Topic: Banning gay men from giving blood is stupid (Read 2677 times)
You bigots can seriously go die in a fire. Thread locked.
Being gay is a sign you are not fit to contribute to the future existence of man.
Thank you for willingly removing yourself from the genepool.
Maybe these 'gays' should have taken better care of their acts before HIV rates among themselves sky rocketed.
Thank you for willingly removing yourself from the genepool.
Maybe these 'gays' should have taken better care of their acts before HIV rates among themselves sky rocketed.
Every single population group, which is having an above average prevalence of diseases which are spread through blood should be banned from donating blood. For every state / region, a HIV prevalence survey should be done. If the HIV prevalence for a particular population group (such as gays, IDUs, sex-workers, truck drivers, prisoners, bankers.etc) is more than 10 times the general prevalence, then that group should be excluded from donating blood.
And since HIV was first discovered among the homosexuals (it was exclusively a disease among the gays for more than a decade, before spreading to the general population through blood donated from the gays) I am skeptical about using blood derived from them.
And since HIV was first discovered among the homosexuals (it was exclusively a disease among the gays for more than a decade, before spreading to the general population through blood donated from the gays) I am skeptical about using blood derived from them.
This is just common sense.
It's just not about HIV, by the way. There are numerous things transmitted by blood.
But wont the gay blood make me gay? Or maybe if I just got a little bit of it I would have better fashion sense. 
I believe gay is a result of hormonal abnormality. If those blood has shemale hormones maybe that can affect you.
But wont the gay blood make me gay? Or maybe if I just got a little bit of it I would have better fashion sense.
So what if the person is not openly gay? They can still give blood right? So that would mean the system is very flawed in my opinion. I could be wrong and would like someone to explain how if so.
If they are brave enough to have their veins fierce with a big needle and see their blood flowing to the blood bag. Then why not?
As I explained before the risk involved with gay community is high and the blood test are not reliable enough, if blood test was 100% reliable, this won't be a non issue, but it isn't the case, and for this same reason, people with high risk (it's not limited to gay) http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical-listing
As for other countries it depends but according to redcross I don't see any limitation on this matter
As for other countries it depends but according to redcross I don't see any limitation on this matter
We both get tested every other month
Why so often if you trust each other?
Best practice.
That's at least an average of what... 6, 7 tests a year? Unless you are in the porn industry then yes that would make best practice sense.
Anyway don't forget the thousands of other ways you can still massively help your next of kin, blood relatives or not.
We both get tested every other month
Why so often if you trust each other?
Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.
That is kind of the point I think. If there is even a slight risk of something being wrong and it isn't completely preventable you have to make the tough choice. Even a slight risk is too much.
I agree that it should be more about the safety or health not on sexuality.
We both get tested every other month
Why so often if you trust each other?
Best practice.
We both get tested every other month
Why so often if you trust each other?
Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.
Why so often if you trust each other?
Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.
OK.... I have a compromise solution.
Let there be two types of blood banks. The first type should accept blood from everyone, without any restriction at all. The second type should accept blood only from the safe groups.
Let the consumers (sic) decide which blood they want.
We both get tested every other month
Why so often if you trust each other?
Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.
I don't have HIV or AIDs. I am in a magnanimous relationship with my boyfriend. We both get tested every other month. Not just for aids, but full STD panels. Why can't I give blood? A good answer...
This isn't strictly true - but is in practicality.
HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.
HIV will eventually turn into AIDS which will kill you (it actually makes it easier for sickness to kill you, but the point is still there). If you have HIV it will eventually turn into AIDS. This isn't strictly true - but is in practicality.
HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.
HIV will eventually turn into AIDS which will kill you (it actually makes it easier for sickness to kill you, but the point is still there). If you have HIV it will eventually turn into AIDS.
Every single population group, which is having an above average prevalence of diseases which are spread through blood should be banned from donating blood. For every state / region, a HIV prevalence survey should be done. If the HIV prevalence for a particular population group (such as gays, IDUs, sex-workers, truck drivers, prisoners, bankers.etc) is more than 10 times the general prevalence, then that group should be excluded from donating blood.
And since HIV was first discovered among the homosexuals (it was exclusively a disease among the gays for more than a decade, before spreading to the general population through blood donated from the gays) I am skeptical about using blood derived from them.
And since HIV was first discovered among the homosexuals (it was exclusively a disease among the gays for more than a decade, before spreading to the general population through blood donated from the gays) I am skeptical about using blood derived from them.
This is such a sensationalist thread and we've got far bigger issues in society to be concerned about imo. 
The possibility of airborne Ebola does take precedence over this, I agree.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33277/title/Ebola-from-Pigs-to-Monkeys/
That's old news; they kept the two in very close proximity for an extended period of time, inevitably it was going to spread. As long as you're not exposed to someone with ebola for extended periods of time, you're probably not going to catch it; you have much greater odds of catching and dying from the flu.
HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.
Says the person with an infowars link in their signature. What is with all the tin foil hat stuff lately?
HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.
Jump to: