Canadian Drive Doesn't Want Gay Blood

[ElementMK]

A Canadian judge recently upheld a gay blood donation ban set by the Canadian Blood Services (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/challenge-fails-against-blood-donation-policy-that-effectively-bans-gay-men-102532209.html) (CBS) after a man lied about his sexual orientation while giving blood and was fined $10,000.

The supporters of the ban say that there is a "high relative prevalence" of HIV and other blood-born sexually transmitted pathogens among men who have sex with men, while critics say that it is discriminatory, and that "members of the gay community get blood as well", meaning that safety is important for everyone, including gay people.

Keep in mind that the reason why the ban was upheld was because CBS is not affiliated with the government, and therefore the Charter of Rights doesn't apply to them. Also, my question isn't whether the ruling was correct, but if there should be a ban in the first place.

In my opinion, it's idiotic to ban gays on this premise. All blood is tested, so they'll catch cases of HIV and other problems either way. It sounds like a case of homophobia to me. Oh, Canada.

[milkiemybaby]

Oh, Canada. You'd think it would have progressed past something this prejudiced and ignorant by now.

[fakepeeps7]

It's bullsh*t. If a guy had sex with one other guy since 1977, he can't donate blood? Give me a break.

The rules need to be altered. I'd much rather get blood from a gay man who's been monogamous for the last 10 years than a heterosexual who's had 6 partners in that same time period.

It also bothers me that, by excluding gay men from donating blood, they're equating them with drug users and prostitutes.

And, potentially, wouldn't allowing more people to donate blood save lives in the long run? If someone donates blood and they find out they're HIV positive, they can take proper steps not to spread it around. By assuming that all gay men are carrying HIV and denying them the opportunity to donate, the blood services people may actually be helping to spreading the disease...

[Purity4]

It's bullsh*t. If a guy had sex with one other guy since 1977, he can't donate blood? Give me a break.

The rules need to be altered. I'd much rather get blood from a gay man who's been monogamous for the last 10 years than a heterosexual who's had 6 partners in that same time period.

It also bothers me that, by excluding gay men from donating blood, they're equating them with drug users and prostitutes.

And, potentially, wouldn't allowing more people to donate blood save lives in the long run? If someone donates blood and they find out they're HIV positive, they can take proper steps not to spread it around. By assuming that all gay men are carrying HIV and denying them the opportunity to donate, the blood services people may actually be helping to spreading the disease...
Yes to all of that and :

All blood is tested, so they'll catch cases of HIV and other problems either way.

Because perhaps not everyone is aware all blood is tested for HIV and other things anyway, regardless of how the donor answered the silly questions.

[kiwi_tea]

It's the same in NZ. I understand the desire to be cautious, but the science isn't really there to support a total ban on homosexual donors. I'm 0-, so it's a damn shame I can't donate.

[Vanito]

They should only let lesbians donate. A dutch test showed 60% of straight couples onlce in a while has anal sex. Lesbians are much safer.

[Princess Leia]

Eh, but even lesbians can and do experiment once in a while. They should only let small children donate. Much safer. :deal:

[Tenielle]

Is donor blood not screened for the presence of HIV (or other pathogens) in Canada?

Provided the blood serology is clean, there should be no issue with homosexual men donating blood. Yes, the incidence of HIV is higher among this community, but heterosexual men and women (even if they are not drug users or prostitutes) can still be infected with HIV. If a donors serology comes back as negative for blood-borne pathogens, they should be able to donate regardless of their sexual orientation.

If I required a life saving blood transfusion, I would much rather take the tested donated blood of a homosexual man than bleed to death.

They should only let lesbians donate. A dutch test showed 60% of straight couples onlce in a while has anal sex. Lesbians are much safer.

I'm not sure what this statement has to do with anything. Anal sex doesn't equate to HIV. If both partners, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, do not have STDs or STIs, there is no difference between anal sex and vaginal intercourse.
And lesbians can still engage in anal penetration- there are a variety of interesting toys available that make this possible. If infected bodily fluids are transferred from one person to another, regardless of how it was done (vaginal, anal, oral ect), there is the potential that the other person may develop the illness... even if they are lesbian.

[Mistermook]

I agree. Small children. Preferably orphans, fed on sugar water and farmed properly they should get several gallons a week from a properly treated child.

[anothereyjana]

Unfortunately it is also the same here in the US with the American Red Cross. I agree, however, that it is nothing more than needless homophobia.

I'm not sure what this statement has to do with anything. Anal sex doesn't equate to HIV. If both partners, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, do not have STDs or STIs, there is no difference between anal sex and vaginal intercourse.

Supposedly, it is easier to catch STDs and such through anal intercourse, due to the lining (or due to how absorbant it is or something, since a lot of water is also collected through the large intestines).

....Aaand now thanks to that "absorbant" bit I'm now reminded of paper towel commercials. I really hate how my mind works sometimes. :(

[Tenielle]

Supposedly, it is easier to catch STDs and such through anal intercourse, due to the lining (or due to how absorbant it is or something, since a lot of water is also collected through the large intestines).

....Aaand now thanks to that "absorbant" bit I'm now reminded of paper towel commercials. I really hate how my mind works sometimes. :(

While it is true that anal sex with an infected partner can more easilly spread sexually transmitted infection or disease due to the increased mucous membrane of the anus, if both partners are clean, HIV (or any other infection/disease) cannot be spread.

Heterosexual couples can both engage in anal sex and test positive for all sexually transmitted infections and diseases, yet are still able to donate blood.

Providing that the donated blood is tested before being distributed there is no scientific basis for not allow homosexual men to donate blood. It just seems a little backward when donated blood is such a precious commodity and there are willing (and clean) donors.

[el_flel]

It's the same way in the UK too.

[SchiZohybrid]

Sadly, this seems to be the case in Norway as well, guidelines posted on the Norwegian Red Cross blood donor site is similar to what Wojtek quotes. A few articles on news sites informs it has been up for discussion if men that has been in sexual contact with other men should be allowed to donate blood recently - opinions on this is scattered wildly among political parties and individuals. Honestly, since Sweden opened up for gay blood donors, I kind of expected Norway to follow.

Interestingly enough, we still want them to donate their organs. (Same restrictions on disease and conditions as for straights apply.)

[crocobaura]

'Persons who because of their sexual behavior are at increased risk of serious infection diseases which can spread through blood transfusions'

No word about homosexuals and the 'sexual behavior' described may apply to anyone whose sexual activities are somewhat emmm...risky :blink: ??



We have similar requirements, and they actually don't let you donate blood if you've had more than one or two sex partners during the last six months. You also can't donate if you're pregnant, if you have skin diseasese, if you've had surgery during the last six months, if you're a pilot, truck driver or operate heavy machinery, or if you are in a profession that involves caring for animals. Regarding HIV, blood does get tested but it usually takes about six months for the infection to become visible in blood tests so I can see why they would try to eliminate as much as possible the risks for contamination. Besides, people also tend to lie if they are poor and donate for the benefits they get from donating. Don't know how it's in other countries, but in my country they give you some food coupons and a day off from work and some bus fare discounts.

