Man Who 'Appeared' Gay Not Allowed to Give Blood


Recommended Posts

Calum

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.

In the situation you described, anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take the heterosexual person's blood, just like anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take the gay person's blood, just like anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take no blood.

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.

What about the heterosexual people who are promiscuous? And the heterosexual people who have unprotected anal sex regularly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
NJ Louch
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

Sorry, but I have observed a lot of promiscuity yes, but SAFE sex! My gay mates all seem very clued up. The gay bars we go to push the safe sex message hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_ph0enix

In the situation you described, anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take the heterosexual person's blood, just like anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take the gay person's blood, just like anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take no blood.

No, see 'cause in this hypothetical universe, all straight people have magic unicorn blood, with super special healing powers, whilst the dirty fa**? Their blood only carries disease, and a desire to buy Apple products.

/EXTREME Sarcasm. [but I'd be willing to bet it's as 'far fetched' an example, as the real one]

Link to post
Share on other sites
NJ Louch
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.

You invented two fictional people, dismissed their backgrounds, dismissed the screening process, dismissed the fact you have no choice in the matter.

I'm not risking my life for anything - you said we needed a transfusion to save our lives. I chose to have the fastest transfusion offered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the better twin

Why are certain people refusing to accept that the levels of risk are not equal? It is scientific fact that risk levels are significantly higher from Homosexual males. This is not being homophobic or bigoted or anything else this is just reality.

I'll repost my post again:

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 post
Share on other sites
.Neo

Because they are usually into anal sex. Which involves poo.

So are many heterosexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

Why are certain people refusing to accept that the levels of risk are not equal? It is scientific fact that risk levels are significantly higher from Homosexual males. This is not being homophobic or bigoted or anything else this is just reality.

I'll repost my post again:

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

I accept that the levels of risk may not be equal, but I also accept that both heterosexual and gay people can be infected with HIV. Furthermore, I accept that all blood is screened, and thus there are no problems with gay people donating blood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_ph0enix

Why are certain people refusing to accept that the levels of risk are not equal? It is scientific fact that risk levels are significantly higher from Homosexual males. This is not being homophobic or bigoted or anything else this is just reality.

I'll repost my post again:

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

Anyone with half a brain can spin statistics to their advantage.

Did you hear about Borders? They've gone out of business because more people are buying e-books. The reality? 12% of homes own the devices.

How can 12% of a hypothetical population [as this assumes the other 88% of non e-reader homes actually buy books] contribute to the death of a multi-billion dollar company?

They can't.

It's perhaps a strange analogy [but one that springs to mind, as I'm writing an article on the subject at the moment], but yeah.

If you want an actual realistic figure. Take 1000 heterosexual people who are committed to donating blood, 1000 homosexual people who're also committed to donating blood.

Take blood from them, store it for about six months, then test it.

I'd be willing to guarantee, the 'risk factors' would be equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

No, see 'cause in this hypothetical universe, all straight people have magic unicorn blood, with super special healing powers, whilst the dirty fa**? Their blood only carries disease, and a desire to buy Apple products.

/EXTREME Sarcasm. [but I'd be willing to bet it's as 'far fetched' an example, as the real one]

I LOLd :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Worthington
What about the heterosexual people who are promiscuous? And the heterosexual people who have unprotected anal sex regularly?

Sorry, but promiscuity is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals and that's just a fact. Any google search will show this.

Many studies have shown that homosexuality and promiscuity pretty much go hand in hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the better twin

I accept that the levels of risk are not equal, but I also accept that both heterosexual and gay people can be infected with HIV.

Of course, that is not up for dispute, but they do it in order to reduce risk, in the same way that they dont let you give blood if you have been to high risk malaria areas on holiday, or have shared needles, or had a tattoo, its not being discriminatory it is simply aiming to reduce risk to patients who receive the blood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pharos

In the situation you described, anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take the heterosexual person's blood, just like anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take the gay person's blood, just like anyone would be risking their life if they opted to take no blood.

What about the heterosexual people who are promiscuous? And the heterosexual people who have unprotected anal sex regularly?

I agree Callum, I'm not oblivious to the fact that heterosexual men are promiscuous and have unprotected anal sex regularly. The problem is that stastically speaking, gay men are much more likely to have HIV.

I want to clarify that I really don't agree with turning down gays when donating blood. But if they want to, I think they have the right to (which is unfortunate).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_ph0enix

Sorry, but promiscuity is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals and that's just a fact. Any google search will show this.

Care to prove that? i.e. the search terms you use, and the results yielded?

In the spirit of a well-balanced debate, and all that jazz.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the better twin

Anyone with half a brain can spin statistics to their advantage.

Did you hear about Borders? They've gone out of business because more people are buying e-books. The reality? 12% of homes own the devices.

How can 12% of a hypothetical population [as this assumes the other 88% of non e-reader homes actually buy books] contribute to the death of a multi-billion dollar company?

They can't.

It's perhaps a strange analogy [but one that springs to mind, as I'm writing an article on the subject at the moment], but yeah.

If you want an actual realistic figure. Take 1000 heterosexual people who are committed to donating blood, 1000 homosexual people who're also committed to donating blood.

Take blood from them, store it for about six months, then test it.

I'd be willing to guarantee, the 'risk factors' would be equal.

so now you are saying all scientific research on the matter is wrong? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_ph0enix

...

I want to clarify that I really don't agree with turning down gays when donating blood. But if they want to, I think they have the right to (which is unfortunate).

As I believe this is a private organisation, you're correct. However, on a national level, these kind of practices will eventually be challenged by someone with a decent legal team, and over-turned.

Human rights, etc, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ahhell

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.

Holy crap, WTF is wrong with you?

:angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_ph0enix

so now you are saying all scientific research on the matter is wrong? :rolleyes:

Let me look through the thread again, for the source of that info, but assuming the only blood tested is donated blood - i.e, blood donated from heterosexual people, who're legally capable of donating. Then yes, of course it's wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
0sit0

The problem is that stastically speaking, gay men are much more likely to have HIV.

And black people are much more likely to get HIV. So don't let them donate blood either? :sleep:

Link to post
Share on other sites
thechronic

And black people are much more likely to get HIV. So don't let them donate blood either? :sleep:

Finally someone who agrees with me :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Worthington

Care to prove that? i.e. the search terms you use, and the results yielded?

In the spirit of a well-balanced debate, and all that jazz.

A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.

Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/152006g.asp

A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring

http://sociology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/laumann.shtml

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLegendOfMart

20% of homosexuals, but i wonder what the percentage of heterosexuals that have equal or greater amount of sexual partners....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_ph0enix

And now for the same studies, looking at sexually active heterosexuals...

Link to post
Share on other sites
jakem1

And now for the same studies, looking at sexually active heterosexuals...

I wouldn't bother with him if I were you and I wouldn't expect anything that backs his claims up. He's only been here for a day and all 18 of his posts are either racist or homophobic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_ph0enix

I wouldn't bother with him if I were you and I wouldn't expect anything that backs his claims up. He's only been here for a day and all 18 of his posts are either racist or homophobic.

I noticed that, to an extent. Well, that and the fact someone signed up to what's still a predominately technology orientated forum, yet hasn't participated in anything 'techie'

Link to post
Share on other sites
NJ Louch
Sorry, but promiscuity is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals and that's just a fact. Any google search will show this.

Many studies have shown that homosexuality and promiscuity pretty much go hand in hand.

1) You can't really just say "That's a fact" without showing the proof for BOTH SIDES, so this must be 100% disregarded as anything more than your own opinion.

2) A google search... Bringing up 99% opinion based sites with an agenda.

3) Many studies have shown that being teenage and promiscuity go hand in hand. Many studies have shown that more teenagers give blood. Oh teh noes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.