User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:26:10 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about, NO! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:26:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone who advocates to increase the risk of HIV into the blood supply is a complete and utter moron. I don't think asking people questions has any effect one way or the other. But whatever, I don't have a problem with closing the gay dude loophole or whatever you want to call it. While we're at it, we might want to start asking people who buy guns if they're planning to shoot up a school. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:26:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood?  After a certain amount of time has passed to make sure you haven't been infected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:28:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't answer for him, but perhaps because AIDS/HIV is almost exclusively lifestyle and behavior-oriented in its transmission, and therefore easily avoided, whereas people are simply stricken with other diseases. If various ones care so little about their life and future as to engage in risky behavior--while knowing the risks--then why should tax money be used to save them from themselves, and at the expense of other diseases most would therefore consider to be more worthy?  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population Not true. Current funding for AIDS far exceeds what many more common diseases get.  AIDS is also a more severe disease that most common diseases, with no known treatment beyond "hope you don't die tomorrow". Why would it make you angry that it receives a lot of funding? I can't answer for him, but perhaps because AIDS/HIV is almost exclusively lifestyle and behavior-oriented in its transmission, and therefore easily avoided, whereas people are simply stricken with other diseases. If various ones care so little about their life and future as to engage in risky behavior--while knowing the risks--then why should tax money be used to save them from themselves, and at the expense of other diseases most would therefore consider to be more worthy? AIDS is also transmitted by birth and any kind of blood mixing, which can happen a lot more often than you would think. Don't play any kind of rough sport with someone who has AIDS. 
I'm not sure he's talking about government funding instead of over all funding. The latter is what I had in mind. As for worth, I consider prevalence and severity when determining what should be prioritized. You include other factors. Difference of opinion there, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:28:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about, NO! This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:31:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After a certain amount of time has passed to make sure you haven't been infected. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lol But inkies ARE allowed to donate blood? After a certain amount of time has passed to make sure you haven't been infected. One year I believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:32:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think asking people questions has any effect one way or the other. But whatever, I don't have a problem with closing the gay dude loophole or whatever you want to call it. While we're at it, we might want to start asking people who buy guns if they're planning to shoot up a school. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone who advocates to increase the risk of HIV into the blood supply is a complete and utter moron. I don't think asking people questions has any effect one way or the other. But whatever, I don't have a problem with closing the gay dude loophole or whatever you want to call it. While we're at it, we might want to start asking people who buy guns if they're planning to shoot up a school. It's not perfect, but it's the best we can do without giving private organizations some kind of crazy power to investigate your life. A power they wouldn't even use, because the cost would be prohibitive. Think of it this way. You're being asked to give something for nothing. That's what a blood donation is. If it's announced and publicly known that a subset is not welcome to give, then it seems that the participation rates for that subset would be very low. Unless you really, really care about giving blood, you're not likely to do so if you know you're not wanted. And if you really do care that much, then you probably also care about the quality of the blood you're giving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:40:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Red Cross uses at risk groups exclusion as a form of screening to protect the blood supply. This may be outdated, I'm not sure. Does homosexuality have a higher rate of infectious disease associated with it? I know they did years back, not sure if that has changed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why cant they donate? I dont get it. Red Cross uses at risk groups exclusion as a form of screening to protect the blood supply. This may be outdated, I'm not sure. Does homosexuality have a higher rate of infectious disease associated with it? I know they did years back, not sure if that has changed. HIV infection rates are so bad in gay communities that the World Health Organization has recommended that all gay men start taking retroviral drugs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:41:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does a petition having anything to do with protection of public health? Because 90% of the gay agenda is about social acceptance and approval, not equality per se. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:44:13 PM EDT
[#10]
In like a fag hater at a glory hole in a park bathroom
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:47:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. This I have several gay friends who think it's wise to not accept blood donations from the general gay community. they're clean, but dont argue with the math, rules are rules in medicine, typically for a reason. "the feels" are not good enough reason to change them, this is how lung transplants get wasted, and several people get murdered by proxy because of the feels. that said, can there not be a seperate blood supply for those who have these diseases, such that they can donate to eachother without using the blood of those that arent? probably not worth the additional logistics effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:50:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This I have several gay friends who think it's wise to not accept blood donations from the general gay community. they're clean, but dont argue with the math, rules are rules in medicine, typically for a reason. "the feels" are not good enough reason to change them, this is how lung transplants get wasted, and several people get murdered by proxy because of the feels. that said, can there not be a seperate blood supply for those who have these diseases, such that they can donate to eachother without using the blood of those that arent? probably not worth the additional logistics effort. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. This I have several gay friends who think it's wise to not accept blood donations from the general gay community. they're clean, but dont argue with the math, rules are rules in medicine, typically for a reason. "the feels" are not good enough reason to change them, this is how lung transplants get wasted, and several people get murdered by proxy because of the feels. that said, can there not be a seperate blood supply for those who have these diseases, such that they can donate to eachother without using the blood of those that arent? probably not worth the additional logistics effort. I dominate blood regularly, and since most of GD thinks being gay should be kept private, i dont bother to mention it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:51:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, 'hetero-normative' is the latest buzzword among the Pro-Gays. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But of course, facts are racist straightist? IIRC, 'hetero-normative' is the latest buzzword among the Pro-Gays. That's the politically correct term, but a lot of the militant straight haters use "cisgender" or "cis" as an insult, like calling white people "whitey". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:51:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dominate blood regularly, and since most of GD thinks being gay should be kept private, i dont bother to mention it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. This I have several gay friends who think it's wise to not accept blood donations from the general gay community. they're clean, but dont argue with the math, rules are rules in medicine, typically for a reason. "the feels" are not good enough reason to change them, this is how lung transplants get wasted, and several people get murdered by proxy because of the feels. that said, can there not be a seperate blood supply for those who have these diseases, such that they can donate to eachother without using the blood of those that arent? probably not worth the additional logistics effort. I dominate blood regularly, and since most of GD thinks being gay should be kept private, i dont bother to mention it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Sexual orientation isn't the determining factor. It's if you're a male who has had sex with another male. If so, you're not supposed to donate blood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:52:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dominate blood regularly, kinky |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:53:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm just saying - nobody at a Red Cross is going to know if you're "out and proud", unless you walk in and immediately start cutting hair and redecorating the place. Ergo, I kind of hope they're testing the blood, instead of taking a donor's word for it. You're a smart guy, Sub. It's a statistics issue. Sure, they test blood. Tests are only X% effective. The more contaminated blood you put in the supply, the higher the chance is that infected blood will get through. Of the methods of HIV exposure that are out there, blood transfusion has the highest contraction rate out of all of them...which isn't surprising, really. There are other diseases of concern out there too which can condemn someone who is supposed to be getting life-saving treatment to something that can prove fatal or needlessly diminish their quality of life. It's not worth the risk...and due to the lifestyle risks that come along with male homosexuality the RC asks them not to donate the same way they ask people who have spent X amount of time in certain countries or who have used IV drugs or who have gotten tattoos not to donate...because it makes the blood supply riskier. Even with the bans in place and the screenings currently done, every year a few people contract HIV (or other diseases) from blood transfusions. Doing things that will increase that number of people is fucking evil. The forces of political correctness, of course, will not tolerate any judgment on approved lifestyles...even when there's a solid medical and scientific basis to do so. Because fuck that little kid who needs a blood transfusion to survive, nobody is going to disapprove of my lifestyle in any way! If he needs the blood to survive and the only available donor was gay would you turn down the small risk of disease or just let him go ahead and die with no blood at all? I might drink my own piss if I ended up stranded on a raft, but I'm still not going to piss in bags to take on the trip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:55:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dominate blood regularly, and since most of GD thinks being gay should be kept private, i dont bother to mention it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. This I have several gay friends who think it's wise to not accept blood donations from the general gay community. they're clean, but dont argue with the math, rules are rules in medicine, typically for a reason. "the feels" are not good enough reason to change them, this is how lung transplants get wasted, and several people get murdered by proxy because of the feels. that said, can there not be a seperate blood supply for those who have these diseases, such that they can donate to eachother without using the blood of those that arent? probably not worth the additional logistics effort. I dominate blood regularly, and since most of GD thinks being gay should be kept private, i dont bother to mention it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile you dominate blood regularly? I'd like to see that, sounds entertaining. To be fair, the people to which im referring are so gay they sneeze glitter. no hiding for them. That said, if you're monogamous and been clean for years, i have no moral opposition to this. the rule really ought to be against promiscuous people in general, given the lag between contraction of x disease and it showing up on tests. ETA: is this you? desert wolf? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:55:53 PM EDT
[#18]
People who primarily ass fuck other people (who also primarily ass fuck other people) are at an increased risk of contracting communicable std's. People who are at increased risk of contracting communicable diseases are not prime candidates for donating bodily fluids that are put directly in otherwise healthy peoples' bloodstreams. But hey, let's not let common sense cloud our hate-fueled discrimination.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:56:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Makes no sense.