[fakepeeps7]

Is donor blood not screened for the presence of HIV (or other pathogens) in Canada?

Of course it's screened. They learned that lesson from the Hepatitis C debacle. At least, I hope they learned something from that...

Anal sex doesn't equate to HIV.

I think the issue/fear here is that anal sex could cause ruptures or cuts in the anus. That's a great way for the virus to enter the bloodstream. Having anal sex doesn't mean you're more likely to be carrying the disease in the first place... but it probably increases the risk of transmitting it.

Eh, but even lesbians can and do experiment once in a while. They should only let small children donate. Much safer.

Is it really safer? I thought all children were rife with Hepatitis B. Isn't that why they stick them with the vaccine right after birth? :rolleyes:

Size matters, though. Children wouldn't be allowed to donate blood, no matter how clean it was. I've yet to reach the required weight for blood donation. I've been about 5 pounds short my whole adult life. I'd be willing to donate... but they don't want my skinny-ass blood. Eh... their loss.

[ElementMK]

Having anal sex doesn't mean you're more likely to be carrying the disease in the first place... but it probably increases the risk of transmitting it.There's also the more frequent lack of condom use, since anal sex won't produce, er, children if it's unprotected. However, this is still highly irrelevant to the matter when blood is tested no matter what.

[TakaWolfen]

Besides, people also tend to lie if they are poor and donate for the benefits they get from donating. Don't know how it's in other countries, but in my country they give you some food coupons and a day off from work and some bus fare discounts.

Here in Canada there is no money given to donate, you donate because you want to.

In regards to Anal sex, people rarely use condoms, and it doesn't equal pregnancy, BUT there is NO lubrication there to soften the 'ahem' movements. Which creates a bigger happening of tears, which will open yourself up immensely for the virus to pass through the fluid of the member, into the tears. That is why anal sex can be extremely dangerous if you do not use a condom AND lube.

[paksetti]

Who wouldn't use lube? Ow.

I'm pretty sure you guys know how I feel about this- Headdesk. Such a moronic decision. That's like turning a donor away because you think their haircut is stupid. Thank you, Canada, for restoring my faith in humanity.

Canadians are such fags, bro.

[Vanito]

Its lame that people are often banned because they are gay, bi whatever, wether they are virgins or not, sexually active or not. The thing is, people probably will feel safer when a label says "exclude gays", taking into consideration the large amount of non tolerant and "semi tolerant" (aka semi intolerant) people.

[anothereyjana]

Who wouldn't use lube? Ow.

...There are some kinky, kinky bastards out there. Rule 34 people, Rule 34.

And yeah, like I said, the whole "gays can't donate blood" thing is ridiculous and downright homophobic, and it saddens me to find out that it is apparently so widespread. Plus, you can't even really follow the supposed logic behind it, other than that some people apparently think that homosexuality can be spread via bodily fluids. "Don't let their blood git in ya, it'll turn ya GAAYY!!" :rolleyes: Sorry people, but there's only one type of "bodily fluid exchange" that can determine if you're gay or not. ;)

As for the whole "HIV risk" thing, if they were really serious about watching out for it, they would require all adults to have proof that they have been tested for STDs within the past year before they can donate. That would do a hell of a lot more for curbing HIV/AIDS/other STDs than discrimination will.

[Vanito]

...There are some kinky, kinky bastards out there. Rule 34 people, Rule 34.

And yeah, like I said, the whole "gays can't donate blood" thing is ridiculous and downright homophobic, and it saddens me to find out that it is apparently so widespread. Plus, you can't even really follow the supposed logic behind it, other than that some people apparently think that homosexuality can be spread via bodily fluids. "Don't let their blood git in ya, it'll turn ya GAAYY!!" :rolleyes: Sorry people, but there's only one type of "bodily fluid exchange" that can determine if you're gay or not. ;)

As for the whole "HIV risk" thing, if they were really serious about watching out for it, they would require all adults to have proof that they have been tested for STDs within the past year before they can donate. That would do a hell of a lot more for curbing HIV/AIDS/other STDs than discrimination will.
There are quite some couples that do not have sex anymore in their marriages, so having those tested then donate half a year later would work better. People can always lie, and there are already lying gays on gayseites (who find the rules ridiculous since they are not sexing around) so rules only work half anyway.

I consider myself self-tolerant but I'm not homophobic because homophobia means acts of hatred and aggression towards the homosexuals. I'm not like that. I only think it's too early to establish laws allowing homosexual marriages/homosexual couples adopting children in Poland. The situation is not as easy as majority of you think. It's very complex and sensitive. The political situation in my country is very unstable and the society is divided. We cannot even deal with simple matters such as the cross in front of the Presidential Palace. You cannot change the society immediately, everything needs time.

Just to remind you: When WWII had ended western Europe was living in a world of freedom while eastern Europe was under USRR rule. There was no freedom in communist Poland and other countries of eastern Europe. Although we've been free for 20 years it's too early to impose radical and controversial changes. You have to understand and respect it. That's the way tolerance works. Bear in mind you cannot attack intolerant people if you don't actually understand why they're like that.
Where you live may affect the propaganda you get stuffed down your throat. It does not take away the free choice to be tolerant or not.

When someone says they are semi tolerant to gays to some it may sound ok or normal, to me it doenst sounds any better than people who say they are only semi-tolerant to black people. Narrowmindedness is a choice in itself wether its packed as hate, fear or dislike ror baling it on culture. Wherever you live.

[kuplo]

Very strange how ignorant many groups still are today.

Where we live, it is oh maybe 80% gay people in the area, so we have aquired quite a few (many) gay friends through work, going out to the restaurants, and just walking the dogs around the streets here.

While I know it's not some scientific study or anything and far from ever being able to say that either the minority or the majority of gay people are the same as our many friends, what I do know is that out of the many gay friends that we have here, the vast majority of them are in monogomous (sorry spelling) relationships and have been for 5, 10, 20, up to 50 years in some of our friends cases. Completely one on one like husband and well... husband.

From my way of seeing it, the gay people that are in these commited relationships and that don't cheat on each other have a as much chance of coming down with HIV or Aids as any of the other straight couples in the area that are also in a committed and monogamous relationship.

It sounds to me like this CBS is assuming that 'all' homosexuals sleep around with any old guy they can shack up with for a night, which if true would obviously put them at a greater risk for catching a disease, if not HIV or Aids, and assuming they are not practicing safe sex.

I don't know, it just sounds crazy to me to exclude a portion of the population because they 'might' be of the minority of people in general in this world that are shacking up with everybody they possibly can.

Don't get me wrong, obviously there are gay people just as their are straight people that do try to notch their bedposts with as many people as they can have sex with, but to exclude an entire group of people based on the assumption seems a little high handed to me.

