Political Crossfire Forums

coolcreep · Joined: 28 Jun 2006 Posts: 131

if they are going to do this, they should not allow you to donate if you have had anal sex. period. its high risk for straight and gay couples.

Green · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:59 am Post subject:

Hell yea

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8951

coolcreep wrote: if they are going to do this, they should not allow you to donate if you have had anal sex. period. its high risk for straight and gay couples.

High risk for what?

All blood is screened for anything that would threaten the receiver of donated blood.

George W Bush · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject:

LostSoul3412 wrote: coolcreep wrote: if they are going to do this, they should not allow you to donate if you have had anal sex. period. its high risk for straight and gay couples.

High risk for what?

All blood is screened for anything that would threaten the receiver of donated blood.

HIV detection isnt perfect. According to FDA, 3 people per year are infected with HIV from contaminated blood product from the "healthy donor" population.

An analysis was shown that 3 would increase to 11 if sexually exposed homosexual men were permitted to donate.

The argument is that 3 is better than 11 in considering HIV's detectionless period.

The source of this information was posted in the second post with a link.

GenderQueer · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 60

It shouldnt be based if you gay, or even if you have anal sex. It should be soley based on the fact if you have had unprotected sex. Whether gay str8 bi or whatever, if you have unprotected sex that where the danger lies. At the point we just use being gay as a classification for preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS you play into the idea that str8 people dont have to worry about HIV/AIDS.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8951

George W Bush wrote: HIV detection isnt perfect. According to FDA, 3 people per year are infected with HIV from contaminated blood product from the "healthy donor" population.

An analysis was shown that 3 would increase to 11 if sexually exposed homosexual men were permitted to donate.

The argument is that 3 is better than 11 in considering HIV's detectionless period.

The source of this information was posted in the second post with a link.

So why does anal intercourse automatically mean HIV?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8951

GenderQueer wrote: It shouldnt be based if you gay, or even if you have anal sex. It should be soley based on the fact if you have had unprotected sex. Whether gay str8 bi or whatever, if you have unprotected sex that where the danger lies. At the point we just use being gay as a classification for preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS you play into the idea that str8 people dont have to worry about HIV/AIDS.

We already have a vast shortage of blood reserves... what happens when most Americans are now unable to donate blood?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9384

GenderQueer wrote: It shouldnt be based if you gay, or even if you have anal sex. It should be soley based on the fact if you have had unprotected sex. Whether gay str8 bi or whatever, if you have unprotected sex that where the danger lies. At the point we just use being gay as a classification for preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS you play into the idea that str8 people dont have to worry about HIV/AIDS. True. I can understand the Red Cross' motives for not allowing gay men to donate, but I think it is ridiculous and discriminatory. But, due to that, I won't donate blood...even if the ban was lifted tomorrow.

levin893 · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 177 Location: L.A.

Valdimar wrote: Hmm, that's odd. I have donated blood many times, I am gay, but I guess it doesn't matter because my blood is in high demand. Type O

If that doesn't say it, I don't know what will. The government has fallen victim to the gay steriotype. I think this is less of a priority and more of a precaution from stirring the public. However, it's still extremely offensive and prejudice.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21655 Location: Minnesota

levin893 wrote: Valdimar wrote: Hmm, that's odd. I have donated blood many times, I am gay, but I guess it doesn't matter because my blood is in high demand. Type O

If that doesn't say it, I don't know what will. The government has fallen victim to the gay steriotype. I think this is less of a priority and more of a precaution from stirring the public. However, it's still extremely offensive and prejudice.

Is the Red Cross "the government"? No. The Red Cross is a charity and they do not accept blood of people who tell the truth about their past sexual hisotry if it inculdes homosexual relations. The government is not taking blood. Hospitals and charitable organizations are, and they are trying to save lives. They weigh risk-benefit more than anyone here on this issue and someone's lounge-chair opinion that it was "caught up" in a "gay stereotype" is noted and rejected. They are trying to save people not hurt them.

Pareve · Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 895

Men and woman are both capable of contracting HIV or other STD's through being promiscuous. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation or choice of partners, but number of partners and the status of said partners. They already screen blood effectively. This might have been relevant before a better HIV screening process was invented in the 1980's, or when gay men were more likely to have HIV/AIDS, but seeing as how these are no longer issues, I fail to see why gay men should not be allowed to be sexually active and give blood.

levin893 · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 177 Location: L.A.

John Galt wrote: levin893 wrote: Valdimar wrote: Hmm, that's odd. I have donated blood many times, I am gay, but I guess it doesn't matter because my blood is in high demand. Type O

If that doesn't say it, I don't know what will. The government has fallen victim to the gay steriotype. I think this is less of a priority and more of a precaution from stirring the public. However, it's still extremely offensive and prejudice.

Is the Red Cross "the government"? No. The Red Cross is a charity and they do not accept blood of people who tell the truth about their past sexual hisotry if it inculdes homosexual relations. The government is not taking blood. Hospitals and charitable organizations are, and they are trying to save lives. They weigh risk-benefit more than anyone here on this issue and someone's lounge-chair opinion that it was "caught up" in a "gay stereotype" is noted and rejected. They are trying to save people not hurt them.

The fact of the matter is that to accept one gay person's blood and reject another because of their blood type. Then to come out and say their excuse is because of HIV/AIDS is so hypocritical it defies the government. AIDS is such a widespread disease that anyone could have it. You check the blood. It's fine. You use it. End of story. I'm not gay. But I can tell you I'll never donate blood again to a place that rejects gays for such a ridiculous reason.

levin893 · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 177 Location: L.A.

Just curious, is this from first hand experience or did you get it from the Red Cross website. If it's from the website, then I think you may have overstated the truth. Then again, "should not" could mean "never" to the Red Cross. Regardless, it's still offensive.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hiv