DukeEsquire Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 If this was about being safe, then we wouldn't be letting homeless, drug addicts donating blood. I'd much rather get blood from a clean homosexual than a straight drug addict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worthington Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 What trouble? All blood has to be tested anyway, it's no more work just because the donor has a different sexual orientation. You think those blood banks don't mark subjects as being homosexual and thus test their blood more thoroughly than other blood to ensure that they don't get sued for infecting somebody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveLegg Developer Posted July 20, 2011 Developer Share Posted July 20, 2011 You think those blood banks don't mark subjects as being homosexual and thus test their blood more thoroughly than other blood to ensure that they don't get sued for infecting somebody? No, for two reasons, a) They don't take blood from homosexuals in the first place, and b) There's just as much chance that someone straight is infected. ALL blood has to be tested as thoroughly as possible to avoid them getting sued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worthington Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 No, for two reasons, a) They don't take blood from homosexuals in the first place, and b) There's just as much chance that someone straight is infected. ALL blood has to be tested as thoroughly as possible to avoid them getting sued. I should have mentioned that that is what they would do, but lets be honest, homosexuals are the highest risk group because they use drugs and have anal sex more than heterosexuals. It would be irrational to think that straight people have the same chance as homosexuals of being infected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 If all homosexuals are nefarious, promiscuous, AIDS infested botty-bandits as this thread suggests... Why can't they just say "Who sir? Me sir? Gay sir? How very dare you"? THEY CAN! That still doesn't mean that "random person" has the right to make a judgement based upon how they look! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_ph0enix Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Threads like this should be banned - too many ignorant dumb t**** talking about things they barely understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the better twin Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Why are people assuming there is just as much chance from heterosexuals? No there is not. It is a simple fact of life to say that Homosexual males are a higher risk group than hetero. Additionally, Screening for HIV is not perfect and given the fact that from HIV infected blood the chances of getting HIV are 90% it is a sensible precaution especially when blood that is donated for transfusion is preserved under certain conditions (this is necessary so that the blood will be useful to the recipient) that will allow HIV to continue to survive. In the US 1 in 450,000 to 1 in 660,000 donations per year are infectious for HIV but are not detected by current antibody screening tests. Obviously this place went about it the wrong way and a simple question like in the UK on a form would have made more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted July 20, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2011 tell me that this guy doesn't look gay http://en.wikipedia...._Schumacher.jpg He's not being intimate or sexual with another male on that photo, so he doesn't look gay. 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. You can never be definitely sure that someone is gay due to their mannerisms, appearance and/or voice; you can only assume. Any heterosexual person can have the same appearance, mannerisms, and voice as any gay person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_ph0enix Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Why are people assuming there is just as much chance from heterosexuals? No there is not. It is a simple fact of life to say that Homosexual males are a higher risk group than hetero. Additionally, Screening for HIV is not perfect and given the fact that from HIV infected blood the chances of getting HIV are 90% it is a sensible precaution especially when blood that is donated for transfusion is preserved under certain conditions (this is necessary so that the blood will be useful to the recipient) that will allow HIV to continue to survive. In the US 1 in 450,000 to 1 in 660,000 donations per year are infectious for HIV but are not detected by current antibody screening tests. Obviously this place went about it the wrong way and a simple question like in the UK on a form would have made more sense. My best friend happens to be gay - he's almost the same age as me [Jan 2nd for me, Jan 7th for him]. He's been donating blood since he was 18 [i.e almost 10 years now]. The 'questions' on the UK form don't do jack. And as someone who has had to have a tonne of blood transfusions over the last 12 months, due to a life threatening illness - I'm grateful beyond words to the people who donated their time - and blood, as it helped keep me alive. Was it possible some of it came from gay donors? Yep. Do I care? Not really. I'd be uncomfortable knowing the blood came from someone with a promiscuous lifestyle. Point is, however, straight people can **** around just as easily as gay people - and gay people can be just as monogamous as straight people. tl;dr: As a someone who wouldn't be sitting