Post: #1

Here is an article talking about how the FDA is considering lifting the ban. I guess feelings and inclusion are more important than public health and welfare.

http://www.onemedical.com/blog/newsworth...-donation/

Post: #2

Considering lifting the ban --> Lifting the ban --> Making prohibition of gay donations illegal --> Encouraging donation --> Making differentiating between sources illegal --> Requiring quotas of gay blood in all transfusions

Crazy? Kind of like "one day Christians will be heavily punished for not baking a gay wedding cake" 10 years ago.

Post: #3

Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 8 gay men have HIV or AIDS. I have no idea how this could end poorly...

I can't even give blood if I've done cocaine in the last year, so I'm not sure how this would ever pass.

Post: #4

(07-08-2015 05:24 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 8 gay men have HIV or AIDS.

Do you have a source for this? Even for them, that seems a bit high.

Post: #5

What the shit. Why not allow drug addicts to give blood as well? No need to make them feel anymore 'stigmatized' for their condition than they already are?

Post: #6

WTF? Please no.

Post: #7

(07-08-2015 05:24 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 8 gay men have HIV or AIDS. I have no idea how this could end poorly...

I can't even give blood if I've done cocaine in the last year, so I'm not sure how this would ever pass.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I can never donate blood because I was an IV drug user (still am to an extent). However, they didn't care that I had Chlamydia the previous week.

Post: #8

This already occurred in the UK but with an exception; the man should be celibate for 12 months.

..Yeah. I am waiting to see the results of this when they make a mistake.

Further link; NHS

Quote:The MP says the ban shows that the "cause of equality still has barriers to break", even after the historic introduction of equal marriage legislation. "Against this background of huge social change in the cause of equality, it is still forbidden for a sexually active gay man to donate blood. Is it based on science? Or is it still based on the 1980s view of HIV and Aids?"

Fabricant says other groups are more likely to have a higher risk of HIV infection. "Thankfully, HIV is no longer the killer disease that it once was, though it still cannot be cured. But its detection is almost instant, so anyone with HIV can be prevented from donating blood. HIV is not unique to gay men; it is prevalent in straight people too. If a gay man practises safe sex, and can prove he does not have HIV, why should he not be able to donate?"

This article where I pulled the quote from is dated August 2014. What has changed between then and now is the large scale acceptance of the LGBT into the mainstream.

Notice how the MP quoted says "is it based on science?" I would think so seeing as gay men, bisexuals and trannies have an incredibly high rate of STD/STI's and it is proven by studies and GUM clinics.

Highest rates of infection for the North West is Manchester. The city is home to the largest homo population outside of the capital. Coincidence?

This argument always descends into the homo vs hetero idiocy. Straight people can get HIV and any other diseases it is proven but the degeneracy of the lifestyle homosexuals engage in is the main feeder of the high rates of illness.

I personally believe this incident; HIV NHS disaster was a result of taking blood from drug addicts and homosexuals.

Funny how no mention of the source is discussed. Perhaps if you were to look at the diseases given to those poor bastards there will be no doubt what the source was.

- HIV
- Herpes virus
- Hepatitis A, B & C


But its ok guys, even if you catch HIV you can life with it for a couple of decades!!

Post: #9

(07-08-2015 05:53 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 05:24 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  Between 1 in 6 and 1 in 8 gay men have HIV or AIDS. I have no idea how this could end poorly...

I can't even give blood if I've done cocaine in the last year, so I'm not sure how this would ever pass.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I can never donate blood because I was an IV drug user (still am to an extent). However, they didn't care that I had Chlamydia the previous week.

As a British person I can't donate blood in the US either due to mad cow disease.

Post: #10

Judging by the epidemic of gay voice in America, lots of guys have gotten an early jump on getting dat gay blood infused into their veins.

Post: #11

----------------------------------------

Post: #12

I wonder if some gays make speak out against this knowing what some of their brothers do that may be considered risky activity.

Post: #13

I was in our nations capital, Washington DC this past weekend. Gay flags everywhere. Gays everywhere. Even the straight guys looked effeminate. I was unsure of if I was in DC or San Francisco. I really hope rather then spread gays simply congregate in select cities so I can avoid them.

Post: #14

Don't they test blood for diseases like this?

Post: #15

(07-08-2015 06:17 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  I wonder if some gays make speak out against this knowing what some of their brothers do that may be considered risky activity.

Of course not because they're "breaking barriers" equality blood for all

Why aren't they passing laws where a person needs to be tested before they donate blood ? Instead of just asking questions ?

Do they test ? If not, is this not possible ?

Post: #16

(MSM (men who have sex with men) is the euphemism for guys who take it in the arse.

Tests are always done to to assure that the blood is clean. But there is still a small chance of false negative results. Even though the chance of transmission through blood transfusions after these tests is unlikely, there is still a small possibility. By blocking the 2% of the population who are homosexual, who make up 81% of the population who are HIV positive, the risk is effectively zero.

It's simple maths. Blood banks discriminate against IV drug users because they have an elevated rate of HIV. There is no reason why they shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals who also have an elevated risk of HIV.

Post: #17

I thought OP's username was "Anus Luver" at first. Thought this was going to be a kick-ass troll job

Post: #18

Bug chasing is the term for men who intentionally become infected with HIV.

Gift giving is the term for men who intentionally infect other men with HIV.

Post: #19

Damn train1. When you put it that way, I now have regrets.

Post: #20

An honest documentary about homosexuals.

Post: #21

I have long suspected GRID/HIV/AIDS positive types purposely donated blood with the express intent of infecting normal people.

If GRID/HIV/AIDS has stayed in the fag/junkie underworlds, no one would have given a nanoshit about it.

Post: #22

I grew up in New Orleans where even the vampires avoid sinking their fangs into a gay man's neck.

Post: #23

(07-08-2015 06:20 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Don't they test blood for diseases like this?

Yes they test blood for HIV but it is a stupid risk to take. What if there is a new strain of HIV that PCR DNA testing misses, or a new virus altogether that is found in immunocompromised people. I am all for equal rights but this is just unnecessary, and dumb.

Post: #24

Easy, just never get hurt.

Fucking crazy time to ride the wave of China's civilizational upswing?

Post: #25

The tests you get in a Dr office just test for antibodies which can't be detected in the blood for at least a few weeks, sometimes a few months. I wonder if they have more sophisticated tests they use for donations, but that would drive up costs even if they exist.

Seems like a bad idea.