Scorpus Veteran Posted July 20, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2011 Because, at least as of the last time I read about it, homosexuals are up to 400 times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than heterosexual people. That's a big risk to take when it comes to something like blood transfers. While I don't agree with homosexuality, I respect the right of others to do whatever they want with their romantic lives. That doesn't mean that I would feel comfortable receiving blood from a person who, through their own life choices, is radically more likely to have contracted a horrible, life ending disease. Good job on the part of the blood center for taking some precautions. Ahem... "Today, all donated blood is tested for HIV, as well as for hepatitis B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases, before it can be released to hospitals." And for this reason, homosexual people should be allowed to give blood despite allegedly being "up to 400 times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than heterosexual people". Blatant and shameful discrimination, especially to the person in question who was not even gay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'm just curious, how many times does it have to be said that all blood is tested before it is given to patients? 100? 200? 500? 1000? They don't just draw blood, put it in a bag and give it to a car crash victim or something hoping it isn't infected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaykeBird Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Ok, If you are gay why would you want to give blood and possibly give someone else aids? Ego trip? Equal rights up your ass bull****? cmon... I want to give blood to boost my ego and risk killing someone? How fing stupid is that? Or more importantly how stupid would it be to allow it to happen? Lets see this pass and when your kid gets in a car wreck, gets a blood tranfusion and dies of aids and then see who is moaning about ignorrance. Okay, really? You can't make assumptions like that. Gay =/= AIDS. As other people said, they test all of the blood for that! I don't think such a law should be in place. You can't make any assumptions based upon sexual orientation. Being gay is as different as having red hair. Having red hair is different, but not weird or strange. Being gay should be the same way. It's a petty difference. And appearances don't mean anything. You can't judge a book by its cover. Ravensky and other people who posted similar things have really pushed a few buttons with me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxster17 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I don't quite understand them turning him away based solely on his looks. I donate platelets bi-weekly and every time I go, Ihave to fill out the same old questionnaire with about 50 questions on it. Once that form is filled out you then get asked a further set of about 30 questions by the nurse regarding sex life, various diseases, blood transfusions, etc... The fact they turned him away from the get go is a bit disappointing considering how much good donating can do for people. Again, considering the questions you answer and the blood tests that are done I don't understand this reasoning to turn him away like that. If you're embarrassed about a particular question, then at the end of the questioning the nurse leaves and you then put a bar code on the sheet that means either; yes, you can use my blood or no, don't use it. Can't say for sure if it's the same way everywhere but every time I've donated it's been like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Because, at least as of the last time I read about it, homosexuals are up to 400 times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than heterosexual people. That's a big risk to take when it comes to something like blood transfers. While I don't agree with homosexuality, I respect the right of others to do whatever they want with their romantic lives. That doesn't mean that I would feel comfortable receiving blood from a person who, through their own life choices, is radically more likely to have contracted a horrible, life ending disease. Good job on the part of the blood center for taking some precautions. You have zero say nor do they have any idea of who's blood you get when you go in for a transfer. Making retarded comments like you dont feel comfortable is just asinine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick H. Supervisor Posted July 20, 2011 Supervisor Share Posted July 20, 2011 Ok, If you are gay why would you want to give blood and possibly give someone else aids? Ego trip? Equal rights up your ass bull****? cmon... I want to give blood to boost my ego and risk killing someone? How fing stupid is that? Or more importantly how stupid would it be to allow it to happen? Lets see this pass and when your kid gets in a car wreck, gets a blood tranfusion and dies of aids and then see who is moaning about ignorrance. Bwahaha! You, sir, win the award for epic trolling. At least, I hope you're trolling. I didn't think people had this ridiculous, archaic point of view anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slammers Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Well he had a point but he completely ruined it by saying "homeless can give blood but homo's can't?!" So what if homeless people have more chance of a deasese, so do homo's, all blood gets tested so it doesn't matter anyway. So by saying that, he made himself exactly as bad as the people refusing his donation. What a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick H. Supervisor Posted July 20, 2011 Supervisor Share Posted July 20, 2011 Well he had a point but he completely ruined it by saying "homeless can give blood but homo's can't?!" He didn't really though, did he. He is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to give blood if you are homosexual because of the risk of you having a disease. If we went with that idea then no one should be allowed to give blood, because they all have a risk of having a disease (protip: homosexuals aren't the only people that can contract STDs). As it is though, all blood gets tested for diseases, so gay people have just as much right to give blood as anyone else. But this is all beside the point. The man in this article isn't gay. He got turned away because he looked gay. Applying that kind of reasoning is the equivalent of me attacking you with an axe because you look like a tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slammers Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 He is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to give blood if you are homosexual because of the risk of you having a disease. If we went with that idea then no one should be allowed to give blood, because they all have a risk of having a disease (protip: homosexuals aren't the only people that can contract STDs). As it is though, all blood gets tested for diseases, so gay people have just as much right to give blood as anyone else. What? He is saying that you SHOULD be allowed to give blood if you are because it all gets tested anyway. So then why did he drop the homeless line. does he presume homeless have as much/more deaseases than gays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 The more I think about it, I think this law is probably being kept as it is for financial reasons.. blood testing isn't cheap, and if the statistic that somebody mentioned above (gay people are up to 400 times more likely to have HIV than straight people), then the powers at be probably think it's not financially viable to allow gays to donate. I could be completely wrong, it could just be down to ignorance, but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neurodave Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it even matter if he DID have a disease? I'm sure many people who look presentable donate