Effeminate man rejected from donating blood

[NiRv4n4]

Data should be the judgement, not preconceived notions of equality or homophobia. If homosexuals are more likely to have STDs, as a selection of data points out, then preventative measures should be taken. Of course, promiscuous folks of all leanings tend to be more diseased, so this measure should go for anyone.

But since gays have higher rates (according to one study), extra precaution should be taken towards them. It's discrimination, but discrimination based off of fact; which isn't really that "wrong".

 

[NovaKart]

As long as it takes religious fanatics to realize that not everyone in that community is responsible for those statistics. I've said before that you strangely justify even denial of marriage for gays based on these statistics and you never really address that. So yeah, I think your comments are full of bias and hatred.

As far as the CDC is concerned, not all gay people engage in high risk behavior so they don't have to be lumped in with everyone who fits their demographic.

 

[MobBoss]

The CDC and those making the decisions on the blood supply rules arent 'religious fanatics'.

And I havent said one hateful thing in all of this discussion. I let the facts and data speak for me so I dont have to toss names or labels around.

And you didnt answer my question in regards to the infection rate. If a rate 44 times higher isnt enough for you to discriminate along those lines, how high would the rate have to be for you to make that call?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I'm sad that my thing was ignored.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sad that my thing was ignored.

Sorry, aimee, but all the samples are tested. It wouldnt make sense to mark individual bags for the simple reason people often lie about their sexual history, or may even be unaware they might be infected.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Maybe they could test the high-risk bags twice.

 

[NovaKart]

The CDC and those making the decisions on the blood supply rules arent 'religious fanatics'.

And I havent said one hateful thing in all of this discussion. I let the facts and data speak for me so I dont have to toss names or labels around.

And you didnt answer my question in regards to the infection rate. If a rate 44 times higher isnt enough for you to discriminate along those lines, how high would the rate have to be for you to make that call?

No but you are, you consistently justify prejudice against gays in everything. You think gays shouldn't even have the right to legally have any benefits in their relationships based on statistics and your own bigoted beliefs.

I've said numerous times that many gays engage in sexual behavior that is not risky and many straight people do but you choose to ignore that.

I'm sad that my thing was ignored.

I'm sorry too Aimee but Tom Petty is awesome.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But since gays have higher rates (according to one study), extra precaution should be taken towards them. It's discrimination, but discrimination based off of fact; which isn't really that "wrong".

It certainly is "wrong" when far less discriminatory practices would achieve the same result.

Once again, all that is required is to stop anybody from donating blood who may have come into sexual or needle-sharing contact with someone who may have HIV in the past month, regardless of their sexual orientation or practices. Anything else is simply based on fear instead of scientific knowledge and current practices.

 

[NiRv4n4]

It certainly is "wrong" when far less discriminatory practices would achieve the same result.

Once again, all that is required is to stop anybody from donating blood who may have come into sexual or needle-sharing contact with someone who may have HIV in the past month, regardless of their sexual orientation or practices. Anything else is simply based on fear instead of scientific knowledge and current practices.

44x:x is more scientific knowledge than fear.

 

[MobBoss]

No but you are, you consistently justify prejudice against gays in everything. You think gays shouldn't even have the right to legally have any benefits in their relationships based on statistics and your own bigoted beliefs.

I've said numerous times that many gays engage in sexual behavior that is not risky and many straight people do but you choose to ignore that.

Nova, i'm hardly a 'religious fanatic' by any stretch of ones imagination. Suffice to say thats a label your're willing to shackle onto anyone who may be remotely religious and has an opinion counter to yours. Its just something convienient to label someone as in order to justify the dismissal of their argument without regard to the actual facts, as opposed to them actually being 'fanatical' or not.

Plus you blatently lie about my beliefs. I do indeed think gays should have rights to benefits in relationships; i'm just of the opinion that should be facilitated in a fashion other than using marriage as a vehicle to achieve them.

But its apparent from your comments that, sadly, you are getting emotional about the topic and cant stop from making such personal comments. Perhaps we should just stop here, hm?

I've said numerous times that many gays engage in sexual behavior that is not risky and many straight people do but you choose to ignore that.

Circular argument is circular. It does no good to say that many gays engage in non-risky sexual behavior because the obvious counter to that is many more indeed do as evidenced by having a HIV/AIDs transmission rate 44 times higher than any other demograph.

Bottom line. So WHAT that some dont engage in high risk behavior? The fact that their infection rate is 44 times higher makes that issue moot. In essence, the overwhelming number that do engage in said high risk behavior have made it necessary to instill a ban (whether lifetime or 12 month) as indicated by the authorities (non religious fanatical ones I might add) in charge of this sort of thing.

Like I said, if you dont want to see discrimination based upon scientific data, then bring the infection rate down. And the only real way to do that is if blame is put where it needs to be put: on those insistent on practicing high risk behaviors with no real desire to stop - even in light of issues like HIV/AIDs. Trying to blame 'religious fanatics', 'bigotry' or 'abstinence' or some other red herring thing simply isnt going to help change anything.

 

[NovaKart]

Nova, i'm hardly a 'religious fanatic' by any stretch of ones imagination. Suffice to say thats a label your're willing to shackle onto anyone who may be remotely religious and has an opinion counter to yours. Its just something convienient to label someone as in order to justify the dismissal of their argument without regard to the actual facts, as opposed to them actually being 'fanatical' or not.

Plus you blatently lie about my beliefs. I do indeed think gays should have rights to benefits in relationships; i'm just of the opinion that should be facilitated in a fashion other than using marriage as a vehicle to achieve them.

But its apparent from your comments that, sadly, you are getting emotional about the topic and cant stop from making such personal comments. Perhaps we should just stop here, hm?