One of my best friends is gay, actually he probably is my best male friend and he's been in a relationship with his partner now for over 35 years, and assures me that neither of them have any desire to go sexing around with strangers and neither do as he tells me, I just can't imagine if he was willing to donate blood to get down to a blood bank and be told 'sorry, we don't want your gay blood', I suppose if I went down to a blood bank to give blood with him and heard that I'd likely go off the wall on the person and let them have an earful they'd not likely forget anytime too soon.

With the ability to test the blood for almost all forms of disease it seems a huge waste to me to exclude a population that might be willing to donate their blood to help others.

It does indeed sound to me like it's nothing more than a very homophobic run organization. I do have to wonder though if whomever it is at that organization was in need of blood or would die and the only available blood was from a gay person, whether they would take the blood or let themselves die.

Reminds me of a situation we had around here about 3 or 4 years ago with a terrible accident where this couples child was hit by a car (accidental) around the block, the childs parents were known to be one of the most forward stepping homophobic people in the area, but yet the women was more than willing to take assistance for her child from the man that lived next door that they had shunned for supposedly years because he was gay.

I guess it just makes me wonder what sort of catastrophe it would take where the blood service would be willing to lift the restriction and take some 'gay blood' in the face of some huge emergency.

Sorry for the long(ish) post, I am a very liberal person and fully believe in live and let live if one does not harm one another, and I've yet to see the harm in any of my friends being gay, but have seen plenty of anger and sometimes tears in their eyes for those times that they are face with discrimination or hatred simply because they are gay. When I heard some of the stories from the really older gay men about what they had to endure in their lives just because somebody else couldn't live and let others live when they are not hurting anybody and doesn't have the brainpower to possibly research the situation, but rather just take the biggoted or homophobic path in life just makes me want to puke.

Anyway, again my apologies, I was remembering some of the stories that we heard at some house get togethers and it sometimes makes me embarrased just to be a part of the human race.

Somebody needs to ask CBS where that tainted blood came from, is it all from homosexual men who lied on their paperwork and who didn't know they had HIV or some other communicable disease, or was some of it from the straight guy that didn't bother to mention that he too was sleeping with any women that would take him and an eight ball for the night. Yuck, it's just shameful to me that we as human beings haven't evolved past this already.

Yeah, I'm sure that one morning I'm going to kick my fiance out of the bed and pronounce that I've decided to go homosexual because we go out to dinner too often with our neighbor Curtis and Paul. Pffft, stupid humans.

[kiwi_tea]

Wojtek there's a lot I'm tempted to say right now, but it all belongs in another thread.

[Lemon&Lime]

In the UK, we have a fairly high percentage of gay men with HIV. I saw a news report a few months ago in which some statistics came out - that 1 in every 10 gay men is HIV positive. I think some of those are unaware (they get these statistics from routine blood tests, if they do a random blood test on you for another reason they wont necessarily tell you that you have HIV). A bit of a dodgy statistic, but scare-mongering none-the-less.

The gay activists were saying that if it was heterosexual people it would be a national emergency, but because everyone is against them its homophobia as to why people aren't going crazy. Personally at the time I thought it was because gay men are a relatively small demographic, but that's just me.

I think it is disgusting that even here in the UK we won't let people give blood if they've had sex with a man (and are a man themselves). It's all because of the "gay plague" scare in the 1960s (so-called because it was first detected in a gay community in the USA). I honestly can't understand why it's still banned.

[el_flel]

In the last 10-15 years or so the rates of infection via heterosexual sex has actually overtaken the rates of infection via homosexual sex, meaning that when you look at transmission statistics (http://www.avert.org/uk-transmission-route.htm) you can see that the rates are now virtually equal for both.

Whilst I understand why the Red Cross (and other countries' equivalents) will not accept donations from men who have sex with men - they are a high risk group - I don't necessarily agree with it. Blood is screened and you're equally likely to catch HIV from a straight partner than a gay one. With the way that transmission routes are changing I think this is something that will be phased out in the coming years.

[Vanito]

The place where you live has an influence. If you're not aware of that go to Saudi Arabia and tell that you're gay. I hope you won't suffer for a long time before they kill you. I assume Nordic countries are most tolerant when it comes to homosexuality. In spite of their 'tolerance' they abuse and offend people from eastern Europe without a reason. I know that because I have friends who worked in England, Norway and Holland and they told me how they were treated. They were harassed and abused and paid less money than the locals. Is this the 'tolerance' you're talking about? Criticizing us is a soft option but an attempt to understand our attitude involves research but you prefer using stereotypes. This is narrowmindedness. Just to remind you Poland is a Catholic country and it has a huge influence on people who live there. The Bible tell that God created a man and a woman to populate Earth. I don't believe in God and neither do I treat the Bible as a source of any knowledge but I do find homosexuality weird just because I do. Homosexuals in Poland are treated the way they are because their behavior towards normal people is wrong. Organizing stupid parades in Warsaw just to show you're gay/lesbian is a misunderstanding. It makes people upset and their attitude towards gays deteriorates.
I agreed with you the way foreigners are exploited are bad. Your arguments are hypocrite. Treating slavic people is bad in our country, but treating your own gay people in your country is not bad because of "culture" and "the government" and other crappy excuses. Gay people in your country follow the example of how the gays got rights here. They will have to fight for their rights because noone else will in your country. Unlike our government which at least tries to help slavic people from beeing exploited. You measure with two standards here.

[fakepeeps7]

You all treat people from eastern Europe like shit and yet try to defend the Romani people and yell how poor they are as they don't even care to find a job or respect the law. Your 'tolerance' is fake because you use stereotypes to describe other people. I've been to England and was shocked because people there didn't know where Poland was situated. Do you imagine that? So how come one assess people when one don't even know where their countries are situated.

:blink:

[fakepeeps7]

Wojtek, you're being ignorant, hypocritical, and downright rude. Get educated before you go making a fool of yourself.

[TRIriana]

I don't understand why gay people/activists behave like rude children. Their situation is not that bad. Why do people defend the homosexuals? They decided to be homosexual and confess and they should all deal with their choice and face all advantages and advantages of it. The homosexuals have well-paid jobs and often enjoy their lifes (sometimes even too much lol). Nobody thinks about poor people who really need help. Poor people do not organize stupids parades to show what they're like. Such people have no opportunity to develop or even earn a living. I know what I write because I live in a country where a lot of people earn little money and have problems like bad living conditions and malnutrition. Moreover the poorest regions of Poland (the south and the east) faced severe flooding several times this summer. These are the real problems we have to face. Oh? You didn't know about that? What a pity. This is the reason I'm very upset because people whose situation is fairly good complain about 'discrimination'. They have too much and want even more. This is my concern.

I assume you are aware that homosexuals are not one large entity, when you apparently claim that they all have well-paid jobs? Seriously, this post is disgusting.


Regarding the actual topic at hand, being gay should not be a reason to disallow giving blood. That they are barred is utterly ridiculous.

