US: ‘Gay Blood Drive Day’ to call for end of gay blood ban

  • 135 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for lamprey263
#51 Edited by lamprey263 (34383 posts) -

Donating blood is a big money making racket, people go donate their blood, and the places that take donated blood end up turning around to sell it for $200 a pop. I was just reading the other day that the Red Cross gets like 75% of its revenues from selling donated blood. These places are getting so much blood they're throwing it away.

As for the ban, I'm not against lifting it, I've donated blood before and it's rather silly they'll take the blood just off a few screening questions, what if someone lies? Tests should always be performed on the blood to make sure people aren't carrying a disease they might not know they're carrying.

Avatar image for jasean79
#52 Posted by jasean79 (2593 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

Donating blood is a big money making racket, people go donate their blood, and the places that take donated blood end up turning around to sell it for $200 a pop. I was just reading the other day that the Red Cross gets like 75% of its revenues from selling donated blood. These places are getting so much blood they're throwing it away.

Selling it to whom?

It's interesting if what you say is true. Because we're always told that blood banks are in need of blood all the time. I wonder if that's just purely for profit then?

Avatar image for Master_Live
#53 Edited by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

These threads are good to inform ourselves. Regarding HIV:

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

  • In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
  • Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1.
  • In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
  • The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall2.
  • Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,909 in 20103.

Avatar image for BSC14
#54 Posted by BSC14 (4187 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

Unless there is an overwhelming majority of homosexual populations being infected with STIs, this is uncalled for discrimination. The 1980s AIDS craze focused on homosexual men and apes was definitely just a stigmatization movement as I see it.

So you don't think they had any reason to focus on the gay community? They knew it was transferred through blood and that the first people being brought in were gay or drug users...I think they had a reason for looking at the gay community.

Avatar image for lostrib
#55 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

Don't they screen it all anyways

Avatar image for lamprey263
#56 Edited by lamprey263 (34383 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@lamprey263 said:

Donating blood is a big money making racket, people go donate their blood, and the places that take donated blood end up turning around to sell it for $200 a pop. I was just reading the other day that the Red Cross gets like 75% of its revenues from selling donated blood. These places are getting so much blood they're throwing it away.

Selling it to whom?

It's interesting if what you say is true. Because we're always told that blood banks are in need of blood all the time. I wonder if that's just purely for profit then?

They sell it to hospitals for big bucks. The blood is actually useful and needed, but people in the middle can make big bucks off of it. Though, in honesty, part of that money goes to costs, like testing the blood and running labs and the costs to transport it or save it all costs money. It does concern me though that people go donate blood purely for philanthropic reasons, it'd be rather vile for someone to make a fat profit off other peoples good intentions.

Gosh, I swear I read something or saw a YouTube news video or saw something on the TV about this just the other day. Wish I can recall where I saw it so I can share it with you.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#57 Posted by foxhound_fox (96571 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

These threads are good to inform ourselves. Regarding HIV:

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

  • In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
  • Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1.
  • In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
  • The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall2.
  • Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,909 in 20103.

Is this protected or unprotected sex they are measuring?

Avatar image for indzman
#58 Posted by indzman (27004 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

These threads are good to inform ourselves. Regarding HIV:

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

  • In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
  • Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1.
  • In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
  • The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall2.
  • Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,909 in 20103.

Nice find master live :)

Avatar image for BSC14
#59 Edited by BSC14 (4187 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

These threads are good to inform ourselves. Regarding HIV:

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

  • In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
  • Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1.
  • In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
  • The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall2.
  • Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,909 in 20103.

I would say that chart says it all...

Of new cases gay sex = 28500 and non gay = 12450

And that's the small gay community vs all of the straight US.

If I'm seeing that right it would appear to be by far most prevalent in the gay community especially considering the number of gay people vs the number of straight.

Am I reading that wrong?

Avatar image for lostrib
#60 Edited by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@Master_Live said:

These threads are good to inform ourselves. Regarding HIV:

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

  • In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
  • Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1.
  • In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
  • The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall2.
  • Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,909 in 20103.

I would say that chart says it all...

Of new cases gay sex = 28500 and non gay = 12450

And that's the small gay community vs all of the straight US.

If I'm seeing that right it would appear to be by far most prevalent in the gay community especially considering the number of gay people vs the number of straight.

Am I reading that wrong?

is anyone really arguing that HIV/AIDS isnt more prevalent in the gay community?

Avatar image for GazaAli
#61 Posted by GazaAli (25216 posts) -
I'm not a medical expert on blood testing and transfusion but if it carries any risk to recipients then it would be incredibly stupid to left the ban. Other than that let them knock themselves out and donate blood. I do know however that gays, due to the nature of their sexual intercourse, are at a significantly increased risk of getting STDs so I don't know about that.
Avatar image for BSC14
#62 Posted by BSC14 (4187 posts) -

@lostrib:

Yes, kind of. Go back to page 1....