here, participating in this thread, were it not for blood donors - I don't care if they're gay or straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveLegg Developer Posted July 20, 2011 Developer Share Posted July 20, 2011 homosexuals are the highest risk group because they use drugs and have anal sex more than heterosexuals. I'm gay, and have NEVER used drugs, and never would. The same applies to all of the other gay people I know. I have no idea what you're basing that claim on to be honest. Equally, the problem is not so much having anal sex, as being prolific, and as a University student, I know a lot of straight people who have had far more sexual partners than any of my gay friends, surely you can see that such actions put them at far higher risk? Obviously this place went about it the wrong way and a simple question like in the UK on a form would have made more sense. To be honest, if I wanted to give blood, I would just lie on that question, because I don't think it's any of their business, and I know that I have no infections of any kind. When it comes down to it though, I don't give blood more out of protest of the ridiculous rules surrounding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worthington Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I would love to see all these politically correct types be sitting in a hospital needing a life or death transfusion that can only be given by 2 young males who have offered to do it without a test beforehand due to a blood and equipment shortage during a disaster, one obviously and admittedly gay man and one straight man, and see which one they pick to do it. No amount of irrational political correctness would make them pick the gay man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_ph0enix Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I would love to see all these politically correct types be sitting in a hospital needing a life or death transfusion that can only be given by 2 young males who have offered to do it without a test beforehand due to a blood and equipment shortage during a disaster, one obviously and admittedly gay man and one straight man, and see which one they pick to do it. No amount of irrational political correctness would make them pick the gay man. That's an absurd argument. As has been pointed out countless times in this thread - all blood is screened. Unless the person needing the blood is Obama or someone of an equivalent 'stature' - no hospital would accept blood from either donor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveLegg Developer Posted July 20, 2011 Developer Share Posted July 20, 2011 I would love to see all these politically correct types be sitting in a hospital needing a life or death transfusion that can only be given by 2 young males who have offered to do it without a test beforehand due to a blood and equipment shortage during a disaster, one obviously and admittedly gay man and one straight man, and see which one they pick to do it. No amount of irrational political correctness would make them pick the gay man. Personally, I'd probably toss a coin, because there's no difference (without looking into medical history) between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted July 20, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2011 I would love to see all these politically correct types be sitting in a hospital needing a life or death transfusion that can only be given by 2 young males who have offered to do it without a test beforehand due to a blood and equipment shortage during a disaster, one obviously and admittedly gay man and one straight man, and see which one they pick to do it. No amount of irrational political correctness would make them pick the gay man. I would pick the gay man's blood to try to prove a point. Then, when I'm healthy, I would come onto Neowin and tell you my story, noting your reaction and seeing whether you still have these backward, dangerous views :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I would love to see all these politically correct types be sitting in a hospital needing a life or death transfusion that can only be given by 2 young males who have offered to do it due to a blood shortage during a disaster, one obviously and admittedly gay man and one straight man, and see which one they pick to do it. Please do not judge me by your own warped and biggotted view. Firstly, you don't get a choice. Secondly I do not know the health background of these two fictional individuals. Thirdly, I'd take whichever blood comes first. No amount of irrational political correctness would make them pick the gay man. 100% pure homophobic nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 You can never be definitely sure that someone is gay due to their mannerisms, appearance and/or voice; you can only assume. Any heterosexual person can have the same appearance, mannerisms, and voice as any gay person. That has not been my experience. And far more often than not, I found out later, that those persons that appeared gay, openly talked about their sexuality. There is also some intuition involved, not just appearances. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted July 20, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 20, 2011 That has not been my experience. And far more often than not, I found out later, that those persons that appeared gay, openly talked about their sexuality. There is also some intuition involved, not just appearances. ;) I'm sure a lot of people have correctly guessed that someone is gay due to their mannerisms; I have also done that. What I'm saying though is guessing is all one can do unless they have proof. No one can be sure another person is gay unless they have proof. Looks, mannerisms, and voice can only be used to speculate about someone's sexual orientation, not determine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worthington Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 That's an absurd argument. As has been pointed out countless times in this thread - all blood is screened. Unless the person needing the blood is Obama or someone of an equivalent 'stature' - no hospital would accept blood from either donor. Don't just dismiss it to satisfy your attitudes. Make a choice based on the terms put forth. You have no other donors, you will die without it, and the blood can't be screened beforehand. Will you pick the obviously gay man or the heterosexual man as your real-time, emergency donor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_ph0enix Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 This thread has totally proven a point I made the other day. When Steve Jobs finally has to stand aside as the CEO of Apple - either because his health deteriorates even more, or he dies - the obvious question of who replaces him has to be asked. A lot of people are saying Tim Cook - who is currently standing in for him - should get the gig. I've been saying for a while, that the percentage of people who're deeply homophobic is something that Apple would have to consider. I know this thread is about blood from gay people - but I guarantee you most of the 'idiots' who espouse some of the vitriolic waffle that's prevalent in thread, would stop buying Apple tech, if Cook got the job. Anyway - side point aide. Don't just dismiss it to satisfy your attitudes. Make a choice based on the terms put forth. You have no other donors, you will die without it, and the blood can't be screened beforehand. Will you pick the obviously gay man or the heterosexual man as your real-time, emergency donor? But isn't that what you're doing? You're ignoring a number of prevalent factors: 1: No hospital in the developed world, would even begin to consider allowing blood donations from non-screened donors. 2: Most people, in desperate need for a transfusion, there and then, aren't gonna be in a state - either physically, or mentally, to choose. How can someone bleeding to death, even if conscious, give informed consent? But - I'll play along with your scenario, and work with the attitudes you put forth: Personally, I'd probably toss a coin, because there's no difference (without looking into medical history) between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Don't just dismiss it to satisfy your attitudes. But let's dismiss scientific facts and processes to satisfy your attitudes? You may as well say "Are all gays disease ridden? Don't say no..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worthington Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 But let's dismiss scientific facts and processes to satisfy your attitudes? You may as well say "Are all gays disease ridden? Don't say no..." I never dismissed any fact or process. I merely asked who people would prefer to receive blood from in the direst of circumstances, and predictably, a few people stood up and declared they would risk their life for their religion of political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_ph0enix Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I never dismissed any fact or process. I merely asked who people would prefer to receive blood from in the direst of circumstances, and predictably, a few people stood up and politely explained their decision in a respectful manner, that doesn't warrant trolling. I dun fix'd your statement for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'm gay and sadly I've seen the unhealthy habits of the so-called "gay culture"... I hate to say this but most gays are promiscuous :no: On top of that, anal sex makes it that much more likely to catch HIV and other diseases. Unfortunately THESE people are the ones that are ruining it for us. Also, AFAIK, there is a tiny chance (< 1%? )that the blood might give a false negative when testing (6-month incubation for HIV) so I really don't think they're discriminating. They just might've been overly cautious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveLegg Developer Posted July 20, 2011 Developer Share Posted July 20, 2011 I never dismissed any fact or process. I merely asked who people would prefer to receive blood from in the direst of circumstances, and predictably, a few people stood up and declared they would risk their life for their religion of political correctness. I think you'll find you're risking your life whichever you choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_ph0enix Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'm gay and sadly I've seen the unhealthy habits of the so-called "gay culture"... I hate to say this but most gays are promiscuous :no: On top of that, anal sex makes it that much more likely to catch HIV and other diseases. Unfortunately THESE people are the ones that are ruining it for us. Also, AFAIK, there is a slim chance that the blood might give a false negative when testing (6-month incubation for HIV) so I really don't think they're discriminating. They are just being overly cautious. So just because a few twinkies are ****ing everyone they can find within a 20 mile radius via Grindr, everyone should be barred from donating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts