Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[Formaldehyde]

You claimed it was about homophobia. If it's about homophobia, then there should be an exclusion for WSW too.

I was obviously referring to male homosexuals, which is clearly what this discussion has been about.

And you keep going back to the same irrelevant statistics about the composition of the HIV+ population. That has nothing to do with it. MSM are far more likely to be infected than other groups. The exclusions are based on how likely a member of each group is to be infected.

It is based on how many people may be inadvertently infected and don't know about it, or those who are infected and try to give blood anyway. Over a quarter of those who can do so so are heterosexuals so they clearly pose over a quarter of the risk of doing so.

By your "logic" we should allow IV drug users because they account for only a small fraction of infections, whereas people who were infected through sexual contact are a much higher percentage. Therefore sexually active people are more likely to taint the blood supply than junkies.

My "logic" claims nothing of the sort. I haven't even addressed the topic of IV drug users because they really don't even factor into this discussion.

My point is quite simple. If homosexual men who have had any sexual contact within the past year are excluded, the same criteria should be used with heterosexuals, because they can just as easily inadvertently or deliberately taint a miniscule portion of the plasma supply in the same way. While the percentage is not as high, it is still quite substantial.

 

[NovaKart]

And I think this is the win post thus far. Bad logic is still bad logic, and all these points are quite valid, and show the flaw in the counter argument thus far.

Nice job.

I suggest both of you re-read what I posted above from the article from slate.com, then maybe you'll "get it", that it's not above orientation but about risky sexual behavior. Of course that would require you put your bias behind and since you have a bias against gays in EVERY SINGLE TOPIC IN WHICH HOMOSEXUALITY COMES UP FROM MARRIAGE TO GIVING BLOOD TO MILITARY SERVICE TO WHATEVER, I think that's just not likely to happen but give it a try.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

My point is quite simple. If homosexual men who have had any sexual contact within the past year are excluded, the same criteria should be used with heterosexuals because they can just as easily inadvertently or deliberately taint a miniscule portion of the plasma. While the odds of doing so are a bit less than half as often, they clearly pose exactly the same supposed risk.

You're right, this is getting absurd. If the "odds of doing so" are lower, then non-MSM by definition cannot "just as easily" affect the blood supply.

And as more than one person has tried to explain to you, the breakdown of new infections is not relevant. What is relevant is the likelihood of the donor being infected. Those are two different things. The exclusions aren't based on whether an person with a blood-borne disease is likely to have a certain characteristic. They're based on whether a person with a certain characteristic is at a higher risk for blood borne diseases.

 

[MobBoss]

Nova...again...no one denies that all demographs engage in risky sexual behavior....but some demographs do indeed engage in it more frequently than others. They are at higher risk because they engage in higher risk behavior more often.

And if you want to complain about the topics, then perhaps you should complain to those who create them. Oh wait...you started this thread. Ah, irony.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And as more than one person has tried to explain to you, the breakdown of new infections is not relevant. What is relevant is the likelihood of the donor being infected. Those are two different things. The exclusions aren't based on whether an person with a blood-borne disease is likely to have a certain characteristic. They're based on whether a person with a certain characteristic is at a higher risk for blood borne diseases.

Once again, over 1/4th of the new infections are heterosexuals each year, so they have exactly that percentage of a chance to inadvertently give tainted blood if both groups were free to do so. And even doing so poses an incredibly minor risk due to the current testing methods and keeping plasma separated.

The incident in the 80s which killed a number of hemophiliacs can simply never happen anymore, but many people are still reacting from fear as though it can.

 

[NovaKart]

That's just plain false. Gays do not engage in risky sexual behavior more than straight people do, and your attempts to project this on all gays is really just nonsense.

I'm not complaining about the topic, I'm complaining about your bias so your sense of irony is really misplaced.

Sometimes I don't know why I even bother, go on, be a self proclaimed prophet of common BS.

 

[MobBoss]

That's just plain false. Gays do not engage in risky sexual behavior more than straight people do, and your attempts to project this on all gays is really just nonsense.

I think you are simply in denial here, because the HIV/AIDs rates dont back your premise up.

Since high risk sexual behavior is the primary vector of HIV/AIDs transmission, If all demographs engaged in risky sex behavior to the same degree, then wouldnt infection rates be more equal amongst the demographs? But they arent, and one particular demograph truly stands out - the one known for its high risk sexual behavior. This isnt just coincedence at work here.

Your denial falls rather flat in the face of the actual numbers involved. And frankly, such denial is probably a big part of the HIV/AIDs problem in the gay community.

I was obviously referring to male homosexuals, which is clearly what this discussion has been about.

Isnt 'homophobia' inclusive of lesbians?

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Once again, over 1/4th of the new infections are heterosexuals each year, so they have exactly that percentage of a chance to inadvertently give tainted blood if both groups were free to do so.

Non-MSM do NOT have a 1/4 chance of tainting the blood supply. "25% of A are B" is not the same thing as "25% of B are A". And the two populations are not equal in number, so they would not have an equal chance of giving tainted blood even if the first proposition were true.

 

[MobBoss]

Once again, over 1/4th of the new infections are heterosexuals each year, so they have exactly that percentage of a chance to inadvertently give tainted blood if both groups were free to do so.

Form...how many heterosexuals are there in our country compared to homosexuals?

That simple figure is why your logic here is terribly flawed.

Not to mention the fact that the new infection rate among heterosexuals has been dropping over the past years, while the MSM rate is increasing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Non-MSM do NOT have a 1/4 chance of tainting the blood supply.

