116 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

Drama

oh will you stop saying
"Drama"

it's getting near to trolling.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

acidhead, on 11 December 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Just curious...

It was already pointed out earlier that if there was any sort of phobia attached to gay individuals then why doesn't the ban apply to lesbian women?

It's an economic and a health issue for good reason based upon STD statistics.

Failure to comprehend this decision is what happens when the individual confuses thinking with feeling.

bnecause the Religious Conservatives, who of course make these laws, wouldn't find lesbians threatening, since they know that they wouldn't want to try it on with them. (Which seems to be what a lot of Religious Conservatives seem to be paranoid about.) What it all comes down to is pure paranoia, as it always does. Because a large percentage of their support base is very homophobic, then obviously keeping in with them is going to ensure they keep their support, isn't it.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bacca, on 11 December 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

First, why doesn't it apply to lesbians? because women are not looked at in the same way, there isn't the same eewww factor...people don't get upset about two girls kissing or what not, it is more socially acceptable for two girls to kiss in a bar, if two males do it the reaction is different and that spills over into all aspects. As for the economic issue the only way that that would be valid would be if all people were honest...but the truth is that if your local pastor has a boyfriend on the side he is not telling which means the same blood that is happily accepted as married heterosexual is in truth having sex with the whole neighborhood...it is a myth, you can not trust what people say as many people (especially men) will lie about same sex relations...to say that the blood supply would not benefit from the 60% of healthy blood is also not true, any that is given is a good thing, as well as any blood that is donated and found to be infected is good in that the supplier can be notified....

that's exactly the flaw. It depends on honesty. And those who are likely to be dishonest are those who are likely to have the least scruples about taking Precautions and so on.

[F3SS]

Did religious conservatives write this rule or did scientific research within the medical community deem it necessary? Otherwise, why does a thread that tells a gay guy no have to turn into a PC hissy fit with blame being pointed at everybody except the group responsible for having a 44% higher chance of having an STD than any other group? That's new America I guess. Nobody is responsible for their own actions these days.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 11 December 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[with bells on]

-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Isn't everybody all about lowering healthcare costs these days? The first gay president is, right?

-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

That's new America I guess. Nobody is responsible for their own actions these days.

last time i looked this is an international forum, not an American only one.. remember the rest of us are socialists.. healthcare costs?? is not something thats ever on my mind..

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Did religious conservatives write this rule or did scientific research within the medical community deem it necessary?

Obviously, the Politicians who draw up the laws are always influenced by the former.

[shadowhive]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

Why are you screaming at me.  I didn't make the law.  It's economic.  Not homophobia.  And why risk it?  Have you ever had a blood transfusion?  You are at the mercy of the checking.  You really have no say.  I would rather be safe.  Than sorry.

I'm sorry but how is doing less tests 'better safe than sorry'?

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

You think doctors.  Are doing this.  Because they think male sex is gross?  Do you realize.  That even accepting the donation.  Can put a technician at risk.  Not just the recipient of the blood.  If I asked you to test.   A batch of blood.  Batch A is from the homosexual community.   Batch B is from the hetero community.  You are saying. Honestly.  You wouldn't prefer not to have to handle blood. That had a 44% higher chance of having HIV?

Medical technicians that do blood tests (in a standard medical setting) handle all kinds of blood. They can't say they won't handle gay blood anymore than they can say they won't handle asian blood.

[shadowhive]

-Mr_Fess-, on 11 December 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Did religious conservatives write this rule or did scientific research within the medical community deem it necessary? Otherwise, why does a thread that tells a gay guy no have to turn into a PC hissy fit with blame being pointed at everybody except the group responsible for having a 44% higher chance of having an STD than any other group? That's new America I guess. Nobody is responsible for their own actions these days.

Again, that arguement comes off as lazy. Why Straight people can become infected too. They may not even know it and give blood freely. Personally I don't think doing a test on blood given from EVERYONE isn't a waste of money, especially since it could save lives. Unless, of course, the economic thing is more important than that.

Taking this from an 'economic view' just sounds like cutting corners, which means that a procedure where safety should be a pirority becomes more about getting it done on the cheap.

Edited by shadowhive, 11 December 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[Jinxdom]

Why is who you slept with more important then how many? A homosexual is no more at risk then a non-homosexual on a per person bases. A person who slept with 5 people is more risky then somebody who slept with none, a person who shared needles is more at risk then somebody who has never done so. Regardless of what gender they shack up with. These are realistic determinative factors, not some stereotype that is in actuality a small portion of that group.

It's ludicrous that something that we have a shortage of is being turned away because they are focusing on the wrong question and answer.

[Myles]

It's playing the odds with the statistics you have.   Same reason I don't walk down a dark alley at night.   Chances are good that I won't be mugged, but the odds are much higher than it is in the day time.  
Those accusing Cassea of being a homophobe are the real haters here.   She has the stats to prove her point.

[F3SS]

with bells on, on 11 December 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

last time i looked this is an international forum, not an American only one.. remember the rest of us are socialists.. healthcare costs?? is not something thats ever on my mind..

I was under the impression this was an American rule. Healthcare costs are all the rage in America these days.

747400, on 11 December 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Obviously, the Politicians who draw up the laws are always influenced by the former.

Really, no dems have any say whatsoever about healthcare laws? That's funny. I thought they did.

shadowhive, on 11 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Again, that arguement comes off as lazy. Why Straight people can become infected too. They may not even know it and give blood freely. Personally I don't think doing a test on blood given from EVERYONE isn't a waste of money, especially since it could save lives. Unless, of course, the economic thing is more important than that.

Taking this from an 'economic view' just sounds like cutting corners, which means that a procedure where safety should be a pirority becomes more about getting it done on the cheap.

Sure, but if straight people are 5 times less likely to be infected, statistically, and make up the vast majority of blood donors...Well the argument has been made. Try this; You open a mobile blood donation business. You only have so much staff and resources to conduct withdrawls and testing. Sensibly, you only accept blood from people that meet certain criteria because you need to make sure you get as much acceptable blood as possible. Suddenly, a group of people wants to give whom science has proven to be 5 times more likely to carry an STD than anyone who actually meets your criteria. Their feelings are hurt. There is a possibility that you may receive some good blood from the group but statistics tell you that your limited staff and resources should really be focusing on where the good blood is most likely to be found but instead, you cave in. Now you are paying people to sift through bad batches and nobody is going to pay you for those bad batches. Then you have to cut some staff because you can't afford them and so on until you realize it doesn't make sense economically or time wise to deal with so much waste and in the health field, time and money is everything in relation to quality care.
Or, you can find a way to blame this on capitalism and homophobia. Me? I'd rather see logic. Liberalism and political correctness has no place in logic and economics. Countries and such things can not be run on feelings. It hinders production and just plain gets in the way.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 11 December 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[F3SS]

The real argument about the rule here is the statistics and no one is challenging that. The rule just may be arcane but all me and some others here are doing is explaining the logic behind it and those that don't like it would rather demonize somebody for explaining logic rather than challenge the stat and explain why it makes more sense today to let every body donate. This conversation can go much further if you did that instead of telling everybody why the world sucks and it's anybodies fault but yours.

[Rafterman]

mfrmboy, on 10 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Why in this day and age are gay and bisexual men prohibited from donating blood and sperm.

Heterosexuals are just as likely to contract and spread HIV or Hepatitis as anyone else.

With blood supplies being so low and rare blood types being in such high demand I find it absurd that gay and bisexual men are turned away.

The blood is tested before it is used so I don't understand why, makes no sense.

It has everything to do with risk factors and percentages.

There's a whole list of activities that preclude one from being able to give blood, not just being gay or bisexual.

But, if you do look at the numbers, white and black men who have sex with other men have higher rates of HIV infection than the next seven groups combined.

http://www.cdc.gov/h...us_overview.htm

Facts are facts.

[Purplos]

44 / 100 = unusable blood x $10.00 (arbitrary number) per test = $ 440.00 out of $1000.00 wasted

1 /100 = unusable blood x $10.00 per test = $10.00 out of $1000.00 wasted.

Which makes more sense?

THAT is the issue. Not the medical community being big meanies to gay men.

I think people that don't know this kinda thing is ruled by PROFIT are just a wee bit silly.

Edited by Purplos, 11 December 2012 - 06:49 PM.

[glorybebe]

Rafterman, on 11 December 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

It has everything to do with risk factors and percentages.

There's a whole list of activities that preclude one from being able to give blood, not just being gay or bisexual.

But, if you do look at the numbers, white and black men who have sex with other men have higher rates of HIV infection than the next seven groups combined.

http://www.cdc.gov/h...us_overview.htm

Facts are facts.

OK, why do gay men have a higher rate of HIV? Why is this rule put in place?  While having sexual contact, there will be tearing of the intestinal wall due to the fact that the intestine is very delicate.  If there are not any precautions taken, then when there is an exchange of fluid, there is a very high chance of infection.  In women, there is usually still tearing, but the vaginal wall secretes a natural spermicide, which can, but not always, kill foreign objects (sperm).  We learned this in biology in school.  I don't see how this is even a factor in saying that gayness can be catching.  It is based on basic biology.  That being said.....I don't care what sexual orientation you are, if you have been tested and use precautions, then, yes, even if they have to test your blood three times, use it!  It can save someone's life.  Here in Canada, we have to go through testing, no matter what your marital status or sexual orientation is to see if our blood is clear of diseases.  If the testing is straight across the board, then it will make it safer for everyone.