Gay blood donors?

[Tsuko_Asura]

Uhh I would say, if anything, gay people have a much higher chance of using a condom.

Definitely this.

[pohibaba]

Do people honestly have a problem with it? Guess what, I can't give blood either, but I'm not complaining about it (I got a tattoo within the last year). Certain behaviors raise the risk level of the blood being contaminated and so to save everyone the chance they just screen a certain population right off the top.

[Marius]

what i want to know is if the gays they refuse to take blood from are included in their statistics of people who don't give blood.(since the stats are there to make you feel guilty for not giving blood even though they won't take it)

[Julian]

afk donating blood and lying about it so i can spread aids to nongays

[Colm]

Do people honestly have a problem with it? Guess what, I can't give blood either, but I'm not complaining about it (I got a tattoo within the last year). Certain behaviors raise the risk level of the blood being contaminated and so to save everyone the chance they just screen a certain population right off the top.

Because screening out a portion of the population when you're struggling to meet demands is dangerous in case of a crisis?

[Woozie]

afk donating blood and lying about it so i can spread aids to nongays

Everyone knows that non-gays can't get AIDS.

[Marius]

Everyone knows that non-gays can't get AIDS.

Thats why you get infected with gay first THEN comes the AIDS

[Fistandantilus]

Do people honestly have a problem with it? Guess what, I can't give blood either, but I'm not complaining about it (I got a tattoo within the last year). Certain behaviors raise the risk level of the blood being contaminated and so to save everyone the chance they just screen a certain population right off the top.

I think you are missing my point. I'm saying if you are testing the blood anyway, then WHY screen it, unless the test is extremely expensive or difficult to do. If testing the blood was expensive or problematic I would understand, but if you are low on blood overall and are testing it anyway, then why screen a fairly large part of the population (last I heard homosexuals make up about 10% of the population) without even testing their blood? I'm not sure how Tattoo's effect blood so I won't comment on that one, but I don't see the difference between gay and straight blood being infected having such a massively huge difference that it isn't even worth testing blood from gays.

Also, not complaining that I'm unable to give blood, I'm not gay and can give blood no problem but I still find it totally stupid.

[LinktheDeme]

Gays don't have AIDS they have GRID. (joke)

Also no one has AIDS, AIDS is just what is described as HIV when you're T-cell count goes below 50 and if it goes below then above you're no longer diagnosed with AIDS.

[Woozie]

And for all of those saying "If they test, it shouldn't matter, etc", their theory is that there's a chance for a false negative if you've contracted the virus recently. I know the whole questionnaire by heart because I've donated to the red cross a billion times and I donate plasma twice a week. The "Have you had sex with a male, even once" question is the most ridiculous one there, but it's not the only ridiculous one. Ear piercings or going to jail for three days also excludes you because apparently everyone with a piercing in the last year or whose been in jail have viral hepatitis. I don't think being gay should exclude you automatically, but you can't just tell them that since they test for it anyways, the question is irrelevant because they'll always say that the tests aren't accurate or some other BS excuse. The reason I hate the gay sex question so much is because for plasma donations, they don't even ask if I had unprotected sex AT ALL. They'd rather have a heterosexual who's had unprotected sex 300 times than a male who had protected sex with a male once because apparently they think it's a higher risk group x_x

Also, although they do test blood donations every time, I've only had my plasma tested four times (always twice in the same week once per year). So yeah, not everything they infuse into your body has been tested, though that's no reason to automatically exclude a group based on sexual preferences.

Edit: Technically, they don't test my plasma. What I meant is that when I go for a plasma donation, they sometimes take a blood sample to test it. When they do this, they take another sample on your next donation the same week. If both tests are negative, you're allowed to donate for an entire year without ever being tested again.

Edit2: Maybe they test my plasma right before it's made into their medicines or whatever? Do antibodies survive in the plasma so that they actually can be tested? If that's the case, then yeah, every sample can be tested even when they don't do it explicitly at the blood bank. My bad, I didn't think of that.

