116 replies to this topic

[.AKUMA.]

Good! Its becuase people like this carry another kind of disease and its called homosexuality.

[OverSword]

mfrmboy, on 10 December 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

It is a persons behavior not sexual orientation that puts them at risk for a STD.
A straight person who has multiple sex parteners can donate blood, they are not asked about their sexual parteners or about their parteners sexual behaviors.

I am in a monogamous relationship and have been for years, HIV negative, I do not use drugs or engage in any type of risky behavior and yet I am not allowed to donate purely based on my sexual orientation.

It is discrimination.

Don't take it personally.  It's a cost effectiveness thing nota hate thing.  They test the blood and tests cost money.  When you know that a good 40% of the blood from a particular group is going to have to be destroyed then at some point it becomes cheaper to just skip over that particular group.  So like I said don't take it personally.

Geez you guys are so emotional   KIDDING!  Don't kill me it's a joke!!

[OverSword]

.AKUMA., on 10 December 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Good! Its becuase people like this carry another kind of disease and its called homosexuality.

nice

[Simbi Laveau]

OverSword, on 10 December 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Whoa!  You got some crazy friends.  They don't need tests with me I'll tell them what I've got long before I sleep with them.  About the gay men, keeping in mind that I live in the gayest area of the 3rd gayest city in America, I'd say that older gay guys become more cautious but on the surface at least it seems the young ones are as slutty as ever.  I don't acutally know for for sure but I hear anecdotes as my nieghbors gossip at our building barbecues and wine tastings..

Nothing to do with gay or crazy . It's nyc . Ifyou've has unprotected sex here ,you've slept with 1/8th of the cities population .
Literally . They test so they can go into the relationship  with a clean slate.
One of my friends already had a hepatitis c scare .

[with bells on]

As a gay male, I don't have an issue with why we can't donate blood. It used to bother me though, as I was turned away years ago. I know quite a few guys who have just been diagnosed positive, and they aren't old.

The thing is there are so many married men with a nice little family and kids, that do men on the side. All the time.. And some of them are Christians or Muslims or whatever. So the truth is people lie at these blood banks. And they know that. So the screening of the blood has to be high, so maybe these strict rules need to be loosened.

And no cassea I wouldn't mind getting a blood transfusion from a gay person.. Lol.

[with bells on]

.AKUMA., on 10 December 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Good! Its becuase people like this carry another kind of disease and its called homosexuality.

yep.. the joys of the internet.. it takes all types.. who let the dogs out?

[Myles]

I agree with those who know that it is a cost avoidence to have this rule in place.   I do think it should be re-evaluated from time to time to see if the statistics still hold true.

[Cassea]

bacca, on 10 December 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

So you automatically assume that a gay mans blood is bad? I'm guessing you would rather die then receive this blood right? If you or a family member needs blood you will be sure to make sure that the blood is from a nice straight person, or they must re-check it because you are afraid of gay blood?

The ignorance behind the idea that a gay mans blood is bad or more likely to harm you after it goes through testing etc is silly. I would rather get the blood from a gay man then not get blood...I have gay friends and straight friends and if the fear is whose blood might be a carrier i'd rather they gay mans then some of my church going, long term relationship straight friends...a persons sexual orientation has NO baring on if they are a risk or not and it makes me sad that there are still people who are stuck in the past enough to believe that it does.

Drama

Statistically gay men have a higher likelihood of having aids and other diseases.   Your political posturing is unrealistic.  I have gay friends and straight friends too.  This has nothing to do with it.  It has to do with the likelihood of contracting disease. Triple screening for these diseases costs money.  It is easier to just avoid certain groups with a high likelihood.  Rather than paying three times the money to be sure.  In order to not hurt someone's feeling.  This is not a gay issue.  If it was then lesbians would be banned as wel.  This is a economic issue.  Paying to prevent people's feelings being hurt is a waste of money.

[F3SS]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Drama

Lol, you didn't even have to say anything else after that although I fully agree with your reasoning. I try to stay out of these topics because I get labeled a bigot no matter how much sense I make. So please, continue....

[Gromdor]

I was in England from 1990-1992.  After I returned to the States I wasn't allowed to donate blood for over 12 years because of the Mad Cow scare.  Ironically, I found this out because my GF at the time wanted to go donate blood for the free HIV and other blood pathogens tests they do before accepting the blood.

[shadowhive]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Drama

Statistically gay men have a higher likelihood of having aids and other diseases.   Your political posturing is unrealistic.  I have gay friends and straight friends too.  This has nothing to do with it.  It has to do with the likelihood of contracting disease. Triple screening for these diseases costs money.  It is easier to just avoid certain groups with a high likelihood.  Rather than paying three times the money to be sure.  In order to not hurt someone's feeling.  This is not a gay issue.  If it was then lesbians would be banned as wel.  This is a economic issue.  Paying to prevent people's feelings being hurt is a waste of money.

Personally, I'd rather they triple checked it anyway. It's all well and good eliminating the high likelihood groups but that just strkes me as lazy. Anyone can get those diseases, yet your arguement seems to be just remove the high risk groups as if that removes the risk of disease altogether. It doesn't. I would much rather have blood from EVERYONE triple checked, than it not get checked and the disease slips through on the basis that hetrosexuals are a lower risk group so we should't bother to screen them. Does screening cost money sure, but this is a disease we're talking about and it is much better to be safe than sorry.

Secondly, the logic also tends to fall apart when a gayn person is in a monogamous relationship or has regular blood screenings anyway. then the 'risk' excuse becomes a little moot.

Edited by shadowhive, 11 December 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[Cassea]

This is making a gay issue.  Out of an economic issue.

[bacca]

Cassea, on 11 December 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Drama

Statistically gay men have a higher likelihood of having aids and other diseases.   Your political posturing is unrealistic.  I have gay friends and straight friends too.  This has nothing to do with it.  It has to do with the likelihood of contracting disease. Triple screening for these diseases costs money.  It is easier to just avoid certain groups with a high likelihood.  Rather than paying three times the money to be sure.  In order to not hurt someone's feeling.  This is not a gay issue.  If it was then lesbians would be banned as wel.  This is a economic issue.  Paying to prevent people's feelings being hurt is a waste of money.

Since this is not a political issue to me but rather a human one I find your reasons rather silly...If you honestly believe that people are 100% honest about if they are gay or not then your aren't actually living in reality anyway...Avoid certain groups? hmmm why? because there is enough data to prove that the first testing makes enough mistakes? Or rather that you have a fear that it might that you would rather there be a blood shortage than get over your own fear of people that are gay...Your right it isn't a gay issue it is a homophobic issue, it is an issue with people who still somehow believe that one group being held to higher standards in one way should be held in lower in others...How about we be honest and we say that all females be left out because it is common knowledge that they lie about how many men they have slept with... or men should be excluded because they may lie about using protection? Where should it end? It is very easy to sit here and pass judgement as you are not currently in need of blood...however to be honest people who are so picky should not have the option to get blood you should sign a waiver and not be able to get it because you want the person who was willing to give it to you might not be up to your personal standards...it must be wonderful to live in your world where passing judgment and picking and choosing those good enough to help you out is so easy since there are so many people standing in line to do so...You sit here and you speak of an entire part of the population like they are beneath you, that one whole group should be excluded because all the people involved are incapable of protecting themselves, I hope everyday that someday people who think like that will wake up and realize that people are people and those who are willing to help you should be thanked not turned away because you are afraid for no valid reason

Oh and the whole 40% thrown out thing, that would still leave 60% who could give blood safely, how many lives would that save?

[Cassea]

Drama

Homosexual men are 44% more likely to have HIV.  It has nothing to do with homophobia.

[bacca]

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

Drama

Homosexual men are 44% more likely to have HIV.  It has nothing to do with homophobia.

and when blood is tested what is the odds that they get it wrong? it is homophobia