[el_flel]

Wow, gay-bashing and England-bashing. Nice. And totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

[kiwi_tea]

That's right Wojtek. I want the right to adopt. And the right to call my marriage "marriage" and my husband my "husband". And the right to not be fired because I have a husband. And I want people to realise I'm not a creep, or bad, or wrong, or disgusting. And I want people to realise that a life pretending to be straight is disgusting. And I want to take all of your first born sons and raise them in special gay-making concentration camps so that I can have an army of hot boys who will do my every bidding. And I want to rule with an iron fist. AND if I want to start calling apples "bananas" and fishes "ironing boards", I want to be able to. No-one can disagree!

All I am is an empty shell who wants more. More. More! MOoooooooooORE!

[el_flel]

I know but I don't like when someone labels people 'hypocritical' or 'homophobic' when he/she doesn't even know the source of such behavior.

I am educated and know what I'm talking about. Your attitude shows you have no respect for people who are honest and that you don't know anything about eastern Europe. Read something about Poland and Lithuania and you'll know why our attitude is so fierce. Why do all of you defend the homosexuals? They're not the people who need special treatment or compassion. They're not the disabled or mentally ill. My point is that all this gays' movements are pointless. They enjoy their lifes and yet want more and more.Is this serious?! People are calling you intolerant and homophobic because that is exactly what you are being. What the hell does the 'source of such behaviour' have to do with anything? I don't give a monkeys whether you're from eastern Europe, the Middle East or Mars - you are being offensive and clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Gay movements are not pointless because homosexuality is discriminated against. End of.

EDIT: And stop sitting there and telling other people to read up about your country when you clearly have no/little understanding of other's countries.

[fakepeeps7]

I am educated and know what I'm talking about.

You're clearly not educated if you think homosexuality is a choice. Do you really think people sit around and say, "I think I'll be gay today so I can lose some of my rights, have people shout disgusting slurs at me, possibly get assaulted, and be looked upon as a disease-carrying monster"? Yeah... that makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

Your attitude shows you have no respect for people who are honest and that you don't know anything about eastern Europe. Read something about Poland and Lithuania and you'll know why our attitude is so fierce.

So I need to read about Eastern Europe to learn why you're homophobic? Huh...

I'm being honest when I say you're rude, ignorant, and intolerant. You're not the only one who's allowed to be honest.

Why do all of you defend the homosexuals?

Because they're people. Just like you. (Although I'm sure many of them have a lot more compassion than you do.)

They're not the people who need special treatment or compassion.

So gays don't deserve compassion? Geez...

As long as there are people like you in the world, they will need special treatment and compassion. Somebody's got to protect their rights. (And they're really not asking for "special" treatment, anyway; they just want the same thing as everybody else.)

They're not the disabled or mentally ill. My point is that all this gays' movements are pointless. They enjoy their lifes and yet want more and more.

And you're not gay, you have more rights than gay people, you enjoy your life, and yet you want to take away from the lives of others.

Nice.

[Nekowolf]

I'll leave out my opinion on the matter of what Wojtek said.

Rather, this reminds me of something I learned in a philosophy class I took. A clashing of cultures. On one hand, you could criticize but it would likely be based on a culture you grew up with and understand, finding certain parts of another distasteful within your own.

On the other hand, it is the same for them, having grown up in that other culture. So the question then becomes who is right, on what grounds is the judgment, is it reasonable, etc.

I'm finding this rather interesting. A lesson of philosophy in the making.

[Purity4]

Yet another thread where Wojtek tries to justify his own homophobia, racism, sexism or other bigotry. :rolleyes:

[pinketamine]

I really don't think that people are homophobic or intolerant just based on the country they come from. Of course it has some influence, as well as the education has, but it does not "depend on" when you come from. I also understand that some countries have "more important things" to care about that gay rights, but that does not mean that homosexual do not suffer discrimination. In some countries in the world, there is even a death penalty for homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have the same rights that heterosexual people, even in developed countries, so I think that gay movements do have sense; for me, it is the same than feminism, which was discussed here not long ago. Until homosexuals have the same rights that heterosexuals they should continue "fighting".

Homosexuality is not a choice, if it was, many people would have chosen not to be homosexual, so they would not suffer discrimination. I don't understand why you are mixing this topic with WWII, because I can't see how they are related.

As for the topic itself, I think that the "people with risky sexual habits" is a definition that can cause discrimination. Nowadays, heterosexuals are affected by VIH almost in the same number than gay people, at least here in Spain.

Here the requisites are:
Being older than 18, weighing more than 50 Kg ( can't donate because of this), not having donated in the last 6 months.
You can't donate if you have any illness that can be transmited with infected blood, you are diabetic or epileptic, or you have a serious illness. The blood is tested anyway, but I guess that is a previous "security system".
You can't temporaly donate if you had got pierced or tattoed in the last year, if you have travelled to a tropical country during the last year, during pregnancy and until 6 months after giving birth.
And lastly, you can't temporaly donate if you have made any risky activity which can mean blood-to-blood contact: exchange of blades, needles or toothbrushes; having sex without condoms...

[Purity4]

And in the United States, you cannot donate if you've visited or lived in Great Britian since either since ~ 2003 during a time frame somewhere around that year, I can't remember exactly. I just know my sister cannot because she lived in England during this time and there was a mad cow disease outbreak in the country at the same time and due to the timing, prevents my sister, with O+ blood type, from ever donating blood or blood plasma. And they don't take into account she'd been a long time vegetarian and was vegan during the time she lived there.

[el_flel]

Wojtek - Thanks for the history lesson, but I repeat: it's not relevant to this debate. Homophobia is defined as negative attitudes and behaviour towards homosexuality - you have clearly expressed these negative attitudes in your posts in this thread and that is why people are calling you intolerant. Please don't use your country as an excuse for behaving this way, people aren't going to fall for it. Just because it's more accepted in your country doesn't make it right. Oppression of women is more accepted in many Middle Eastern countries but that doesn't mean that kind of behaviour or thinking is ok. It is tantamount to religious fanatics saying 'homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so!'. You have your own mind. If it's something you want to debate then start up a new thread.

pinketamine - summed it up beautifully.

Purity4 - I've seen that said before about mad cow disease. We also had a foot and mouth outbreak here roughly around the same time and I think that possible exposure to that has also meant that people from other countries who visited us around that time haven't been to donate either (possibly those from Australia and NZ in addition to the US? I know they are quite stringent about what gets brought into the countries and that extends to disease). I don't really get it though because obviously us English were also exposed to it yet we're still allowed to donate?

[fakepeeps7]

I'll give you a small emotional lecture because it seems you aren't taught this at school because it's so inconvenient.

You're assuming I wasn't taught this at school.

You deny to read about countries of eastern Europe because you don't care.

Again, you're assuming. I took European history in high school. I could've taken Canadian history instead, but I wanted to learn about more than my own country. I read plenty about Eastern Europe.