Circular argument is circular. It does no good to say that many gays engage in non-risky sexual behavior because the obvious counter to that is many more indeed do as evidenced by having a HIV/AIDs transmission rate 44 times higher than any other demograph.

Bottom line. So WHAT that some dont engage in high risk behavior? The fact that their infection rate is 44 times higher makes that issue moot. In essence, the overwhelming number that do engage in said high risk behavior have made it necessary to instill a ban (whether lifetime or 12 month) as indicated by the authorities (non religious fanatical ones I might add) in charge of this sort of thing.

Like I said, if you dont want to see discrimination based upon scientific data, then bring the infection rate down. And the only real way to do that is if blame is put where it needs to be put: on those insistent on practicing high risk behaviors with no real desire to stop - even in light of issues like HIV/AIDs. Trying to blame 'religious fanatics', 'bigotry' or 'abstinence' or some other red herring thing simply isnt going to help change anything.

So what benefits are you willing to give gays in their relationships?


You seriously justify a ban on all men who have sex with men regardless of what they may or may not have done in the bedroom?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

What if two gay men who both do not have AIDS have a monogamous relationship?

What if one of them has a very rare bloodtype? Are they not allowed to donate some if their, say, cousin who is of the same type needs it?

 

[NiRv4n4]

What if two gay men who both do not have AIDS have a monogamous relationship?

What if one of them has a very rare bloodtype? Are they not allowed to donate some if their, say, cousin who is of the same type needs it?

One, them being monogamous can't be regarded as a certainty. Two, if one has a blood type which is some poor sod's only hope, then the transplant should happen. If the blood is tested first, which it usually is.

 

[MobBoss]

So what benefits are you willing to give gays in their relationships?

Not the topic here, but I've posted many times in these forums my opinions about it. For example, I think gay partners being denied hospital visitation is absolutely stupid and frankly inhumane. But I would advocate that being changed on a state law level like how California did it as opposed to a change in how we define marriage.

Point being, there can be more than one way to get to the final destination. What matters is getting there, not what road you take.

You seriously justify a ban on all men who have sex with men regardless of what they may or may not have done in the bedroom?

I think having an infection rate that much higher warrants it. You never did answer my earlier question at what point you would think it warrated. Perhaps you should ask yourself at what point does the need of the individual get outweighed by the overwhelming behavior of the many? At what point would even you say 'ok enough is enough' and agree to an outright ban?

HIV and AIDs awareness has been ongoing for well over 30 years now. The vast majority of people 'get it'. Why is it unreasonable to take appropriate action when certain people dont 'get it'?

In fact, I would hope those MSM who dont engage in high risk sexual behavior to be a bit more understanding of the situation and maturely recognize that there is a problem with blatent high risk sexual behavior among MSM overall and admit the need for such precautions....at least until the infection rate is brought down to acceptable levels.

Tell you what Nova....I would absolutely advocate for removing the lifetime or even the 1 year ban if the MSM infection rate were equal to the other transmission demographs (or at the very least in the same ballpark). I wouldnt care in the least about it. But until that is a reality, I dont see restricting a demograph with 44 times the infection rate as unreasonable. And fwiw, apparently a lot of doctors and scientists who are the experts (and are not religious fanatics) dont think it unreasonable either.

 

[classical_hero]

It certainly is "wrong" when far less discriminatory practices would achieve the same result.

Once again, all that is required is to stop anybody from donating blood who may have come into sexual or needle-sharing contact with someone who may have HIV in the past month, regardless of their sexual orientation or practices. Anything else is simply based on fear instead of scientific knowledge and current practices.

So if a man had sex with another man, would that put them at a high risk?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only if the other man had HIV and suitable precautions weren't taken.

 

[NovaKart]

Regardless of how many gays have HIV it would still make a lot more sense to base this on someone's sexual history as well as safer since straight people could be engaging in risky sexual behavior as well. There are many physicians and blood centers that would support this policy as well. That's all I'm going to say on the matter since I've made this point numerous times and it's been ignored since it's a lot easier to just keep things the way they are and assume most gays have AIDS.

 

[MobBoss]

Only if the other man had HIV and suitable precautions weren't taken.

What if the other man was unaware he had HIV or lied about it? What if the condom wasnt 100% protection (they arent)?

Regardless of how many gays have HIV it would still make a lot more sense to base this on someone's sexual history as well as safer since straight people could be engaging in risky sexual behavior as well. There are many physicians and blood centers that would support this policy as well. That's all I'm going to say on the matter since I've made this point numerous times and it's been ignored since it's a lot easier to just keep things the way they are and assume most gays have AIDS.

Proof please on the bold part you allege. I think you might find some support for a 12 month ban as opposed to a perm ban from that source; but not any support to change the way people are questioned. Having looked into it, I cant find any sources that say what you allege at least. So if you have some can you link them please?

And you havent been ignored at all. In fact, you've been responded to each and every time you post with each of your points responded to. Claiming you've been ignored simply isnt true. You also make a false statement in that its assumed most gays have AIDS. Thats simply false and NO ONE here has made that allegation. What IS assumed is most (sexually active) gays have high risk sex. Feel free to argue against that all you want.

 

[classical_hero]

Only if the other man had HIV and suitable precautions weren't taken.

Well sometimes you have AIDS without out knowing it before your blood tests show up, so that will give a false negative. Considering the risk of AIDS is not just higher, but massively so, the ban on active male homosexuality from giving blood is a reasonable policy.

 

[NovaKart]

I posted things to that effect much earlier in the thread and don't really feel like going over it again and I've also mentioned before how it's a small number of gays engaging in high risk behavior that is responsible for this. You never really responded to my suggestions about an improved screening process. Anyway at this point I don't care, I'm tired of arguing with narrow minded people.