Support Gay Civil Rights...To Donate Blood...whaaa? Huh?!

Don't worry. The American Psychological Association will undoubtedly say the general population needs to get behind this new "civil right" because it will help gay men feel normal. So put your prejudices aside and get behind full equality for gays. Nothing less will do...

I just hope you don't have a hemophiliac in the family....or anyone who gets in a car accident....or anyone who needs surgery...

And this from some of the comments on the CNN page, which I heartily encourage you to visit and read..

Gays argue that tests are extremely accurate and will overcome any disproportionate statistics in their population for HIV/AIDS...

I had heard that last bit in bold before and even I thought it was a conspiracy theory. But now....? What possible motivation would gays have to go on a campaign that would, according to any logical mind [including theirs] increase the amount of HIV in the donated blood supply to the general population...?

...??????? The motivation here is what has me worried....more than the chance of HIV winding up in blood more often...

 

"fairness" in everything....including disease.

 

Everyone knows its a gay civil right to give you HIV, and hepatitis...

 

Indeed... next stop, lawsuit against Sickle Cell Anemia. Racist disease, targets black people. I suggest we intentionally infect white people just to even things up. Admit it, you know it's the right thing to do.

 

Gays, dripping with HIV, must not be discrimminated against. They should be permitted to donate their blood and spread AIDS.

Being infected with HIV is now a badge of honor and The United States is now a family of socialists. Everyone should be happy to share one another's diseases with the family.

 

Then the fatties will sue because they're "unfairly targeted" for diabetes.
under the knife we go....carve on that insulin producing pancreas....

Isn't victimhood grand!!

 

Such hate.....

 

Uh, I didn't start this thread for a hate/non hate thread. I started it to alert people to what is soon going to happen to the blood supply courtesy of the unchecked rainbow wildfire...

 

That is a bit hard to believe since your anecdotal little post filled with propaganda and vicious rumor you try to pass off a simple question is carefully crafted, as is most of your fraudulent propaganda, is simply hard work to incite hysteria and bigotry among the ill-informed and bigoted.

If your terror of "the gay disease" means you cannot accept the ever more vanishingly tiny risk of a perfectly timed infection being missed while utterly ignoring the enormous OTHER risks of blood transfusion or the problems from the reason WHY you are needing a blood transfusion, then feel free to go to a private blood bank and uy the exact type of blood you like. THis is already done by people who only want racially-correct blood ("No black blood will enter MY veins!") so you will be in good company!

In the meantime, a LIFETIME ban of a male who has touched another male is scientific and medical absurdity in itself, and cruel to the people who NEED blood yet are refused some or have to wait or pay, more because volunteers are turned away because of bigoted foolishness.

YOUR implied "motivation" has made it quite clear, in my opinion, that your desire to encourage and spread evil and hate knows no bounds.

 

The only "enemies of freedom" I'm aware of are those officials in California denying the initiative system via Article II of that state's constitution and the power of the vote to the individual constitutionally allowed to say "no" to gay marriage.

But that's off topic. So on topic I'll put you down as "anyone objecting to gay men donating blood is an enemy of freedom"...

 

first of all, both sexes can get hiv, so that is hardly a argument, and if they can not filter out tainted hiv blood before it's used in a person... how safe would one feel about getting a blood transfusion?

I do not want some people filter out cause they may have a disease, I want test to be done on all blood before it's used period

.

 

Careful, your hate is showing. People who claim not to have a hateful purpose in mind and then illustrate plainly just how hateful their thinking is don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I question the idea that the ban is based on prejudice alone. I don't think it's necessarily true that a person who engages in same-sex behavior is more likely to have engaged in high risk behavior. But it is true that the population of men who have sex with other men accounts for a disproportional number of infections; perhaps due in part to the fact that there is a much smaller pool of partners.

Since donation is voluntary and a person experiences no real harm from having their donation rejected, I wouldn't call this a civil rights issue.

Since my doctor has advised me never to donate blood for an unrelated reason, I never will, so I'm unaffected by the ban and therefore have no personal stake in this controversy.

 

So to you, to be denied the ability to control OTHER people's lives "limits your freedom".

Why can't you simply be happy with NOT getting gay-married YOURSELF? Do you really need the government to limit your behavior?

Well, if you had stuck to the topic of why a gay man might not be allowed to donate blood, you could be right about "off-topic".

But since there is NO rational or scientific or medical reason to flatly prohibit it, you had to go into the "gay conspiracy to infect the world with AIDS", and other crapola, which means this is NOTHING but a "hate thread", and my comments are perfectly on-topic.

 

I give blood rather frequently- just a curiousity- of the people chiming in here- do you give blood?

Anyway- I just read the first article cited, and I disagree with the groups fighting the ban.

The bloodbanks have various 'ban's in place to try to weed out blood born diseases that could infect someone- the issue of HIV and men is just one- there is another regarding travel to certain places and certain times.

Anyway- all for social equality- but this is medical issue and the blood bank rules seem reasonable to me.

 

I got one in 1985.....So far,so good

 

What is the policy of banning blood from women who have EVER, in their lives, had anal sex with a man?

The disease risks from her blood would seem identical.

 

Yet more hateful rhetoric.

You do realize that all blood is tested before being admitted?

So every gay person that donates will be subjected to the same tests as the heterosexuals who already donate. Meaning...there is no increased risk.

Funnily enough working at a hospital I attend several blood drives a year. I donate regularly. I'm gay. Do you really think its that hard to not tell a blood drive worker you're not gay? If your a civil minded person who wants to make a difference its pretty easy.

 

You don't know what your are talking about.

I agree that anyone currently involved in homosexual sex acts should be banned from donating blood. So do virutally all doctors I've ever spoken to.

What I have seen is repealing the lifetime ban. If someone has sex with another man at 18 and then doesn't do it again for 5 years and tests negative for HIV it is a little silly to not allow them to donate blood don't you think?

http://www.kent.edu/uhs/upload/formattedmsm_goldberg_gates.pdf

Page 2

Bring your scientific references and we will discuss.

 

Osiris Faction has said all that needs to be said on the topic directly (there's a highly effective screening process, making this essentially a complaint about nothing), save perhaps that the HIV rate among homosexuals is not so high as to warrant such measures in the first place, so I want to address this...

Silhouette, I'm going to be frank. If you seriously think that there's a gay conspiracy to spread HIV in order to acquire more research funds, that people sincerely would act like this, would murder people with the intent of maybe finding treatment maybe in their children's lifetimes...

...If you honestly believe that, then I recommend getting therapy, because it's pretty easy to see that you are suffering from serious homophobia. And I mean that in the sense you would - you are literally pathologically afraid of gay people, and this is causing you potential psychic harm, as well as possibly leading to incredibly poor decision-making (up to and including this topic).

 

I suggest you lodge your complaint with the proper authorities. Without this obviously discriminatory policy in place, there is nothing to whine about. Who do you suppose in charge of such things?

 

Right now a gay person must lie if they wish to donate blood.

Changing a rule would make it so they can tell the truth.

 

If all the blood is carefully screened anyway, then this particular ban seems moot. But I suppose it's possible that the overhead costs involved in drawing blood too likely to be HIV positive, and then discarding it, might be unacceptably high. There is an administrative cost associated with each donor - trained personnel, time, equipment, supplies, screening costs, etc. If too high a percentage of blood must be discarded, these costs could exceed the benefits from those who make it through the screening.

 

So if you believe in that, what have you done to change things?

 

For reference point: I don't give blood, frankly for 90% selfish and 10% professional reasons.

That said, I seriously doubt the people running this show would make a policy on donating blood based on bigotry. That said, I certainly understand large organizations can move glacially slow. Is it time to revisit the ban on gays giving blood? I have no idea. But unless someone could prove otherwise, I will give any benefit of any doubt to the people making the rules. If ________s were more likely to have ________, and __________ was hard to or cost prohibitively difficult to detect in blood, I would be fine with ________s not being allowed to donate blood.

 

Good lord...probably the worst segment you could look to for blood.

No one wants that blood, it's an incredible waste of peoples time and resources to take it and then have to find out it cannot be used after it's tested. Who's next, Hepatitis or Malaria donors who feel slighted? Take it from them too in the off chance you can use 2% of it? Not a good use of resources.