That's a very common attitude of people from the west.

Now you're stereotyping. And being arrogant.

They label people from eastern Europe 'homophobic' and 'offensive' and have no idea why we are like that.

Are you actually trying to justify your homophobia? What did gay people every do to you, Wojtek? Besides make you feel uncomfortable because they're not like you, I mean.

We had a very painful history full of violence and discrimination.

I won't argue with that. But you can probably say the same thing about every region of the world. You guys don't have the monopoly on violence and discrimination. Nor does your history give you the right to be violent and discriminatory now just because those things were once directed at you.

You don't even know what patriotism and national pride means.

How do you know?

We're proud and patriotic.

Sometimes too much pride isn't such a good thing.

Although we were russified, germanised we managed to retain our national treasure, our language. Our lands were being taken/stolen, we were being displaced/killed like toys. Our language was being forbidden by the foreign authorities. We were ruled by different nations who could spit at us and we could not even say a word. We had to struggle in order to keep our language and culture. We had to risk our lifes to let our offsprings lead a better life in a modern and democratic country.

That's certainly commendable. But, again, all of that doesn't give you the right to now turn around and treat other people like crap.

You certainly have no idea who defeated the Crusaders in 1940.

In 1940? The Mongols defeated them in 1240...

You don't even know who saved you from a Soviet invasion in 1920.

No, I'm afraid I don't, because I'm not sure who "you" is or what invasion you mean. Are you talking about the Polish-Soviet War?

You don't know who helped you during the Battle of Britain.

The Poles, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the Czechoslovaks, the Australians, the Belgians... Do I need to go on?

Who fought in Narvik or Monte Cassino, Tobruk?

You can't take credit for everything. Just because the Poles participated doesn't mean they were the only ones there.

Who made the communist government collapse in eastern Europe?

Each country with a revolution. Just because Poland was the first doesn't mean it was responsible for the complete fall of communism. That's oversimplifying things.

Who created the first constitution in Europe?

Poland. So what? The U.S.A. beat you by a few years.

Who founded the first legal political oppositional party in the communist block? Who helped Georgia during a Russian invasion in 2008?

Let me guess... Poland?

France and England did nothing to help Poland when it was overrun by the Nazi Germany in September 1939. You treated Poland and Moravia like a worthless clutter you can give away and use to protect yourself and to appease Hitler. You allied with Soviet Union that attacked us on 17 September. You sold half of Europe to USRR only to suck up to USRR. You simply betrayed us and yet dare to offend us.

I did all that? I wasn't even born yet!

The allies were winners and no compensation was given to Poland as it was destroyed. Our capital was totally destroyed after the Warsaw uprising. Other cities like Kołobrzeg, Szczecin, Wrocław, Gdańsk, Poznań and other major cities.

And...?

See Poland and Lithuania. Yes, Lithuania exists my dear. It's a country is it not? Did you know about it? Come on! And they speak Lithuanian wow! How come you didn't know that!

Don't take that condescending tone with me. And stop making assumptions. I know perfectly well that Lithuania is a country.

It was a shameful and cowardly act of desperation and lame attempt to fulfill Hitler's ill ambitions. Who do you think you are to call us names?

I'm not calling you names. I'm merely pointing out your ignorance and bigotry.

We did so much and what do we face nowadays? Hatred, calling names, offending stereotypes, racial slurs, treating us like worthless shit!

You advocate treating others like worthless shit. What's the matter... you can dish it out but you can't take it?

Is it the tolerance you're representing? Your attitude explains everything. You know? I don't care how many 'disagree' buttons I will collect. You can disagree but the truth doesn't have to be defended. The truth defends itself and history proves it.

Listen, Wojtek. I have no problem with Polish people. In fact, I worked closely with a few of them years ago, and they were some of the nicest people I've ever met. You, on the other hand, are a completely different beast. You're getting all hot and bothered about my attitude, when you're the one who can't bear to have your failings pointed out to you. You're the one who's trying to justify homophobia by dragging your poor country into it. Do yourself a favour and stop now before you give your fellow countrymen a bad name.

And just for the record (and to get back on topic), Canada isn't the only country that bans blood donations from homosexual men. The views of all Canadians aren't represented by the Canadian Blood Services, either, so please don't paint us all with the same brush. We're actually fairly tolerant of homosexuality. We've got legal gay marriage, some rockin' pride parades that have become family events, and some pretty strict hate crimes laws. If anything, CBS is out of step with much of Canadian society.

[mangaroo]

Don't be afraid to start a new topic when what you want to say has absolutely nothing to do with this one, people.

[fakepeeps7]

Don't be afraid to start a new topic when what you want to say has absolutely nothing to do with this one, people.

Hehe... sorry. I tried to bring it back around to the topic at hand.

[Vanito]

People with attitudes like Wojtek, are simply adding to the gay discrimination crap, which will only add to the anti gay attitude of blood donations, because those are driven by fear and hate in the first place.

Sugarcoated words like "semi tolerant" do not cover that up.

When people keep denying the fact that they are acting no better than racists, some people swallow those words and the world will never chance. Give me an openly homophobic anytime over a hypocrite attitude.

[Lemon&Lime]

You all treat people from eastern Europe like shit and yet try to defend the Romani people and yell how poor they are as they don't even care to find a job or respect the law. Your 'tolerance' is fake

Actually the Romani people get it a lot worse than you do. I suggest you look up the thread in which people talk about Roma Gypsys, they have a much worse deal than Polish. Polish people are more respected in Britiain because they work, at the end of the day.

Also, I think your opinions are backward, and have no place in modern society. Go back to the dark days and throw rocks at homosexuals while scratching your ears and saying "ug". Your intolerance is shocking. Gay men have just as much right to adopt as men and women are. Also I agree with Vanito, "semi-tolerant" just means intolerant, apart from with a middle-class spin on it.

I apologize to others on this thread for being so verbally aggressive.

[el_flel]

I'll try to calm down but I don't promise anything. I'm a very over-emotional person and it's very easy for me to lose my temper as you experienced reading my posts. Moreover I had a terrible headache yesterday that affected my head, temples, nasal sinus and cheekbones. I had a sleepless night because of the pain. I was thinking about my behavior and decided to apologize to all of you who felt offended by my statements.That's very good of you to apologise.

It doesn't however change the fact that I'm highly surprised that you don't want to accept the fact that there are people in this world that do not agree with homosexual marriages or homosexual couples adopting children and find it rather unsuitable or inappropriate in the place they live.People do accept it, but they disagree with it and don't understand it. Why does it matter to anyone else whether a man loves women or men (or vice versa)? All gay people want is the same rights as straight people, in exactly the same way that women want the same rights as men. It's not unreasonable, in fact it's completely reasonable.

The homosexuals should have a better idea to draw the attention of other people.A better idea to draw attention than what? Pride parades? They aren't anything to do with gaining equal rights; they are about showing that they have nothing to be ashamed of just because they're gay, lesbian, bi or transgender.