[Fistandantilus]

That actually makes a bit of sense, but I agree it should ask if you've had unprotected sex instead. Haven't actually donated blood so wasn't aware that there was a bunch of ridiculous questions.

[thatwasnifty]

The regulation is that men who have had intercourse with another man even once since 1977 cannot donate blood. (You're fine if you've been celibate since 1976, though!) The Red Cross wants this ban lifted because of dwindling blood supplies, but the FDA refuses to budge. It's obviously a political decision and not a medical one (as the FDA is wont to do, hi2u HPV vaccine), since while half of transmissions are between men, half of the recipients are black, and the FDA doesn't ban black people from donating blood. HIV/AIDS in the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

(What's interesting about that chart is that for gay sex, they just say "male-to-male sexual contact," while for straight sex they say "high risk heterosexual contact," as if all gay sex is inherently high risk. If that's not blatant bias there then I don't know what is.)

[pohibaba]

Anal sex is inherently high risk, and I don't think that they're counting oral sex as sex.

[Blackmagik]

It's obviously a risk thing based on a stereotype, but that's pretty ridiculous that they are trying to "play it safe" and stop it right there by denying donations entirely based on sexual preference. As if they don't trust their own disease screening process post-donation. There must not be a big demand for blood? Either way that's pretty fucked up, I'm suprised this hasn't hit the news in a big way.

also: I heard gay blood transfusions turn you gay.

in the early 1990s, Canada had a huge scandal with the blood, alot of infected blood was being tested and cleard, but it was actually infected with STDs or some sort of bacteria, thats why the Red Cross no longer handles the blood services in canada, and a new organization was formed "Canadian Blood Services", and because of that, they be extra careful, they rather not take the risk and cause another big problem like before. so... even though it might deny some people who fall into that category, look from the perspective of a person who receives the blood...

(they also ask if you have been to "high risk areas", like Africa, Mexico or something like that, its not just aids, but other diseases or infections too)

[thatwasnifty]

Anal sex is inherently high risk, and I don't think that they're counting oral sex as sex.

But there are ways to minimize the risk. While anal sex in general may be riskier than hetero sex, two monogamous partners who use protection are safer than some slut on the pill.

[Colm]

Condoms and keeping that area clean both minimize the risk factor. Yes, there are times where your anal cavity isn't housing any shit. ;x

[pohibaba]

But there are ways to minimize the risk. While anal sex in general may be riskier than hetero sex, two monogamous partners who use protection are safer than some slut on the pill.

My point wasn't that "fags are disease infested animals." I was commenting to your point:

What's interesting about that chart is that for gay sex, they just say "male-to-male sexual contact," while for straight sex they say "high risk heterosexual contact," as if all gay sex is inherently high risk. If that's not blatant bias there then I don't know what is.

They don't need to break up homosexual sex because it's ALL inherently more risky than vaginal sex (unless gay people have sex in some other way I haven't imagined. If that's the case just tell me I'm wrong, but give me NONE of the details).

[Mici]

I can't donate blood because I was born in London in 85, although my mom came back to the U.S. by the time i was 6mo old, I can NEVER donate blood, plasma, sperm, anything.

They are afraid I have dormant madcow and it will kill people.
So same as the gays, its retarded, and based on fear more than any actual evidence.

[LinktheDeme]

Anal sex is inherently high risk, and I don't think that they're counting oral sex as sex.

Anal Sex, Oral Sex, and Vaginal Sex is all high risk.

men to men relationships have 25% chance of contracting HIV

men to women relationships have 18% chance of contracting HIV

Sharing heroine needles have a 12% chance of contracting HIV

. . . The more you know

edit: also 50% of the people who have HIV are black I believe so if the people were black the numbers were even higher. Even if one person is black it's alot higher. 25% of people with HIV are white. other 25% is a mix of all left over races so have sex with asian people its safest!

[pohibaba]

My argument is that anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex. All you did by posting this stat:

men to men relationships have 25% chance of contracting HIV

men to women relationships have 18% chance of contracting HIV

is help prove my point. And I don't simply mean gay anal sex; I mean ALL anal sex.