The CDC states 1 in 5 gay men has HIV/AIDS and 1/2 of gay men don't know they are infected. Let this soak in, 50% of gay men will have HIV/AIDS by the age of 50 years because they refuse to have safe sex. This does not even include Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Herpes, etc. A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM). The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states. US News reports that if HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to rise at the current rates, more than half of college-aged homosexual men will have HIV by the age of 50. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:57:06 PM EDT
[#20]
BTW/OT people get HIV through tainted hypodermic needles, many are also recreational IV drug users.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:59:44 PM EDT
[#21]
List of tests that any donor unit gets
HBV HBsAg Assays - Hepatitis B Surface Antigen Anti-HBc Assays - Hepatitis B Virus Core Antigen HBV Nucleic Acid Assays - Hepatitis B Virus HCV Anti-HCV Assays - Hepatitis C Virus Encoded Antigen HCV Nucleic Acid Assays - Hepatitis C Virus HIV Anti-HIV-1 Assays - Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 HIV-1 Nucleic Acid Assays - Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Anti-HIV Specimen Collection Devices, Testing Services, and Home Test Kits Anti-HIV-2 Assays - Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 Anti-HIV-1/2 Assays - Human Immunodeficiency Virus Types 1 and 2 Anti-HIV-1/2 and HIV-1 Antigen Combo Assays HTLV Anti-HTLV-I/II Assays - Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Types I and II T. pallidum Anti-T. Pallidum Assays - Treponema pallidum (Syphilis) T. cruzi Anti- T. cruzi Assays - Trypanosoma cruzi (T. cruzi) WNV WNV Nucleic Acid Assays - West Nile Virus CMV Anti-CMV Assays - Cytomegalovirus Multiplex Multiplex Assays That being said, I work in a hospital lab and have received notification from the Blood Centre about a unit that was given and that had tested positive for HIV. The Blood Centre had started using a new test and the unit popped positive and that we had to call pt X and inform them. I could help but feel bad for pt X. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:01:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Gay does not equal child molester. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: i guess they are in favor of letting child molesters volunteer at preschools too? fucking idiots. no thanks, i'd rather not get aids Gay does not equal child molester. Not always, no. But that is why we call them ANALOGIES. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:02:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is blood from gay people untestable for diseases or are you all afraid of transferring the gay? Here's the deal: Ding HIV testing is time-consuming and expensive. They don't do HIV testing on each donation, they pour a bunch of samples into a single pot (maybe 100 or more people), and then do HIV testing on the entire batch. If the batch comes up positive, they call each and every person, tell them to go get an HIV test, and bar them from EVER donating again. So, each HIV-positive person who donates disqualifies 100+ legitimate donors, in addition to themselves. Homosexuals, particularly men, are as much as 60x more likely than heterosexuals to have HIV than a heterosexual. So, on the up side, blood banks stand to get maybe 1-2% more blood by allowing homosexual males to donate. On the down side, they stand to have 60x more legitimate, safe donors PERMANENTLY BARRED from ever donating again. When you look at the ups and the downs, the end result will most likely be far LESS blood being donated and kept. It's not bigotry or fear, it's just math and what means more blood in the supply chain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:03:41 PM EDT
[#24]
I have no moral obligation against gay people donating blood.
However, the AIDS/HIV risk drives up dramatically with sexually active homosexual men. At this time, it is not smart to lift the ban on sexually active gay men from donating blood. If the rates decrease in the future, then I would be 100% fine with it. Not sure what the AIDS/HIV rate in homosexual women is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:04:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is blood from gay people untestable for diseases or are you all afraid of transferring the gay? there are other extended risks that become a disqualifier. it's not the "gay" it's the higher risk for exposure to diseases that may cause issues in people needing blood transfusions. even with screening and testing there has been infections spread through transfusions. they are simply limiting exposure pre-draw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:08:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That being said, I work in a hospital lab and have received notification from the Blood Centre about a unit that was given and that had tested positive for HIV. The Blood Centre had started using a new test and the unit popped positive and that we had to call pt X and inform them. I could help but feel bad for pt X. Don't worry, the chance that patient X actually had HIV was probably <= 1%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:08:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So it's not SOP to test all donated blood? I never donated blood, so do they just make you pinky swear or something that you're clean? No, they test the blood, but the tests are not infallable. To further reduce risk, they ask you to be honest on a form that will prohibit at-risk individuals based on geographical location, drug use, sexual preference (anal sex with women is also a no-no), and a bunch of other stuff I don't remember. It has nothing to do with queer blood turning people queer, they're just trying to reduce the chance of receiving tainted blood (particularly by people who may be unaware they're carriers). You can of course just lie and sign your name, but then I guess you wouldn't be an Out-And-Proud Western European who was in Jail for more than 72 hours or had a tattoo in the past year). This is simply a perpetually-offended class being perpetually offended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:10:44 PM EDT
[#28]
I have to say that the Pro-Gays aren't exactly covering themselves in glory here.
The reasons why male homosexual sex ought to disqualify a person from donating blood are so obvious that it ought to be self-evident. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sexual orientation isn't the determining factor. It's if you're a male who has had sex with another male. If so, you're not supposed to donate blood. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. This I have several gay friends who think it's wise to not accept blood donations from the general gay community. they're clean, but dont argue with the math, rules are rules in medicine, typically for a reason. "the feels" are not good enough reason to change them, this is how lung transplants get wasted, and several people get murdered by proxy because of the feels. that said, can there not be a seperate blood supply for those who have these diseases, such that they can donate to eachother without using the blood of those that arent? probably not worth the additional logistics effort. I dominate blood regularly, and since most of GD thinks being gay should be kept private, i dont bother to mention it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Sexual orientation isn't the determining factor. It's if you're a male who has had sex with another male. If so, you're not supposed to donate blood. Oh then I'm clear Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:22:13 PM EDT
[#30]
They donate now, they just lie.
I did hear years ago, if you have recently contracted hiv there is a window of time when it can be passed through your blood but not detected. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:27:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is blood from gay people untestable for diseases or are you all afraid of transferring the gay? Having high risk people not give blood reduces the risks of transfusion and reduces the expense of having to throw out a unit. All units are tested, but everyone that tests positive, is a waste of money and resources. There are several high risk behaviors that are requested not to attempt to give blood, not just homosexuals. Like it or not, in the US, male homosexuals are a high risk group, not just for HIV, but also hepatitis. Why increase risk and expense of our blood supply just to make somebody feel accepted and special? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:29:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Signal & Noise, book by Nate Silver, had an interesting bit of data on that. Fear of HIV led to a drop in promiscuity. It seems, however, that gay men have started hooking up based on HIV status. So positives will look for other positives, and negatives for negatives. The spread of HIV drops, but other STDs are unaffected. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone seen recent data on infectious diseases in gay men? I know that a lot of them are really complete whores (?) who think nothing of pulling a train on a Saturday night. AIDS testing has got better but Hep C, Syphilis and God knows what else are out there, contaminated blood does not mean HIV only. Signal & Noise, book by Nate Silver, had an interesting bit of data on that. Fear of HIV led to a drop in promiscuity. It seems, however, that gay men have started hooking up based on HIV status. So positives will look for other positives, and negatives for negatives. The spread of HIV drops, but other STDs are unaffected. Old news. HIV infection in young gay males is on the rise now. The newer generation has forgotten the fear of the 80's it seems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:29:25 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:32:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. Actually , you'd be surprised how many tell the truth. In addition, if you feel that your blood may not be safe after donation, you can check a box to indicate that the blood can be disposed of anonymously so that someone who was embarrassed to admit they had contaminated blood, and didn't want to be seen publicly refusing to donate (a lot of social pressure to donate in blood drives at work and school for example) could donate their blood but not actually have it enter the supply and it's just discarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:33:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is blood from gay people untestable for diseases or are you all afraid of transferring the gay? So you're willing to unintentionally expose yourself to greater odds of Hepatitis and HIV? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:35:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Old news. HIV infection in young gay males is on the rise now. The newer generation has forgotten the fear of the 80's it seems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone seen recent data on infectious diseases in gay men? I know that a lot of them are really complete whores (?) who think nothing of pulling a train on a Saturday night. AIDS testing has got better but Hep C, Syphilis and God knows what else are out there, contaminated blood does not mean HIV only. Signal & Noise, book by Nate Silver, had an interesting bit of data on that. Fear of HIV led to a drop in promiscuity. It seems, however, that gay men have started hooking up based on HIV status. So positives will look for other positives, and negatives for negatives. The spread of HIV drops, but other STDs are unaffected. Old news. HIV infection in young gay males is on the rise now. The newer generation has forgotten the fear of the 80's it seems. Well, that sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:37:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why can't they mark that blood? I would not want it. That's discriminatory. Many moons ago my wife worked in a dialysis lab. They had one station inside a corner room with big glass windows. It was originally built for HIV paitents, but they couldn't discriminate against them like that. Not like they were in a position to expose tons of people to dangerous blood.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:38:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Nvm.......already cleared up
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:40:02 PM EDT
[#39]
I don't want no gay blood in me I might start suckin' dicks!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:40:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or, they could just...I don't know...lie.
What a dumb "ban". I presume the blood is tested, given that some people...I don't know...lie. You can't be "out and proud" if you are forced to lie. Forced.
Given the months-long period between HIV infection and testing positive, and given the numbers of homosexual men who are infected, this is a ridiculous notion. Spread the misery--so typical these days. Hey now, it's not misery. It's diversity being spread. Now you can have a neat multicultural outlook on life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:40:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never donated blood so I don't know how it works, but can't they just say they aren't gay? Yep. ...of course, lying kinda defeats the purpose of giving/collecting a reliably-safe blood packet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:42:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The blood donation form will ask if you have ever "received money for sex", so the hooker would be excluded. Their guidelines are based on the real world, not prejudice or social experimentation. Also, FYI for people who have never given blood, the relevant question to this thread is worded as "If you are a man, have you ever had sex with another man (even once)" at the blood bank I go to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are mad at "special snowflakes" for wanting to make donations to the Red Cross?
Oh the horror! What charity will they demand to give to next?! yea, doc. stats are a pain, as is AIDS. so, just because you want disease in your blood does not mean I do. and the fact that "can't you just test for aids?" how about why can't IV drug users give blood? how about blood born disease folks giving blood? we can test for it, correct? how about diabetic folks giving blood? we can test for it. I just love that gays are just like everyone else. lifestyle choices have consequences. gay is a lifestyle with risks. why must they demand everyone else bless their choices? did you know that blood banks don't like diabetics? well, we should demand they take our blood. it is not fair! so, you get in a car accident and need some blood. IV drug users are donating blood. you want that? I guess your trust is greater than me. blood is already expensive. to test for every known and unknown disease in every pint of blood so that a select group does not feel left out? now that is accommodation. what about law suits from giving bad blood and causing disease in an otherwise healthy person? naw, that would not happen.
How's this? Make the ban on receptive promiscuous sex rather than on being gay? A pair of married gays are no more likely to have aids than anyone else. A hooker in sub saharan Africa though........... The blood donation form will ask if you have ever "received money for sex", so the hooker would be excluded. Their guidelines are based on the real world, not prejudice or social experimentation. Also, FYI for people who have never given blood, the relevant question to this thread is worded as "If you are a man, have you ever had sex with another man (even once)" at the blood bank I go to. form also asks if as a man have you ever had sex with a man, even once, ever had oral sex with a man, even once, if a woman ever taken money for sex. Plus all blood is routinely tested for AIDS, Gonorrhea, Syphilis also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:44:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep the ban in place until assholes like me who lived too long in Western Europe can donate blood. No kidding. 14 years living in the U.S. and I still can't donate because I used to live in the U.K. and there's some miniscule chance of CJD. I mean really, after 14 years you'd know it if I was going to turn into a brain damaged mad cow. For starters I'd have changed my name to Pelosi and I'd be House Minority Leader. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:50:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
some of the gay men are know are very self destructive, often having unprotected sex with multiple strange partners and abusing IV drugs Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
if more people died from aids then we would work harder on the cure, plus it works to control the population <slaps sarcasm meter> Is this thing on?  +1 Google "bug party" and "bugchasinf" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:52:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, 'hetero-normative' is the latest buzzword among the Pro-Gays. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But of course, facts are racist straightist? IIRC, 'hetero-normative' is the latest buzzword among the Pro-Gays. I wrote about this in college. People tried to get me expelled for "bigotry" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:58:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryIt's funny because black people also have higher rates of HIV, yet nobody says a word (unless they can talk about "ghetto"/hoodrats,etc.) Of course, for many here it's more about demonizing people than anything else. Man who has protected oral sex with partner in 1977 ..... forever banned. Woman who has unprotected sex with multiple partners and no knowledge of any of their statuses...... welcome to the blood pool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:58:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think asking people questions has any effect one way or the other. But whatever, I don't have a problem with closing the gay dude loophole or whatever you want to call it. While we're at it, we might want to start asking people who buy guns if they're planning to shoot up a school. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone who advocates to increase the risk of HIV into the blood supply is a complete and utter moron. I don't think asking people questions has any effect one way or the other. But whatever, I don't have a problem with closing the gay dude loophole or whatever you want to call it. While we're at it, we might want to start asking people who buy guns if they're planning to shoot up a school. You're smarter than this, dude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:58:58 PM EDT
[#48]
I waiting for the day when insurance carriers treat queers like they treat smokers, the over weight, etc.
Increased risks and all that... I'll bet obamacare addresses that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:59:39 PM EDT
[#49]
FUCKNO!!!
you can flirt with the a.i.d.s. all you want, lets leave that out of the hetero population thanks.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 2:01:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Also, you guys know that anal sex with a woman disqualifies you from donating blood, right?
Ask me how I know that. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