If they started helping the disabled or mentally ill and did some actions other people find worthy and worth attention or approval. They should present themselves as helpful people who care about the others and show they're worth recognition.
But why should they have to do these things just to be given something they should have anyway? There are no legitimate reasons why gay people shouldn't have exactly the same rights as straight people, so why should they have to prove they are worthy of equal rights? They don't need to prove anything, they are worthy of equal rights simply by being human.

I also experience discrimination.So does everyone, mate.

If it's not a matter of choice what is it?Biology. Read this post. (http://nene.modthesims.info/showpost.php?p=3096378&postcount=379) Do you choose to be straight? No, of course you don't, so why is it any different for gay people?

[HystericalParoxysm]

Remember, this topic is about homosexuals donating blood...

Not gay marriage, the gay "lifestyle", whether it's okay to be gay, or European history (?? where the hell did THAT come from, ya'll?) - please stay on topic.

[Lemon&Lime]

I just want to say that I doubt anything relating to the chemistry of sexual attraction is going to be in school biology books.

Also, there is a huge amount of evidence. Also, the American Psychology Registry/official regulatory board for psychologists (can't think of its exact name) legally recognises homosexuality as a sexual orientation that occurs naturally.

Wojtek I want to ask you one question - If people make a choice to be homosexual, why do many men deny it through their lifetime and often commit suicide if they are found out to be gay? Surely they won't choose to be attracted to men if it makes them that ashamed.

Back on topic, are drug users allowed to donate blood in most countries? Does anyone know?

[HystericalParoxysm]

Please, please stay on topic. The ethics of and mechanics of homosexuality are not part of this topic. It's fine if you want to debate that stuff - please just make a separate thread about it. Or find one of the ten existing threads already related to it.

[el_flel]

I might address Wotjek's points in one of the zillion homosexuality debate threads if I can be bothered, but as I can't see that it will change his opinion in the slightest (and all the points he raised have been answered in those threads multiple times) I don't really see the point.

Re drug users: You definitely cannot donate if you've ever injected drugs (even if it was just once), because users who inject are also a group who are at a high risk of getting HIV or AIDS because often they share needles. The National Blood Service doesn't actually say anything about drugs that I can see under the page 'Who Can't Give Blood' (https://secure.blood.co.uk/c11_cant.asp) but it does say that you can't donate if you've had antibiotics or an infection within the last 6-12 weeks, and that you might not be able to donate if you're on any medication - I strongly suspect that this extends to having taken any illegal drugs.

[Lemon&Lime]

I think there should be a massive campaign launched by gay men.

I have an idea; get all of the gay men in a local area to turn up at one of those portable "donate your blood" events. At least 50 of them to walk in, ask, be told no, leave, repeat. Nothing like an irritating protest to get things changed quickly. :)

[el_flel]

Here (http://nene.modthesims.info/showthread.php?p=3315389#post3315389) - I've revived an old thread for the discussion of homosexuality.

As for drugs: it depends what they do to your body. If using the blood of a smoker isn't going to harm the person receiving it then why not use it?

Many illegal drugs can be prescribed legally because they have health benefits. Ritalin (a drug for ADHD) contains an amphetamine-like drug, morphine and heroin are both opiates, cannaboids - chemicals found in marijuana - are prescribed for pain, nausea and glaucoma.

[Mistermook]

How much of the time do we have such a surplus of blood that we should be turning away potential donors for any reason? If we don't have enough (and as I understand hardly anyone anywhere has so much blood on hand that they're comfortable in their hospitals) then surely it's worth the extra cost to deploy enough extra screening of blood to allow anyone to donate who wishes to?

[el_flel]

I think in many cases it's an issue of timing. With HIV, it takes something like 3 months for it to show up on tests after being contracted. So if a person donates who has recently contracted it and doesn't know it, then there's a chance it won't be picked up by screening before being given to someone. If the shortage is that bad do medical facilities have 3 months to spare whilst they wait for additional tests?

I agree that organisations should refuse donations from people that fall into high risk groups, but this should be anyone who puts themselves in a position where they could realistically have contracted HIV or AIDS - having any form of unprotected sex with a person of any gender, or using needles to inject drugs, for example. I think that refusing donations from men who have had sex with men is out-dated - heterosexual sex is now the primary way HIV and AIDS are transmitted.

[fakepeeps7]

Back on topic, are drug users allowed to donate blood in most countries? Does anyone know?

It's not allowed in Canada. Here's the actual list (http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/uw_v502_mainengine.nsf/page/Indefinite%20Deferral?OpenDocument) of things that will get you permanently banned from donating blood. The contentious paragraph with regards to this thread reads as follows:

All men who have had sex with another man, even once, since 1977 are indefinitely deferred. This is based on current scientific knowledge and statistical information that shows that men who have had sex with other men are at greater risk for HIV/AIDS infection than other people.

From what I've heard lately, that's not necessarily true. I thought one of the fastest-growing groups with HIV was heterosexuals! I don't know what "current" scientific knowledge they're using, but I suspect that it may not be all that current.

[Lemon&Lime]

How much of the time do we have such a surplus of blood that we should be turning away potential donors for any reason? If we don't have enough (and as I understand hardly anyone anywhere has so much blood on hand that they're comfortable in their hospitals) then surely it's worth the extra cost to deploy enough extra screening of blood to allow anyone to donate who wishes to?

Actually there has not been a shortage of blood in the UK for several years. They have to keep going on big campaigns however, because blood can only be stored for a few weeks at the most which is why it may seem that they are constantly asking for it - not because they're short, but because if they don't they might not have enough for a few weeks.

The only times they usually get short is during things like the World Cup, when people who usually donate don't because they're either drinking or busy.

Also, just to add - they don't accept drug users because of the increased risk of hepatitus/HIV etc, not because the drugs might still be in their bloodstream. As far as I'm aware, drugs don't stay in the blood very long. The blood is only a transport device - it takes drugs to where they're going, it doesn't store them. It's things like hair which retains traces.

[fakepeeps7]

Also, just to add - they don't accept drug users because of the increased risk of hepatitus/HIV etc, not because the drugs might still be in their bloodstream. As far as I'm aware, drugs don't stay in the blood very long. The blood is only a transport device - it takes drugs to where they're going, it doesn't store them. It's things like hair which retains traces.

That may be true for street drugs, but there are certain prescription drugs that will make you ineligible (at least temporarily).

[SuicidiaParasidia]

no no...gay blood, people! they dont want to make their victi--i mean "patients" happy, do they?


jokes aside--
promiscuity has no singular sexuality -_-... much the same way that lies arent limited to politics.

[Lemon&Lime]

That may be true for street drugs, but there are certain prescription drugs that will make you ineligible (at least temporarily).

Are they? But like you said that depends on how long ago it was you took them, and whether or not you injected it straight into a vein I suppose.