blood, without even knowing they have a disease. IIRC, all blood is thoroughly tested before entering the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick H. Supervisor Posted July 20, 2011 Supervisor Share Posted July 20, 2011 What? He is saying that you SHOULD be allowed to give blood if you are because it all gets tested anyway. So then why did he drop the homeless line. does he presume homeless have as much/more deaseases than gays? Oh hang on, I think we're talking about different people. I thought you were answering my first post where I quoted Ravensky's point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted July 20, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2011 Surely someone cannot appear gay unless they're doing something sexual or intimate with a member of the same sex? Do the people who denied him the chance to give blood understand what same-sex attraction is? It appears not if they believe you can tell someone's sexuality from how they look and act :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeonicVision Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 The more I think about it, I think this law is probably being kept as it is for financial reasons.. blood testing isn't cheap, and if the statistic that somebody mentioned above (gay people are up to 400 times more likely to have HIV than straight people), then the powers at be probably think it's not financially viable to allow gays to donate. I could be completely wrong, it could just be down to ignorance, but who knows? I somehow doubt that's what anyone had in mind when the applicable laws were passed in the midst of the hysteria and fear that defined the original AIDS outbreak. For that logic to be applicable, it really should apply to anyone that describes themselves as promiscuous. Your orientation matters little when you're having rampant unprotected sex or sharing needles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted July 20, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2011 Well he had a point but he completely ruined it by saying "homeless can give blood but homo's can't?!" So what if homeless people have more chance of a deasese, so do homo's, all blood gets tested so it doesn't matter anyway. So by saying that, he made himself exactly as bad as the people refusing his donation. What a douche. It doesn't matter about homeless people. The more ridiculous fact is that heterosexual people are allowed to give blood, but gay, lesbian, and bisexual people aren't :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I somehow doubt that's what anyone had in mind when the applicable laws were passed in the midst of the hysteria and fear that defined the original AIDS outbreak. For that logic to be applicable, it really should apply to anyone that describes themselves as promiscuous. Your orientation matters little when you're having rampant unprotected sex or sharing needles. I said nothing about why the law was initially passed, only speculated on why it is kept that way today. Not many would admit to being promiscuous but a lot of people are proud about being gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Seetheworldsecond Subscriber¹ Posted July 20, 2011 Subscriber¹ Share Posted July 20, 2011 Well as long as there people there will remain ignorant people, thats all I have to say about this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm that is why. Homosexual males make up the biggest HIV positive group on earth. Second are black females due to black men living "on the down low"(have secret gay lovers) and then transmitting it to their girlfriends/wives. Surely someone cannot appear gay unless they're doing something sexual or intimate with a member of the same sex? Do the people who denied him the chance to give blood understand what same-sex attraction is? It appears not if they believe you can tell someone's sexuality from how they look and act :rolleyes: tell me that this guy doesn't look gay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joel_Schumacher.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveLegg Developer Posted July 20, 2011 Developer Share Posted July 20, 2011 Given the testing that happens on every single bag of donated blood, the law is totally ridiculous. The thing I really don't understand though, is why they don't want my blood, but if I were to die, they'd happily take my organs for transplant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Surely someone cannot appear gay unless they're doing something sexual or intimate with a member of the same sex? Do the people who denied him the chance to give blood understand what same-sex attraction is? It appears not if they believe you can tell someone's sexuality from how they look and act :rolleyes: I can definitely tell if someone is gay, at times, by their appearance, mannerisms and voice. No, not all gay people project this aura, or give off clues. And, NO, I do not believe that anyone should be refused giving blood, because someone thinks that they may have a disease. Anyone may or may not be unhealthy -- that's what blood screening is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyond Godlike Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Good job! Safety first...better to offend someone then kill someone. I am so sick of the American "You can't offend anyone" bull****! Get the f over it and move on... Wow...didnt expect to see this level of stupidity so early in the morn...usually it takes till the afternoon..but wow.. I can definitely tell if someone is gay, at times, by their appearance, mannerisms and voice. No, not all gay people project this aura, or give off clues. And, NO, I do not believe that anyone should be refused giving blood, because someone thinks that they may have a disease. Anyone may or may not be unhealthy -- that's what blood screening is for. Zactly! But hey, im waiting for the day one of my bigotted family needs my rare blood type, ill laugh in their face and say i cant legally give. Theres a blood shortage in the US and Canada, yet both of our countries still follow this messed up law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worthington Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Lets be honest. Gay males are the highest risk group for disease transmitted through blood, so I wouldn't blame a company for just saying no to them to save the trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worthington Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I can definitely tell if someone is gay, at times, by their appearance, mannerisms and voice. No, not all gay people project this aura, or give off clues. Most gays are easy to spot. Most people here are lying to themselves if they think you can't tell who is gay. Even gays know you can spot other gays. And, NO, I do not believe that anyone should be refused giving blood, because someone thinks that they may have a disease.Anyone may or may not be unhealthy -- that's what blood screening is for. You may not think that those people should be refused, but do you believe that companies/organizations have the right to refuse certain people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 ^ Outside of paranoia, I don't see why not take the blood donation. The blood will be screened, and if there is something wrong, notify the donor. You can then turn down the donor, in the future. Blood transfusions are needed every day, to save lives, and all the good, donated blood should be collected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveLegg Developer Posted July 20, 2011 Developer Share Posted July 20, 2011 Lets be honest. Gay males are the highest risk group for disease transmitted through blood, so I wouldn't blame a company for just saying no to them to save the trouble. What trouble? All blood has to be tested anyway, it's no more work just because the donor has a different sexual orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts