Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

GenderQueer wrote: John Galt wrote: Alot of people are uncomfortable with it because of the ridiculously high percentage of homosexual men that have AIDS in comparison with the rest of the population. While in other countries this may be different, most people with AIDS in this country are homosexual males. Yes, you can get AIDS other ways than homosexual sex, mostly from needles. And so if someone has had homosexual sex they are far more likely to have AIDS than a person that has not, and since people are more likely to get AIDS from needles than anything else other than homosexual sex, the Red Cross is trying to save lives. What's the problem? This isn't discrimination against "a people" or anytthing. This is discriminating agianst people that have done certian actions... such as visted Africa in the past X years or had homosexual sex, all in the intrest of helping people.

I agree with the fact that the Red Cross is honestly tyring to help people, no debate there. But a blanket condemnation of people who have had homosexual sex puts the idea forward that gay sex = sickness. This question that disqualifies you from donating blood continues that idea. There are tests for HIV/AIDs and other STDs that blood has to be scanned for, so still why are we not allowing these potential donors to give blood? Yes there is a higher risk with homosexual sex, but with sex comes risk period. So if the Red Cross is trying to help people by avoiding a high risk group, why do the still get blood from who are still involved in sexual activity if there still is a risk of getting STDs. The numbers are growing of people who are not getting HIV/AIDS from homosexual sex, and even as far back as 1993 the #3 way that men were getting HIV/AIDS was from prostitutes.

You make it seem like #3 was common! Ha, what a laugh.

There is a bit of a latency period from when you first contract the disease to when you will test positive for it. I understand that they have very good tests and whatnot, they are just trying to help people. Having gay sex =|= being gay, and what they are discriminating against is people who have done said action since said action is such a high-risk activity. they don't allow herion users either. Or people who got tattoos in the past year, or piercings. They really just want the best. And it's their call.

[toddytodd]

If a gay couple has been monogamous for 5, 10, 15 years or whatever, they should be allowed to give blood. It is no different that a straight married man giving blood.
Let's not forget that many married men enjoy the occasional (and sometimes frequent) gay male sex w/o their wife knowing. How do you screen for them?

[John Galt]

toddytodd wrote: If a gay couple has been monogamous for 5, 10, 15 years or whatever, they should be allowed to give blood. It is no different that a straight married man giving blood.
Let's not forget that many married men enjoy the occasional (and sometimes frequent) gay male sex w/o their wife knowing. How do you screen for them?

They don't ask you ifyou are in a gay relationship. They ask you if you have had gay sex, even once, since 1975 (or some where around there). They also don't ask you to answer it. You have to put a sticker on your blood indicating that you would answer yes to some of their questions. You STILL go and give blood if you want to to avoid embarrasment, but they will throw your blood away (they list like 50 questions so they don't know why they are, theyjust are throwing it away).

So to answer your question, they already do screen for them in the only way possible. People can still lie, however, they are only lying to themselves since no one else knows the answer.

[toddytodd]

John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: If a gay couple has been monogamous for 5, 10, 15 years or whatever, they should be allowed to give blood. It is no different that a straight married man giving blood.
Let's not forget that many married men enjoy the occasional (and sometimes frequent) gay male sex w/o their wife knowing. How do you screen for them?

They don't ask you ifyou are in a gay relationship. They ask you if you have had gay sex, even once, since 1975 (or some where around there). They also don't ask you to answer it. You have to put a sticker on your blood indicating that you would answer yes to some of their questions. You STILL go and give blood if you want to to avoid embarrasment, but they will throw your blood away (they list like 50 questions so they don't know why they are, theyjust are throwing it away).

So to answer your question, they already do screen for them in the only way possible. People can still lie, however, they are only lying to themselves since no one else knows the answer.

Ah. Since I can't give blood, I was not aware of the questions or procedure. So why even bother to take the blood if they just throw it away?

[brokenangel]

George W Bush wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: What the f**k? THey already test people for STDs before they give blood. Why the hell is this needed?

I believe there is a period of undetection which is why they say to get tested often.

There are other extreme criteria, for example:

- Visiting Africa will get you deferred, as far as I know, a year (this might have been changed to permanent deferral as AIDS in that country climbs).

- Visiting Malaria areas (as dictated by the CDC guidelines for malaria epidemic areas) - you wont be able to donate for a year.

If I remember correctly from my last blood drive, you cannot donate for a minimum of a year if you have traveled to another country besides Canada, the United Kingdom..and I believe a few other countrys. I know one of my high school teachers went to the Dominican Republic for holiday and he couldn't donate for like 3 years...and for the gay/bi men not being able to donate blood..thats crap. They test it for everything under the sun to begin with, and descriminating against men is just wrong. I mean if they are trying to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS through blood transfusions, they shouldn't take blood from anyone who has had unprotected sex.

[John Galt]

toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: If a gay couple has been monogamous for 5, 10, 15 years or whatever, they should be allowed to give blood. It is no different that a straight married man giving blood.
Let's not forget that many married men enjoy the occasional (and sometimes frequent) gay male sex w/o their wife knowing. How do you screen for them?

They don't ask you ifyou are in a gay relationship. They ask you if you have had gay sex, even once, since 1975 (or some where around there). They also don't ask you to answer it. You have to put a sticker on your blood indicating that you would answer yes to some of their questions. You STILL go and give blood if you want to to avoid embarrasment, but they will throw your blood away (they list like 50 questions so they don't know why they are, theyjust are throwing it away).

So to answer your question, they already do screen for them in the only way possible. People can still lie, however, they are only lying to themselves since no one else knows the answer.

Ah. Since I can't give blood, I was not aware of the questions or procedure. So why even bother to take the blood if they just throw it away?

/shrug

Some people are embarrased and don't want people to know they answered "yes" to questions like "Have you been to Africa in the past 20 years?"

On the other hand, plasma "donation" (for which you are compensated) do not allow you such luxury. Of course, they are paying you and they run all sorts of texts before you even can do it. But they too have questions about if you have had homosexual sex, visted Africa, got tattoos, etc.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

How about a compromise:

If gay people want to donate blood, they should be able to do so, but the blood should come with a warning and the person consuming it should be the one deciding whether to accept it or not. If a bigot is dying and he doesn't want to accept the blood of a "f***t", then let him die in pain in the most severe way.

[Æ]

:tu:

[sparsely]

STDs are more often spread through anal intercourse due to the lack of natural lubrication.
However, implying that gay males take less sexual precaution than others is ludicrous.
As a gay male with lots of straight friends...you heteros are just as (if not a lot more)
frivolous and indiscriminiate in your sexual forays as we are, partially due to the lack of stigma.

As an indivdiual with a rare blood type (AB-) the local blood banks used to
call me on about a bimonthly basis (due to my previous visits)
to inform me of blood drives or to request (almost beg) for my donation.

I had to inform them, however, that I can no longer give blood because of their discriminatory practices against homosexuals.

They stopped calling.

Good luck bleeding to death, F**K**.

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: How about a compromise:

If gay people want to donate blood, they should be able to do so, but the blood should come with a warning and the person consuming it should be the one deciding whether to accept it or not. If a bigot is dying and he doesn't want to accept the blood of a "f***t", then let him die in pain in the most severe way.

WARNING: MAY HAVE THE AIDS.

Yeah, I think that will go over well.

Of course, there is enough blood, without the blood of such a small percentage of the population contributing. No one dies for lack of blood in a hospital unless there would be some gargantuan emergency on the scale of a national Hiroshima. At that point, I doubt the red cross would even be checking for the normal blood borne illnesses.

[sparsely]

John Galt wrote: Of course, there is enough blood, without the blood of such a small percentage of the population contributing.

wonder why they kept calling me...

[John Galt]

sparsely wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course, there is enough blood, without the blood of such a small percentage of the population contributing.

wonder why they kept calling me...

I wonder that too, considering most blood drives want O-, not a blood type that barely anyone could use.

[sparsely]

John Galt wrote: I wonder that too, considering most blood drives want O-, not a blood type that barely anyone could use.

because by nature it's also a blood type that barely anyone can provide.

[John Galt]

sparsely wrote: John Galt wrote: I wonder that too, considering most blood drives want O-, not a blood type that barely anyone could use.

because by nature it's also a blood type that barely anyone can provide.

Yes I understand that, but barely anyone needs it in the first place. So what they bug people for is O-.

I don't really care. If they paid me for my blood and time I would consider it but it is my property and unless someone whom I care about needs it those vampires won't get any of mine. Of course, they can decide whatever rules they wish in the meantime, as they are lookingout for the health of their, for lack of a better word, customers.

[Enoch]

sparsely wrote:
As an indivdiual with a rare blood type (AB-) the local blood banks used to
call me on about a bimonthly basis (due to my previous visits)
to inform me of blood drives or to request (almost beg) for my donation.

I had to inform them, however, that I can no longer give blood because of their discriminatory practices against homosexuals.
They did the same thing to me when they found out that I am AB+. And, my response was the same to them.

[GenderQueer]

John Galt wrote: GenderQueer wrote: John Galt wrote: Alot of people are uncomfortable with it because of the ridiculously high percentage of homosexual men that have AIDS in comparison with the rest of the population. While in other countries this may be different, most people with AIDS in this country are homosexual males. Yes, you can get AIDS other ways than homosexual sex, mostly from needles. And so if someone has had homosexual sex they are far more likely to have AIDS than a person that has not, and since people are more likely to get AIDS from needles than anything else other than homosexual sex, the Red Cross is trying to save lives. What's the problem? This isn't discrimination against "a people" or anytthing. This is discriminating agianst people that have done certian actions... such as visted Africa in the past X years or had homosexual sex, all in the intrest of helping people.

I agree with the fact that the Red Cross is honestly tyring to help people, no debate there. But a blanket condemnation of people who have had homosexual sex puts the idea forward that gay sex = sickness. This question that disqualifies you from donating blood continues that idea. There are tests for HIV/AIDs and other STDs that blood has to be scanned for, so still why are we not allowing these potential donors to give blood? Yes there is a higher risk with homosexual sex, but with sex comes risk period. So if the Red Cross is trying to help people by avoiding a high risk group, why do the still get blood from who are still involved in sexual activity if there still is a risk of getting STDs. The numbers are growing of people who are not getting HIV/AIDS from homosexual sex, and even as far back as 1993 the #3 way that men were getting HIV/AIDS was from prostitutes.

You make it seem like #3 was common! Ha, what a laugh.

There is a bit of a latency period from when you first contract the disease to when you will test positive for it. I understand that they have very good tests and whatnot, they are just trying to help people. Having gay sex =|= being gay, and what they are discriminating against is people who have done said action since said action is such a high-risk activity. they don't allow herion users either. Or people who got tattoos in the past year, or piercings. They really just want the best. And it's their call.

You are very true to say male on male action =|= gay, sadly most of america view any many who has engaged in seuxal activity with another male as being gay, not as being bi, or exploring his sexuality, or still even as a heterosexual. It would be nice if people could cut off the association, but they dont.
I could understand when the HIV/AIDS pandemic first broke out for takin gay sex people off the list, because there was very little information out there to keep people safe, and also i still strongly feel that this was done due to public reacation and how gay sex was seen as the cause of HIV/AIDS, and many people still to this day hold that view. If anything this is an out-dated saftey percaution. Espeically with the fact that there are more and more women who are getting HIV/AIDS who may have no idea that they have it or that they may be sleeping with a downlow person.
If this question is really about percaution, it should ask, have you had sex with another person? if the answer is yes then you should be disquallified to completely remove all danger. But that wouldnt happen the real question should be asked, is if you have had unprotected sex, of any kind. Thats what we should be asking not targeting one type of sex as high risk when all sex is risk.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: How about a compromise:

If gay people want to donate blood, they should be able to do so, but the blood should come with a warning and the person consuming it should be the one deciding whether to accept it or not. If a bigot is dying and he doesn't want to accept the blood of a "f***t", then let him die in pain in the most severe way.

WARNING: MAY HAVE THE AIDS.

Yeah, I think that will go over well.

Of course, there is enough blood, without the blood of such a small percentage of the population contributing. No one dies for lack of blood in a hospital unless there would be some gargantuan emergency on the scale of a national Hiroshima. At that point, I doubt the red cross would even be checking for the normal blood borne illnesses.

How about saying "WARNING: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK."

[Enoch]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: How about a compromise:

If gay people want to donate blood, they should be able to do so, but the blood should come with a warning and the person consuming it should be the one deciding whether to accept it or not. If a bigot is dying and he doesn't want to accept the blood of a "f***t", then let him die in pain in the most severe way.

WARNING: MAY HAVE THE AIDS.

Yeah, I think that will go over well.

Of course, there is enough blood, without the blood of such a small percentage of the population contributing. No one dies for lack of blood in a hospital unless there would be some gargantuan emergency on the scale of a national Hiroshima. At that point, I doubt the red cross would even be checking for the normal blood borne illnesses.

How about saying "WARNING: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK."
I prefer WARNING: THIS BLOOD WAS DONATED BY A SEXUALLY ACTIVE ADULT. WE TESTED IT FOR DISEASES AND INFECTIONS. IF WE MISSED ONE, IT ISN'T THE FAULT OF THE PERSON WHO WAS KIND ENOUGH TO DONATE BLOOD TO THOSE IN NEED, BUT OUR FAULT FOR NOT TESTING PROPERLY.

[Æ]

WARNING: THIS PRODUCT TOXIC TO FUNDAMENTALISTS

[John Galt]

GenderQueer wrote: John Galt wrote: GenderQueer wrote: John Galt wrote: Alot of people are uncomfortable with it because of the ridiculously high percentage of homosexual men that have AIDS in comparison with the rest of the population. While in other countries this may be different, most people with AIDS in this country are homosexual males. Yes, you can get AIDS other ways than homosexual sex, mostly from needles. And so if someone has had homosexual sex they are far more likely to have AIDS than a person that has not, and since people are more likely to get AIDS from needles than anything else other than homosexual sex, the Red Cross is trying to save lives. What's the problem? This isn't discrimination against "a people" or anytthing. This is discriminating agianst people that have done certian actions... such as visted Africa in the past X years or had homosexual sex, all in the intrest of helping people.

I agree with the fact that the Red Cross is honestly tyring to help people, no debate there. But a blanket condemnation of people who have had homosexual sex puts the idea forward that gay sex = sickness. This question that disqualifies you from donating blood continues that idea. There are tests for HIV/AIDs and other STDs that blood has to be scanned for, so still why are we not allowing these potential donors to give blood? Yes there is a higher risk with homosexual sex, but with sex comes risk period. So if the Red Cross is trying to help people by avoiding a high risk group, why do the still get blood from who are still involved in sexual activity if there still is a risk of getting STDs. The numbers are growing of people who are not getting HIV/AIDS from homosexual sex, and even as far back as 1993 the #3 way that men were getting HIV/AIDS was from prostitutes.

You make it seem like #3 was common! Ha, what a laugh.

There is a bit of a latency period from when you first contract the disease to when you will test positive for it. I understand that they have very good tests and whatnot, they are just trying to help people. Having gay sex =|= being gay, and what they are discriminating against is people who have done said action since said action is such a high-risk activity. they don't allow herion users either. Or people who got tattoos in the past year, or piercings. They really just want the best. And it's their call.

You are very true to say male on male action =|= gay, sadly most of america view any many who has engaged in seuxal activity with another male as being gay, not as being bi, or exploring his sexuality, or still even as a heterosexual. It would be nice if people could cut off the association, but they dont.
I could understand when the HIV/AIDS pandemic first broke out for takin gay sex people off the list, because there was very little information out there to keep people safe, and also i still strongly feel that this was done due to public reacation and how gay sex was seen as the cause of HIV/AIDS, and many people still to this day hold that view. If anything this is an out-dated saftey percaution. Espeically with the fact that there are more and more women who are getting HIV/AIDS who may have no idea that they have it or that they may be sleeping with a downlow person.
If this question is really about percaution, it should ask, have you had sex with another person? if the answer is yes then you should be disquallified to completely remove all danger. But that wouldnt happen the real question should be asked, is if you have had unprotected sex, of any kind. Thats what we should be asking not targeting one type of sex as high risk when all sex is risk.

Yes I meant that people who are gay do not necessarily sleep with men (or only men) and vice versa.

As for female to male transmission of the HIV virus, it requires open bleeding sores on the part of both participants. This is why women who engage in sexual relations with a man who has engaged in sexual relations with another man (and if you note I do believe one of the questions is "have you had sex with a man who has had sex with another man since 1975?" (or whatever date) is at a much higher risk than most. Heterosexuals have a very very low risk, but the lowest is women who love women. Drug use can spread it between heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, but for sex to exchange it there has to be exchange of body fluids. A man does not take up any fluids into his body (tattoo needles are not hollow, while intrevenous drug user needles are. there has to be intimate contact of body fluids passed between carrier and recipiant. Fluids on the outside of the body are not intimate) during heterosexual sexual relations.