It is likely far greater because they are not arbitrarily excluded in such an absurd manner. That is, if most male homosexuals even pay any attention to this nonsense and don't give blood as a result. I certainly wouldn't pay it any attention if I were them and wanted to give blood.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Gays do not engage in risky sexual behavior more than straight people do, and your attempts to project this on all gays is really just nonsense.

Well, I would have to guess MSM engage in anal intercourse more than heterosexual couples do, simply because their anatomy allows for fewer options. And anal is riskier than oral or vaginal.

The other risk for MSM would come from the fact that a higher percentage of the dating pool is already infected. With those two factors alone, even if everyone had the same number of partners, MSM would be at higher risk.

Being at higher risk (which is borne out by the numbers) doesn't necessarily mean being less responsible.

 

[MobBoss]

It is actually far greater because they are not arbitrarily excluded in such a clearly absurd manner.

Oh wow. No....its not.

I...just dont know what else to say here.

I guess i'll have to go with 'proof please'.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Oh wow. No....its not.

I...just dont know what else to say here.

I guess i'll have to go with 'proof please'.

He keeps insisting that the percentage of new infections who are non-MSM is equal to the percentage of non-MSM who are infected

Now he's saying poeple are even more likely to taint the blood supply than they are to be infected with a blood borne disease. This is getting comical. I guess a non-MSM donor must have a 40-50% chance of being infected.

In other breaking news, people who've never shared needles or patronized a prostitute are riskier than junkie hookers and johns. People who've never been outside the US pose a higher malaria risk then people who've visited malarial regions. People who've never had a tattoo or piercing are riskier than people who just got back from the parlor.

 

[NovaKart]

Well, I would have to guess MSM engage in anal intercourse more than heterosexual couples do, simply because their anatomy allows for fewer options. And anal is riskier than oral or vaginal.

The other risk for MSM would come from the fact that a higher percentage of the dating pool is already infected. With those two factors alone, even if everyone had the same number of partners, MSM would be at higher risk.

Being at higher risk (which is borne out by the numbers) doesn't necessarily mean being less responsible.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make, that gays are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals but the 700 club here seems to be convinced that they are. Which is why asking people about condom usage and about anal sex would make more sense than an all out ban on gays.

 

[MobBoss]

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make, that gays are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals but the 700 club here seems to be convinced that they are. Which is why asking people about condom usage and about anal sex would make more sense than an all out ban on gays.

Again, I point out to you that I (at least) havent brought up promiscuity at all and have also simply said that MSM engage in more high risk sex behavior than other demographs; something you denied earlier when you said:

That's just plain false. Gays do not engage in risky sexual behavior more than straight people do

Do you now admit that the facts do indicate that MSM do engage in risky sexual behavior more than other demographs? Knowing that 'engaging in risky sexual behavior more' doesnt necessarily mean 'being more promiscuous'?

 

[NovaKart]

When you talk about high risk behaviour it's all very vague and you just lump all men who have sex with men together regardless of if it's protected or not or what sort of sex they engage in and you justify an exclusion based on any man who has had sex with another man regardless of what they did or how long ago it happened.

Therefore, I would say I'm very well justified in being wary of your discrimination, considering you seem to justify everything, including marriage benefits based on this. I remember in another thread you justified discrimination against gays and marriage based on the high rate of substance abuse, you seem to feel that any negative potrayal of the gay community is a justification of discrimination against them. So yes, I'm really wary of any negative allegation you have against the gay community.

 

[MobBoss]

I refer to it as MSM because that precisely how the CDC refers to it as a transmission demograph. Its not about discrimination at all, and frankly, thats just a diversion of the real issue at hand. That being that HIV/AIDs is still a very significant problem in the gay community dispite all thats been done for awareness over the last several decades.

At what point should 'why' be a legitimate question as opposed to more excuses? I'm not making up the fact that HIV/AIDs infection rate is increasing among MSM; thats just the fact of the matter....its not an allegation, its not innuendo...its a cold hard fact. Denying that or trying to pin the blame on something else isnt going to change that fact.

As I tell my own kids, excuses are just that: excuses, and its not a method to getting anything done about a problem. So how long are we going to continue making excuses for this?

 

[Mango Elephant]

^ can you clarify to what point should MSM be excluded from giving blood? You've probably said it before but I want to know all the facts before I seriously respond to you.

 

[MobBoss]

^ can you clarify to what point should MSM be excluded from giving blood? You've probably said it before but I want to know all the facts before I seriously respond to you.

I didnt have a problem with a lifetime ban, and I really dont see the year long ban enabling that many more donations than previously experienced, so to me, from that aspect, its a complete wash.

My overall issue is blood collection is still a human sticking a needle into another human...and as long as humans are involved mistakes can happen. Whether its someone that is unknowingly HIV donating blood, and a tech makes an error and sticks an infected needle into someone by accident, or whether a tech messes up the HIV screen down the road and allows a tainted bag of blood into the supply, such mistakes still do indeed occur within the blood supply system we have today. The real question is whether this makes our blood safer or more unsafe and if unsafe then to what degree?

Point being it was put out earlier in the thread that this change carries the following risk:

Lifetime exclusion - risk of one infection in every 4.41 million donations
Five-year time limit - risk of one infection in every 4.39 million donations
One-year time limit - risk of one infection in every 4.38 million donations
No limit - risk of one infection in every 3.48 million donations

There are roughly 30 million donations of blood a year in the USA, so essentially this change could mean 1 to 2 people more a year could face accidental HIV/AIDs infection via our blood supply. I dont think thats worth it to simply appease a bunch of people because they feel slighted at not being able to give blood.

 

[useless]

I guess it's easy to support a life-time ban, when it doesn't affect you.