802749
Actually it's because anal sex is physically riskier than vaginal sex. You can still consent to other gay sex acts at 16. It is still a bit silly because we can't exactly force a 16 year old couple from having anal sex or even know if they are doing it, but it is not really anti-gay.

Now, the ban on gay blood donors... that's pretty anti-gay. They test for HIV anyway but apparently our blood is just not welcome.

>>7802749
That's a different AoC for different kinds of sex. The sex or orientation of the people involved isn't anything to do with the law. So it's not discrimination.

>>7802761
The blood is just safety and statistics.

>>7802773
>blood is just safety and statistics
Like I said, they test anyway. You could make the same argument for racial profiling. It doesn't make it right.

>>7802761

*gay sex is physically riskier than straight sex>>7802773

they can drive around in a giant metal death machine but god forbid they try the butt-stuff

>>7802773

>different AoC for different kinds of sex

uh. yeah. gay sex. as in "the only kind that gay men can have"

lol nice arguement for orientation having nothing to do with it.

>>7802782
Think about it for one minute. Accepting blood, storing it and testing it aren't free. If it's more cost-effective to recruit donors who are statistically more likely to be HIV negative, why should they throw money down the drain and save fewer lives just so you can get the feelgood factor of having given blood that statistically isn't worth them accepting?

>>7802807
>gay sex. as in "the only kind that gay men can have"
Actually, that's factually wrong and very closed-minded. I guess you've only ever googled 'gay porn' and never had a boyfriend.

Anal sex =/= gay sex. Straight couples and lesbian couples (with toys) can have anal and gays can have other forms of sex.

That's before even mentioning trans people who are completely erased by your claims, just like bisexuals.

>>7802813
>statistically isn't worth them accepting?
You are exaggerating HIV infection rates among Canadian homos.

>>7802829

ANAL SEX. ISNT GAY SEX. HAHAHAHHAAH HOLY SHIT

oh man just quit while you're ahead.

>>7802829

>they can still have sex, just not the sex that we tell them not to have! yknow, the kind that doesnt involve them actually fucking each other!

>>7802861

* the kind that involves

>>7802857
Laugh all you want. Guys fuck girls in the ass. Girls with strapons fuck guys in the ass. Gay people don't have a monopoly on buttfucking. And gay people can get each other off in other ways.

>>7802834
No, I'm trusting the professionals to have run the numbers and made the choice that's best for saving lives rather than pandering to progressivism.

Unless you demonstrate right now that you've run the numbers yourself and yes statistically gay blood is cost effective despite the higher likelihood all the gathering, storing and testing costs will be cash down the drain, then it's obvious that you are asking them to let people die so you can get your "I gave blood" sticker.

Probably so you could lie about saving lives too, despite actually preventing them from being saved.

>>7802890

lol way to argue semantics, retard. see >>7802861 for why your dumbass arguement falls flat. the fact remains that breeders can "fuck" 16 year olds and gay men can't. I don't give a shit if "gay people can get each other off in other ways" because that's not an arguement for why the law should exclude gay dudes from fucking. an arguement that you STILL have yet to make btw.

>>7802857
>>7802861
It's depressing to share an orientation with you.

>>7802941
The problem is that you define sex as buttsex. If sex is only PIV, then gays can't have sex anyway. If it's anything other than PIV, then it doesn't necessarily have to be buttsex. If it's just penetration, then oral counts as sex. Does Canada ban that too?

Classically, fags did intercrural. That's the no homo with the lights off gay missionary circa 450 BC.

>>7802861
>yknow, the kind that doesnt involve them actually fucking each other!
No gay sex involves actual fucking. Unless you count oral and anal, but gays can do oral at 16 just like straights.

>>7802969
>then gays can't have sex anyway.
REALITY IS HOMOPHOBIC

>>7802969
Butt is disgusting and it shouldn't be normalized as the gay equivalent of PIV. If a woman doesn't want butt then that's understandable, yet if I don't it's treated as the same as a woman who doesn't want PIV. Thanks to bastards like OP.

>>7802749
Put your trip back on Milo

>>7802969

>he's still arguing semantics despite STILL not having made a counterargument to >>7802861

holy shit this is too good. just keep ignoring the facts bud. it's been working so well for you're case hasn't it?

>>7802967

same, darling.

>>7802969
>If sex is only PIV, then gays can't have sex anyway
Well at least I still have my virginity then and can become a wizard

>>7803023
OP is seriously triggered. Was he hoping for a hugbox or what?

>>7803009

lol that's your arguement for defending the law? you dont like buttsex?! too bad for you then, other gays do and they want it fully legalized. come back when you have an arguement that isn't selfish af

>>7802813
I don't know how Canada does it, but in America, you can be a straight dude and bang different 12 women each night with no protection at all and still give blood as long they weren't prostitutes. Whereas a gay man who has been monogamous for years with his partner that also practices safe sex is instantly banned.

We already trust people to tell the truth in the little pre-donation survey, I don't see why we can't add more questions to determine risk of the actual sexual behavior the person is engaged in.

>>7803009
Don't feel pressured. I'm in my 30s and I've never done butt stuff. Hasn't stopped me from finding a boyfriend. Not every fag is a slave to the heteronormative top/bottom masc/fem dichotomy. I hate using words like that, but it's applicable in this situation.

>>7803044

>attacking my character instead of my ideas

thanks for the easy win darling

>>7803062
>my ideas
???

>>7803062
This is 4chan, faggot. That's hardly an "attack" on your character.
Also, you don't win until the other asshole gives up or gets emotional (which instantly invalidates all his points because genuinely caring about anything makes you stupid).

>>7803066

my arguement. yknow? the one you ignored in favor of a pitifully weak attempt at character assassination? man, you guys are making this too easy.

>>7802749
Not Canadian so I have no idea what the history of the law is, but it could just be a remnant of a different age. Complain enough and it might be changed.

>>7803077

if his best shot at taking down my arguement is character assault, then yes, he has definitely lost.

>>7803089

one can only hope, my friend. that's why I'm here

>>7803089
OP is just mad cause the law is keeping him from pozzing some jail bait's neg hole. Laws are pretty cool.

>>7803053
Cite the stats on HIV in men who bang 12 women a night please? Can't do it? There you go.

It needs to be very easy to determine whether someone can donate. It becomes stupid when it's "Cross-reference your number of sexual partners with the number of years you've been sexually active, adding 10 points if at least one third of them were men, deducting 5 points if you have been monogamous for the last 8 years. If you have ever been with a prostitute, instead use the chart on the following page..."

Not to mention any studies to come up with the statistics needed for your kind of puzzle of a form are going to have very small sample sizes for some of the possibilities they need to account for, unlike blanket "Gay sex, y/n?", making them very unreliable.

I also suspect people will be more likely to lie about things like always, without a single exception, practicing safe sex or being monogamous. Ever having sex with another man is an easy, black and white question that lying to obviously matters and doesn't feel like a white lie. This part is just my personal suspicion though.

>>7802930
>you are asking them to let people die
They test the blood regardless you blithering moron.

>>7803059
Thank you. I'm not going to let pressure win, but it's bad that it exists at all. If there was pressure on women for sex like that it would be an outrage.

The ironic thing is I want a very heteronormative relationship. But why can't thighs fill in for PIV just as well as butts?

>>7803113
Your logic still holds for black people and their higher HIV risk.
But you know people would be throwing shit fits to the end of time if being black instantly disqualified you from giving blood. And they'd be right, that shit's racist.
That's why the ban on gay blood is homophobic.

>>7803130
Try reading my post.

>>7803134
I support your right to choose not to do anal sex, and thigh sex can be really hot, but nothing feel as good as putting my dick in someone's butt. I expect girls to let me do that the same as guys. (Bisexual master race)

>>7803101

my personal feelings on sex with 16 year olds has no bearing on the logic behind my arguement and you know it. even if i was mad for that reason, my arguement remains undefeated in the arena of ideas. either make your case or sit down, darling, the adults are trying to make headway here

>>7803130

he's saying that it's more cost effective to exclude gays because they test for HIV regardless.

File: 1469987219875.jpg (111KB, 497x640px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 497x640px

>>7803150
>darling
And a swish to you too, faglord.

>>7803144
>banning gay unsafe blood is homophobic because banning black unsafe blood* is politically impossible

>*trust me, a random poster on 4chan, it's just as unsafe

>>7803180
The same logic applies though, black blood is also riskier. If it was just about being safe, they would stop taking black blood. If not taking riskier donations is necessary, they wouldn't take black blood.
But it's clearly not necessary to ban riskier blood types, so why continue to ban gay blood when it's all fucking tested anyway?

>>7803080
>my arguement
???

>>7803204
>riskier
Well if you say it's as risky or more so, I have no reason to disbelieve you! A random anon would never lie on the internet, let alone in order to prove his point.

>But it's clearly not necessary to ban riskier blood types,
No retard, even if your claims are true it just means people are dying for racial political correctness.

To which your response is, "Then more people should die for gay political correctness too!"

>>7803146
I did. You act like most gay blood that is donated would test positive - which is retarded, not only because most potential donors are negative, but also because those who are positive would not bother going to donate blood. And of course they save no money with straight blood when they test all blood anyway (as they should - HIV is not just gay folks).

>>7803212

>i need someone to hold my hand and explain the main talking points of this thread

???

>>7803235
No one is or would be dying though. They test the blood. All of it.

>>7803239
>I did.
...
>all the gathering, storing and testing costs
>testing costs
>They test the blood regardless you blithering moron.

>>7803267
Not going to bother explaining again. Read >>7802930

>>7803306
But you still haven't addressed the fact that people who are hiv positive wouldn't bother to give blood. Even if gays have a higher rate of hiv, the ones that have it wouldn't bother trying to give blood.
Sure, you'd get the rare one that sincerely doesn't know, but that happens with straight people too.
For every infected donation you are preventing from wasting a test on, you are turning away many more that are clean.

>>7803342
>you haven't addressed arguments I haven't raised
>I lost the previous point despite my made up stats, so here are some new ones
nah

>>7803306
but they didn't run numbers. virtually of all the gay blood bans were put in during the aids crisis when we didn't know what the fuck was going on. just that gay men were dying by the bucket load.
the fda recommendation at this point is a one year ban, not lifelong anyway.

>>7803376
>but they didn't run numbers.
Source?

>>7803342
I agree that the law is discriminatory, but there are plenty of people who don't get tested regularly and won't know they have HIV until it's already progressed. You can't deny that.

>>7803406
No, but I'd say those people are equally common among gay men and the rest of the population.

>>7802749
>self medicating is only illegal in Canada
Why are liberals so shit?

File: 1473439114842.jpg (29KB, 431x286px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 431x286px

Don't worry OP, it's only a matter of time before the Canadian government realizes what year it is and abolishes the oppressive concept of consent altogether.

>>7802749
is the aoc for anal really different from the aoc for vaginal? are you sure this is real?

>>7803101
if laws are so cool why don't you convert to judaism

the torah's like one big fucking knot of laws but i don't see you shoving it up your ass

go pay someone to flip a lightswitch for you, rabbi faggotberg

>>7805348

As a fucker of man-butts in Canada, I make it my business to know these things. look it up, my dude.

>>7805348
>>7807286
>admitting the difference is for the type or sex and not orientation

>anal sex is physically riskier than vaginal sex
>You can still consent to other gay sex acts at 16
and it is just that simple

Canada does things right

>>7805495
YOU LIKE A LAW HUH? THAT MUST MEAN YOU LOVE ALL LAWS

>>7802749
>this is why people say that the canadian government will only stick up for gay people when it's convenient
Unlike every other government ever?
Face it everything we have is because lgbt rights are hip and happening, and it's only hip and happening because the older generation disapproves.
The whole "let's stop treating homosexuals like filth (in public)" is just a sneer to the old conservatives.

I mean you gotta be absolutely retarded and gullible as fuck if you even consider morality to have played even the slightest role in it at all.