Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
mfrmboy

Gay men cannot donate blood or sperm

117 posts in this topic

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drama

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its not. It's called an old law. Not a new law. Thus Drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its not. It's called an old law. Not a new law. Thus Drama.

I think you need to think long and hard about what your own personal issues are....you have illogical fears, perhaps a professional could help you out with that...it's not drama as you seem to like to say....YOU are not better than anyone else YOU are not less likely to have had unprotected sex or less likely to be a carrier of something YOU are just more likely perhaps to lie about it....old law, new law! who cares? because something is an old law that makes it right? no it means that new information needs to change it, or are you one of those people who feels the old ways are best lol, at least that would make laugh and not just feel sorry for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it means that new information needs to change it, or are you one of those people who feels the old ways are best lol, at least that would make laugh and not just feel sorry for you

I think she's saying that as long as the 44% statistic is what it is then it makes economic sense not to even bother with so much potential bad blood. That's not a political statement, its a sensible economic statement. Now you can turn it into a political issue if you want but I'd rather see you stop playing psychiatrist and dispute the statistic.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to think long and hard about what your own personal issues are....you have illogical fears, perhaps a professional could help you out with that...it's not drama as you seem to like to say....YOU are not better than anyone else YOU are not less likely to have had unprotected sex or less likely to be a carrier of something YOU are just more likely perhaps to lie about it....old law, new law! who cares? because something is an old law that makes it right? no it means that new information needs to change it, or are you one of those people who feels the old ways are best lol, at least that would make laugh and not just feel sorry for you

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No you would rather be dead than risk it, have I ever had a blood transfusion? to be honest I don't know when I had emergency surgery the last think I ever asked was about blood eve to my husband, unlike you that was not my issue....perhaps you have never had anyone in your life that needed one, I actually have and was glad that they had blood available, I did not ( and neither did they) care if it came from someone who was gay or not, and I am not screaming at you, I am simply telling you what I think, if I scream you will know it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:unsure2: I thought you were a high school student. Wow. Never mind. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure2: I thought you were a high school student. Wow. Never mind. :unsure2:

why would you think I was a high school student? did I say something that sounded as such? please, explain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confused post about understanding reading. Posting in ALL CAPS and saying "YOU" like that. Comes across as quite young to me. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

homosexuality isn't a disease.

grow up educate yourself and then come back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confused post about understanding reading. Posting in ALL CAPS and saying "YOU" like that. Comes across as quite young to me. Sorry.

hmmm perhaps it is more that YOU can not come up with anything constructive to say? or perhaps you are not used to someone not letting you spew your ignorance without calling your out on it? I would have a few good guesses about your life, all of them would give me a good laugh to be honest, I feel sorry for people who think so highly of themselves, you have no idea that the world isn't rainbows and unicorns....grow up little one, I realize you are in your 30s, but by how you speak you have two options you either live in some sheltered little world or life has already kicked you in the teeth and you are in denial, either way...pathetic really, you are not better than anyone and your blood is not better than anyone else s... If you feel that the capitalization of one word is inappropriate perhaps you should re-read, when using email or forums sometimes that is the only way to show emphasis (do you need to look that word up?) debating with you is tiresome as it is pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it was. Seems like others have no problem. Getting the point. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it was. Seems like others have no problem. Getting the point. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

But it has everything to do with homosexuality when that is the group being excluded...You can't say it doesn't have to do with this but that is the reason why you can't do something...it is silly....it would be like telling a child you don't get presents because you were bad but being bad had nothing to do with you not getting presents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confused post about understanding reading. Posting in ALL CAPS and saying "YOU" like that. Comes across as quite young to me. Sorry.

the post you are referring to Cassea, was not someone screaming at you.. drama..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

see, this is where you do come across as having an underlining issue with gays.. its very subtle.. but noticeable..

anyone handling blood is safe, regardless if they are using "gay" blood or "hetro" blood.. its not like they can catch it by looking at it.. even if they did actually touch the blood, they wont catch HIV, unless they have an open cut on their hand.. and even then its only a risk..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being dishonest and not answering the question. It's got nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the chance of infection. Each here has focused on the recipient of the transfusion. But to get to that point many people are involved prior. From the person receiving the donation at the center all the way to the technicians.

Would you rather handle blood that had a 44% higher chance of being infected with HIV. Yes or no. Be honest. Otherwise this is just a drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone handling blood is safe, regardless if they are using "gay" blood or "hetro" blood.. its not like they can catch it by looking at it.. even if they did actually touch the blood, they wont catch HIV, unless they have an open cut on their hand.. and even then its only a risk..

i agree and i would also add that the chosen field of work has it's obvious hazzards from the onset with blood being the main event. ambulannce workers, police officers, nurses, doctors, lab techs...all of them work with potential carriers of many highly contagious diseases and they understand the risk. if they aren't willing to handle the infected blood they should be working in another field. they don't get to cherry pick their cases.

Edited by JGirl
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.