I'm on regular prescription medication and I have to take a dose 3 times a day so I probably won't be able to give blood.

I'm not allowed to give blood anyway. I had another tattoo done a few months ago, and you have to wait until 6 months after the tattoo was completed before you can give blood. Apparently we all have HIV too. I know I don't, I went to a reputable place which replaced the entire equipment inbetween people.

[fakepeeps7]

Are they? But like you said that depends on how long ago it was you took them, and whether or not you injected it straight into a vein I suppose.

I'm on regular prescription medication and I have to take a dose 3 times a day so I probably won't be able to give blood.

I'm not allowed to give blood anyway. I had another tattoo done a few months ago, and you have to wait until 6 months after the tattoo was completed before you can give blood. Apparently we all have HIV too. I know I don't, I went to a reputable place which replaced the entire equipment inbetween people.

Yeah, there are apparently some medications that can stay in your system for a long time. The site I previously linked says that there are even certain drugs that can make you ineligible to donate bone marrow for six months!

I know there are some antibiotics that can last in the system for up to a month or so. But if you're on antibiotics, they probably don't want your blood anyway, because you're sick.

As for the tattoos, just be glad they don't ban you altogether. I think the six-month waiting period is due to the fact that sometimes HIV won't show up on tests right away. After six months, the tests will be more reliable.

[el_flel]

It's the same with piercings - you have to wait 6 months, and would most definitely be because HIV takes months to show up on tests. They're not expecting people to have contracted HIV from their tattoo/piercing - anyone who has had a needled poked through their skin is told they have to wait before donating - however not all studios are as clean as they should be. Sterlisation is really important yet unfortunately the professions aren't regulated (they should be, I think it's appalling that they aren't) meaning they aren't going to get regular cleanliness checks. And until piercing guns are banned, the people who get pierced with them are always at risk as the stupid things can't be sterilised properly.

For the medication, it probably does depend on what it does and how it affects you as to whether you can donate. They don't rule out everyone who has taken anything within the last x weeks, just certain medication - women aren't turned away for taking the contraceptive pill, for example.

[nea200pl]

Just adding my two cents:
I really don't give a damn if blood that is going to save my life or anyone else close to me is coming from gay or non-gay person as every blood is thoroughly tested and HIV, STD's and so on affect everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, UK donor rules state:
*You should never give blood if:
You're a man who's had sex with another man, even safe sex using a condom.*
Shame, there was me thinking people are educated in the matter enough to move past that rubbish.

[Lemon&Lime]

Yeah, there are apparently some medications that can stay in your system for a long time. The site I previously linked says that there are even certain drugs that can make you ineligible to donate bone marrow for six months!

I know there are some antibiotics that can last in the system for up to a month or so. But if you're on antibiotics, they probably don't want your blood anyway, because you're sick.

As for the tattoos, just be glad they don't ban you altogether. I think the six-month waiting period is due to the fact that sometimes HIV won't show up on tests right away. After six months, the tests will be more reliable.

I've met someone who contracted HIV by having a tattoo done, although it was when they were in the USA. They didn't know they had it for over a year after the tattoo was completed. It was only after extreme weightloss and general illness that they were diagnosed. Symptoms of HIV can be almost nil for a while after contracting it, so I'm amazed that it is only 6 months - especially when you considor that (the last time I heard, tests may have improved since then) a reliable result can only be taken 3 months or more after the person suspects they've been infected. Putting that into account with how long some people can go without major symptoms, I'd think the tattoo one should be longer - if it wasn't for the fact that no one in the UK at least has ever contracted HIV from a UK-based tattoo parlour. So actually, thinking about it, it is pretty fair.

[coltraz]

Fine, I'll keep my blood then!

[HystericalParoxysm]

Just saw this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN2315623720100923?rpc=44

"1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in US cities has HIV - Nearly half are unaware of their infection"

[appelsapgodin]

I think people should consider this:

Specific STD Window Periods

Gonorrhea
The incubation period for Gonorrhea is usually 2 to 7 days.

Chlamydia
The incubation period for Chlamydia is usually 2 to 6 weeks, but can be longer.

Syphilis
The incubation period for Syphilis is usually 10 to 90 days.

HIV
The window period for HIV is usually 2 weeks to 3 months, but could be up to 6 months.

Hepatitis A
The incubation period for Hepatitis A is 15 to 50 days.

Hepatitis B
The incubation period for Hepatitis B is usually 45-180 days, with an average of 60 to 90 days.

Hepatitis C
The incubation period for Hepatitis C ranges from 2 weeks to 6 months - commonly, 6 to 9 weeks.

(source: http://www.stdresource.com/concern/c1_d_3_a.php)

Of course it would have been wiser if the blood-organisations would have said they only want blood from people who are in a monogamous relationship, are tested for STDs and never take any risks in their lives and that the wording 'no gays' is very inconvenient. (Because that would exclude all hetros that are too stupid to have safe sex too, instead of throwing all gays on one big heap.)

However you cannot deny that gays are in a higher risk group for the STDs that have extremely long incubation times. (Females usually get chlamydia or gonorrhea, which are quicker detected.) These times are so long that even with extended testing you still won't catch all. So I understand the precaution, but I also think they could have explained it a bit clearer.

It is not about offending the 1 gay that could have HIV without knowing it, it is about the 1 person that could get infected blood.

[fakepeeps7]

That's a good point, but if we're going to start worrying about incubation periods like that, we'd really have to refuse all blood. You can get the hepatitises from other things besides sex. Hepatitis A is especially tricky; you can get that from eating in a restaurant! (Mind you, it's not a super dangerous disease, unless you're immunocompromised.)

I wonder if there's any way to come up with better tests that can detect these diseases while they're still incubating. That would sure be useful!

[appelsapgodin]

I agree it is all tricky. But I do understand that they try to take out the biggest risk group because it is all tricky. We indeed need better tests to be able to exclude all risks. Until we do have those I guess there is nothing else to do than exclude as many risk groups as possible. (Which is not only gays, but also prostitutes, drugs users etc.)

[ElementMK]

Behold my necromancy! The ban (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iMqzlWppI4OgljWz1_xyLVt56zCw?docId=N0487181320549298426A) has been lifted!

[whiterider]

Lifted in one country, at least. But, hopefully that'll encourage others to follow suit.

It's interesting, that link, HP. I was researching this topic a while back - probably to post in this thread - and it seems that in the US, gay men are still at a significantly higher risk of HIV infection than other groups. This doesn't seem to be the case elsewhere, although I've not checked every country's facts and figures. I do wonder what the reason is, though.

[Oaktree]

I dunno. While this is a step forward, the page that Element linked to pointed out that those who have had sex with a man within the past year are still not allowed to give blood. So it isn't really a lifting of the ban on gay men donating blood - unless we're talking about celibate gay men - but more a lifting of the ban on bi-curious men giving blood. I don't understand why they can't accept blood, even from "at risk" groups, when the likelihood is that few people aware of having a blood borne disease will try to donate and they test the blood they receive, anyway.