Avatar image for Master_Live
#63 Edited by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

Regarding STD's:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/STDFact-MSM.htm

Am I at risk for STDs?

While anyone who has sex can get an STD, sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:

  • Higher rates of HIV and STDs among MSM increase a person’s risk of coming into contact with an infected partner and becoming infected themselves.
  • Certain behaviors- such as not using condoms regularly and having anal sex - increase STD risk.
  • Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination can negatively influence the health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.

@foxhound_fox said:

Is this protected or unprotected sex they are measuring?

It doesn't specify.

Avatar image for branketra
#64 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@BranKetra said:

Unless there is an overwhelming majority of homosexual populations being infected with STIs, this is uncalled for discrimination. The 1980s AIDS craze focused on homosexual men and apes was definitely just a stigmatization movement as I see it.

So you don't think they had any reason to focus on the gay community? They knew it was transferred through blood and that the first people being brought in were gay or drug users...I think they had a reason for looking at the gay community.

I did not say that at all.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#65 Edited by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

Federal Drug Administration policy regarding blood donations from "men who have sex with other men":

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men?

Men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Between 2008 and 2010, the estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However the incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations. The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years. Since younger individuals are more likely to donate blood, the implications of this increase in incidence need to be further evaluated.

Is FDA's policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

FDA's deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation.

What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?

Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence.

Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood that has already been collected and is being stored in a blood bank may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur extremely rarely, but given that there are about 17 million Whole Blood and red blood cell donations collected each year in the USA, they can occur.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#66 Posted by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

And finally the American Medical Association and other organizations have called for a change in policy. But keep in mind that some suggestion include that instead of indefinite referrals (like they do now) for MSM, that they simply let MSM donate if they have abstain from sex for a determined time (most likely a year) like they do in other countries like the UK and Australia.

So there would be progress but basically MSM would have to stop having sex in order to be able to donate.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/american-medical-association-opposes-fda-ban-gay-men/storynew?id=19436366

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#67 Posted by foxhound_fox (96571 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Is this protected or unprotected sex they are measuring?

It doesn't specify.

So we should assume unprotected then, since protected sex has a drastically decreased risk of getting any infection (besides crabs or herpes).

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#68 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Star0 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa:

Bold typeface? Add colour and underlining. Makes your point hold even more value...

@Master_Live said:

These threads are good to inform ourselves. Regarding HIV:

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

  • In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 20082.
  • Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available1.
  • In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600)2.
  • The estimated number of new HIV infections was greatest among MSM in the youngest age group. In 2010, the greatest number of new HIV infections (4,800) among MSM occurred in young black/African American MSM aged 13–24. Young black MSM accounted for 45% of new HIV infections among black MSM and 55% of new HIV infections among young MSM overall2.
  • Since the epidemic began, an estimated 302,148 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis have died, including an estimated 5,909 in 20103.

Does that answer your question?

Avatar image for ferrari2001
#69 Posted by ferrari2001 (17760 posts) -
@Star0 said:

Shouldn't saving lives be the prime objective of any kind of healthcare?

No, money is the prime objective of American healthcare.

Avatar image for EPICCOMMANDER
#70 Posted by EPICCOMMANDER (1103 posts) -
@Master_Live said:

Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood that has already been collected and is being stored in a blood bank may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur extremely rarely, but given that there are about 17 million Whole Blood and red blood cell donations collected each year in the USA, they can occur.

This I think is the real point of contention: if someone who has AIDS and is screened for it, are the results reliable? Given the above information, if I was dying and in need of blood, I wouldn't want to receive blood from anyone who "may have the disease, but we're not entirely sure." Like the hell with that shit. This is ******* AIDS we're talking about here. So for me personally, I understand the ban, as irrational as my argument is (it's mostly out of fear).

Avatar image for lostrib
#71 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@Master_Live said:

Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood that has already been collected and is being stored in a blood bank may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur extremely rarely, but given that there are about 17 million Whole Blood and red blood cell donations collected each year in the USA, they can occur.

This I think is the real point of contention: if someone who has AIDS and is screened for it, are the results reliable? Given the above information, if I was dying and in need of blood, I wouldn't want to receive blood from anyone who "may have the disease, but we're not entirely sure." Like the hell with that shit. This is ******* AIDS we're talking about here. So for me personally, I understand the ban, as irrational as my argument is (it's mostly out of fear).

so you'd rather die?

Avatar image for korvus
#72 Posted by korvus (10655 posts) -

It's the same thing here in the Netherlands. They take your blood, wait a few months, test it, if viable they will liberate it for use in hospitals,etc, and will send you a letter saying you're clear to donate again after a specific date but even with all that, if you, as a man, ever had sex with another man, or as a woman, had sex with a man who's ever been with another man, you're not allowed to donate. Also, you're not allowed to donate if you ever got paid for sex...I guess if you sleep with a different person every day it's fine, but get paid once and your blood is no good =P

Avatar image for EPICCOMMANDER
#73 Edited by EPICCOMMANDER (1103 posts) -
@lostrib said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:
@Master_Live said:

Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have enough virus or have developed sufficient antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood that has already been collected and is being stored in a blood bank may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur extremely rarely, but given that there are about 17 million Whole Blood and red blood cell donations collected each year in the USA, they can occur.

This I think is the real point of contention: if someone who has AIDS and is screened for it, are the results reliable? Given the above information, if I was dying and in need of blood, I wouldn't want to receive blood from anyone who "may have the disease, but we're not entirely sure." Like the hell with that shit. This is ******* AIDS we're talking about here. So for me personally, I understand the ban, as irrational as my argument is (it's mostly out of fear).

so you'd rather die?

I understand what you're saying but I think you're missing the point I was trying to make with that statement. To be fair, that was a poor hypothetical, so let me restructure it slightly. If I was in need of blood, but I was not dying, and it was possible for me to wait till I could get blood from someone that was not from one of those high-risk MSM populations, I would choose to wait for blood that had a considerably lower chance of giving me HIV/AIDS.

If I was dying I would of course take the blood and hope for the best that it's not from a donor who has the disease, and in that particular hypothetical I would always choose to take the blood if I was dying.

Avatar image for toast_burner
#75 Posted by toast_burner (24666 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

Oh.. so WE ARE allowed to talk about homosexuals on this board? Huh.. I would've never guessed.

Why wouldn't you be allowed to?

Avatar image for korvus
#76 Posted by korvus (10655 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@Motokid6 said:

Oh.. so WE ARE allowed to talk about homosexuals on this board? Huh.. I would've never guessed.

Why wouldn't you be allowed to?

He's bitter because he just got his thread locked. Given the fact that OT sees 2 or 3 threads about homosexuality a day, one would think he would realise that his thread didn't get locked because it was about homosexuality, but because of how he chose to approach it...guess not, though.

Avatar image for korvus
#78 Posted by korvus (10655 posts) -

@Motokid6: If you feel you were wronged, you can always ask a Community Manager to review the thread and decide if it should continue locked or not.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#79 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

Our society is increasingly supporting equality for LGBT people. I will fight this ban that only marginalizes, stigmatizes, and stereotypes healthy people across the country.”

And there it is. This is just another, in a long line of bans against the LGBT community, that they will be going after to have changed.

And? Pray tell: what's wrong with changing this ban?

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#80 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3137 posts) -
@korvus said:

@Motokid6: If you feel you were wronged, you can always ask a Community Manager to review the thread and decide if it should continue locked or not.

But in reality, gay bashing is no longer acceptable in today's world, and Motokid's playing the part of a whiny brat.

Avatar image for Star0
#81 Posted by Star0 (451 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa:

Quoting someone else's post?

Bravo.

Avatar image for korvus
#82 Posted by korvus (10655 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO: I didn't say I agreed with him; I was just pointing out that if he has a complaint, the place to voice it is with a CM, not someone else's thread =)

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#83 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Star0 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa:

Quoting someone else's post?

Bravo.

And yet it answered you. Cry more.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#84 Posted by Perfect_Blue (29844 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@jasean79 said:

Our society is increasingly supporting equality for LGBT people. I will fight this ban that only marginalizes, stigmatizes, and stereotypes healthy people across the country.”

And there it is. This is just another, in a long line of bans against the LGBT community, that they will be going after to have changed.

And? Pray tell: what's wrong with changing this ban?

You're not going to get a solid answer from him, you know that right? :P

Avatar image for Star0
#85 Posted by Star0 (451 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa:

You go-getter you.

Avatar image for Renevent42
#86 Edited by Renevent42 (6654 posts) -

It seems to me the ban is somewhat based in reality. The tests are not 100% accurate, and given the exponential (10X) increased risk of infection in that demographic I could see why the ban makes some sense. Given a choice, I'd rather have blood from straight person than a gay man...heck...even intravenously using drugs has a far lower risk of infection. That's actually fairly surprising to me.

There's tons of things that can disqualify a person for giving blood due to increased risks, even for mundane things such as traveling outside of the country or getting a tattoo.

http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic#lifestyle

Avatar image for BSC14
#87 Posted by BSC14 (4187 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@korvus said:

He's bitter because he just got his thread locked. Given the fact that OT sees 2 or 3 threads about homosexuality a day, one would think he would realise that his thread didn't get locked because it was about homosexuality, but because of how he chose to approach it...guess not, though.

You bet im bitter. My thread gets locked after six posts with no explanation or word back from the mod who locked it. Just locks and leaves.. I chose to compose that thread in that manner because that is the question my homosexual friend asked and what followed was a deep conversion about that particular subject. I was simply trying to expand the conversation to see what the thoughts of a larger group of people would be. Hallenbeck had no right to lock that topic. I expressed my view in a clear, unbiased, non trolling manner. Shit just went south faster then any topic ive seen here in OT before.

But hey, o well.. f*** it, right?

Anyway... apologies. Forget I even bothered. On with the current topic...

I'm not overly familiar with your topics but it doesn't surprise me that they get locked...the mods here don't generally agree with your point of view. I have had a similar experience here.

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
#88 Posted by Riverwolf007 (26023 posts) -

i want just enough to improve my fashion sense and the razor sharpness of my oscar wildelike quipping ability.

Avatar image for korvus
#90 Posted by korvus (10655 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

It wasn't that the topic was locked.. But the manner in which it was locked that got under my skin. How do I contact a CM by the way? Lol I've been wondering how to do that for a decade.

This will send a PM to all mods and admins; alternatively you can just PM our CM's individually. DigitalDame, ohaifrancy, Zorine and girlparts.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#92 Edited by Serraph105 (31650 posts) -

If blood is disease free then we are ignoring a potentially life saving resource. That seems incredibly ignorant to me.

Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#93 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -

@indzman: what the hell? Is america that much of a bigot that they ban gay people from donating blood? How fucking stupid...

Avatar image for BSC14
#94 Edited by BSC14 (4187 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@indzman: what the hell? Is america that much of a bigot that they ban gay people from donating blood? How fucking stupid...

Take a look at the numbers above posted by Master_Live...there is a damn good reason for it. Has nothing to do with being a bigot and has everything to do with the testing not being 100%. Man you liberals think everything is about gays being mistreated.

Avatar image for branketra
#95 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@korvus said:

@Motokid6: If you feel you were wronged, you can always ask a Community Manager to review the thread and decide if it should continue locked or not.

This is great advice.

Avatar image for lostrib
#96 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@indzman: what the hell? Is america that much of a bigot that they ban gay people from donating blood? How fucking stupid...

Take a look at the numbers above posted by Master_Live...there is a damn good reason for it. Has nothing to do with being a bigot and has everything to do with the testing not being 100%. Man you liberals think everything is about gays being mistreated.

actually that's not the reason

also, the AMA opposes the FDA's ban on allowing MSM blood donations

Avatar image for lostrib
#97 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@korvus said:

He's bitter because he just got his thread locked. Given the fact that OT sees 2 or 3 threads about homosexuality a day, one would think he would realise that his thread didn't get locked because it was about homosexuality, but because of how he chose to approach it...guess not, though.

You bet im bitter. My thread gets locked after six posts with no explanation or word back from the mod who locked it. Just locks and leaves.. I chose to compose that thread in that manner because that is the question my homosexual friend asked and what followed was a deep conversion about that particular subject. I was simply trying to expand the conversation to see what the thoughts of a larger group of people would be. Hallenbeck had no right to lock that topic. I expressed my view in a clear, unbiased, non trolling manner. Shit just went south faster then any topic ive seen here in OT before.

But hey, o well.. f*** it, right?

Anyway... apologies. Forget I even bothered. On with the current topic...

...really? you're surprised that a thread titled "Why do homosexuals have to be so gay?" was locked?

Avatar image for BSC14
#98 Posted by BSC14 (4187 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@BSC14 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@indzman: what the hell? Is america that much of a bigot that they ban gay people from donating blood? How fucking stupid...

Take a look at the numbers above posted by Master_Live...there is a damn good reason for it. Has nothing to do with being a bigot and has everything to do with the testing not being 100%. Man you liberals think everything is about gays being mistreated.

actually that's not the reason

also, the AMA opposes the FDA's ban on allowing MSM blood donations

Whats the reason?

IMO the numbers shown above are more than reason enough.

Avatar image for EPICCOMMANDER
#99 Edited by EPICCOMMANDER (1103 posts) -
@The_Last_Ride said:

@indzman: what the hell? Is america that much of a bigot that they ban gay people from donating blood? How fucking stupid...

How on earth could you come away from this thread with that conclusion?? Not only does the FDA provide statistics for their argument, but other government agencies appose the FDA's ban with equally valid reasoning–no one's even come close to bigotry.

Avatar image for sonicare
#100 Posted by sonicare (55326 posts) -

As someone who works in the health care field, men who have sex with other men are at higher risk for bloodborne illnesses and sexually transmitted diseases. Statistically, that's just the case. However, men who have sex with mulitple women or men who use intravenous drugs are also at high risk. I dont think you have to ban blood donations, but just be aware and test the blood.