[5M0K3]

There is nothing wrong with gay people. Their blood is not "contaminated" unless they have some sort of blood disease any straight person can get just as easy. And if a gay man who has had sex with a man in the past year isn't allowed to give blood, then how about straight men who have had sex with a woman recently? Is there really some sort of difference? From what gay friends have told me, gayness is not a choice. However that does NOT mean that being gay makes your blood bad. It is NOT a disease, it is NOT a problem. And frankly, I don't understand how gays are included in "risk groups". I really hope they get over their ignorance and realize how lucky they are someone is even donating.

[Dordracio]

I support with no gay blood.

[whiterider]

It's a debate, the idea is to give reasons. ;)

[Dordracio]

Because i dont like gays.

[soylentfiend]

I work in the health care field and I've handled blood products for transfusion and have had blood borne illness education ad naeseum and I've given blood (or at least tried, my veins clotted off too quickly >>), and I'm currently in a relationship with a bisexual man, and even I agree with some of the bans put on blood donation. Not specifically towards just gay/bisexual sexually active men, but towards prostitutes and intravenous drug users. It is proven that these populations have higher incidences of such blood-borne diseases, and more often than not a person with HIV who doesn't get regular testing doesn't they're infected know until symptoms appear, which can take years after the initial flu-like symptoms of infection. Same with IV drug users and prostitutes, the risk of having blood borne illnesses they're unaware of is high and cannot be detected with routine testing until months after the infection could put people at risk. Yes, modern testing is much much better than what it was in the past where people with hemophilia receiving multiple transfusions often caught such diseases before testing and awareness, but for the time being, I would rather turn away someone who engages in risky behavior (the strongest being an IV drug users and prostitutes, I can't fully agree with gay and bisexual men, but I do understand why that ban exists) for two units of blood than give my patient with leukemia hepatitis infected blood. The risk is low, but it's there. Just my two cents. Doesn't mean I'm wrong or right, just how I feel.

Also, certain medications are not allowed. I can think of two, Plavix because this stops clotting and can affect the clotting quality of platelets when given to the recipient, and Accutane because if a pregnant woman received your Accutane-containing blood, her fetus is at risk for severe birth defects.

edit: holy crap just saw when this thread was posted sorry for keeping the necro alive!

[Yazoo]

Because i dont like gays.

That is pretty homophobic. Not to sound rude or anything. But that was pretty much messed up.

Back to the topic. People are saying that a gay person shouldn't be allowed to donate blood. Alright, so, then do they not take in the fact hat heterosexuals too have HIV? Because if that's the case then ALL people shouldn't donate blood at all, for the risk of getting HIV. No matter how hard they test someone's blood there is a chance that HIV or any other Pathogen can be found in the blood.

Yes, we have come along way into finding HIV and other pathogens in the blood, before they give it to hospitals, but there is that chance, they have missed it. HIV takes about 10 years to show any signs of having it. But that can change with everyone's different chemistry make up. We are not perfect none of us are.

So, we shouldn't just go for one group of people. They need to be honest and tell people if they have HIV or not. It shouldn't be based on sexuality. Because not all homosexuals have HIV nor does all heterosexuals have HIV. A lot of people don't know they HIV until like I want to say 10 years after getting it. Because that is when the signs begin to appear. Truth of the matter, just because he lied about his Sexuality then to get fined, is pretty messed up. Just sayin'

[Rawra]

Because i dont like gays.

Dude... What the hell. :|

[Oaktree]

Because i dont like gays.

Well, you're honest, but misguided. It's silly to dislike a whole group of people over one trait. You probably know some cool gay people and just don't realize that they're gay.

[kattenijin]

Well, you're honest, but misguided. It's silly to dislike a whole group of people over one trait. You probably know some cool gay people and just don't realize that they're gay.

It's because he's one of those "good Christians" who believes everything the Church says. Reading his other posts was...educational.

Back to topic: Blood donation should be based on how long you've been in a committed relationship or celibate, not on your gender or sexuality.

[paksetti]

Because i dont like gays.
I have to be polite to you, but I really don't want to, for this and pretty much everything else you post.

Damn, I have this nagging suspicion that this'll be deleted.

[5M0K3]

"I support the ban."
"You have to give a reason."
"Because I don't like gays."

Do you like people in need of blood? Do you think they deserve to die because a large amount of the world's population is homosexual, and "infected"? Or maybe you care about them so much, you don't want them to catch the gay. Because everyone knows that gayness is bedazzled in someone's blood. :faceslap:

This "Dordracio" guy, I've seen him around before, and I've noticed he has taken quite the distaste to gays. Perhaps a rouge, for his own closet homosexuality? :heyhey:

[simbalena]

Back to topic: Blood donation should be based on how long you've been in a committed relationship or celibate, not on your gender or sexuality.

When you are in a committed relationship there is no guarantee that your partner isn't sleeping with other people.

[5M0K3]

And anyone in a committed relationship can have an STD.

ANYONE can have an STD. Gays, straights, people in a committed relationship, people sleeping with tons of people... Hell, even some children can be born with AIDS!

[kattenijin]

When you are in a committed relationship there is no guarantee that your partner isn't sleeping with other people.

True, but that's not what they are asking on the form. In New York the question reads: 23. If you are a man, have you ever had sex with a man, even one time? If you are a woman, have you ever had sex with a man who has ever had sex with a man? (emphasis mine). If the answer to that question is yes, then you are NOT allowed to donate blood, even if that one time was when you were 15, and you are now 35 and have been celibate for 11 years, and test negative for HIV.

It's more a case of "you haz teh gay!" than anything else.

[tovasshi]

No one has the "right" to donate blood. Just like no one has the "right" to donate eggs, sperm, bone marrow, kidneys, etc. Which in those donations, has a high screening process too. If they were discriminating against people for receiving blood, I can see a reason for an uproar.

It's providing as much protection as possible. Yes, not all gay men have HIV, but not all HIV testing is 100% accurate on the donated blood. And sadly, the fact of the matter is, it's a high risk group. They would much rather protect the person receiving the blood than running the risk of offending the person who wants to give it. Yes, it's a stereotype, sadly it's one with a lot of history and facts behind it. Blood donation is about the life of the person receiving it, no the feelings of the person giving it.

[kattenijin]

It's providing as much protection as possible.

B******T

As for not having the "right" to donate blood, then people who need blood have no "right" to ask for it.

[Lawli-Lawli]

Heterosexual couples can both engage in anal sex and test positive for all sexually transmitted infections and diseases, yet are still able to donate blood.

Exactly this.


It all just another way to spread and keep hate alive.

[kiwi_tea]

This also applies in New Zealand. It's so massively outdated, a product of the 1980s AIDS scare. Blood is screened after it is taken anyway, and blood donations are almost always lacking. As someone with an 0- blood type (universal donor), it's pretty much my responsibility to donate despite hating needles, and yet I can't.