What is up with people stating things that are incorrect as facts? :-s

 

 

 

HIV/AIDS remains dormat for 11-13 years before actually damaging your body. It is undetectable until then.

 

 

 

As stated in above posts you can't tell if a person's infected with HIV for many years.

 

 

 

Simply not true...

 

 

 

Quoted from http://www.avert.org/testing.htm

 

Getting tested earlier than 3 months may result in an unclear test result, as an infected person may not yet have developed antibodies to HIV. The time between infection and the development of antibodies is called the window period. During the window period people infected with HIV will not yet have antibodies in their blood that can be detected by an HIV test. However, the person may already have high levels of HIV in their blood, sexual fluids or breast milk. Someone can transmit HIV to another person during the window period even though they do not test positive on an antibody test. So it is best to wait for at least 3 months after the last time you were at risk before taking the test, and abstain from unprotected sex or drug use with shared needles in the meantime. Some test centres may recommend testing again at 6 months if you're deemed to be at particularly high risk of infection.

 

 

 

Quoted from http://www.aids.org/info/how-long-test-hiv.html

 

The time it takes for a person who has been infected with HIV to seroconvert (test positive) for HIV antibodies is commonly called the "Window Period."

 

 

 

The California Office of AIDS, published in 1998, says about the window period: "When a person is infected with the HIV virus, statistics show that 95-97% (perhaps higher) of all infected individuals develop antibodies within 12 weeks (3-months)."

 

 

 

The National CDC has said that in some rare cases, it may take up to six months for one to seroconvert (test positive). At this point the results would be 99.9% accurate.

 

 

 

Please do some research before you post...

I'm sure the gay's are outraged that they can't donate blood...

 

 

 

If some guy told me that I can't have blood sucked out of my body from a needle because of my ethniticity, i'm sure i'd be devostated [/sarcasm]

 

 

 

The LGBT association had a protest at university last year about homosexual men not being able to donate blood in the UK. So, at least some of them are outraged.

I'm getting sick of hearing the word 'gay' on this RuneScape forum. I mean, seriously..the game is like, for seven to thirteen year olds. Or at least that was the intent when it was made (I'm guessing, so don't hold it to me.)

 

 

 

Donated blood is frozen, tested, goes through a lot of procedures, but HIV/AIDS is a unpredictable virus. The fact that some people don't show symptoms or it becomes untracable for UP to a few years makes it a wildcat guess that could result in suing, death, and controversy.

 

 

 

The gays need to accept the consequences of their actions. If they choose to have gay sex and dramatically increase their chances of contracting HIV, that's fine. But then don't expect to be able to donate blood when it is simply to risky.

 

 

 

EDIT: Also, please keep in mind that these laws went through Congress, the Supreme Court, and the president. Despite everybody saying that Bush is 'dumb' or 'incompetent' it's undeniable that chances are he's smarter than anybody here. Then there's Congress and the Supreme Court, composed of over 600 some members who all saw this law fit on basis of factual, proven, and valid evidence. There's almost no way it can be injust. Very, very slight chance, but judging from what I've seen...I'm going with the government.

 

 

 

EDIT: Also, please keep in mind that these laws went through Congress, the Supreme Court, and the president. Despite everybody saying that Bush is 'dumb' or 'incompetent' it's undeniable that chances are he's smarter than anybody here. Then there's Congress and the Supreme Court, composed of over 600 some members who all saw this law fit on basis of factual, proven, and valid evidence. There's almost no way it can be injust. Very, very slight chance, but judging from what I've seen...I'm going with the government.

 

 

 

In 1985, the bill would have been passed by Reagen.

...Yeah I'm sorry, I'm just pro-Bush and I could hear a sniper barrel warming up...PROBABLY unrelated.

 

 

 

But Reagan was totally cool, and I don't even think a Democrat can disagree with that.

 

 

 

I mean, I think JFK was cool, and I'm hardcore Republican.

 

 

 

And yeah...even back in '85 there were still 600+ members of Congress. There's a lot of foolproofing to be done.

 

 

 

For some reason I thought that we were debating a new law, but meh... :uhh:

Warri0r:

 

 

 

All it takes is a $100 processing fee to start a lawsuit. You can bet your kiester that anyone can sue anyone for anything. The hospital can't deny a patient medical treatment because they refuse to sign a release.

 

 

 

I suppose the obligation to treat people would be the difficulty (although, if I remember correctly, some teenager in Australia refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons after being attacked by a shark [not sure which religion] :? ).

 

 

 

 

Yep, once while walking downtown, some guy gave me some 5-page pamphlet. Turned out he was trying to recruit for the Jevoha's Witnesses. I remember reading one of the core JW beliefs is that a human shouldn't accept blood from another person; Rather even dying.

 

 

 

Feel free to believe anything, but blood transplants do save a lot of human lives... Sad to lose your life over that :? Even muslims are allowed to eat pork if their life depends on it and they're starving to death...

That law's from the homophobic period right?

 

 

 

Heres two words for ya. Gay Plague.

 

 

 

Gays were actually the first to use condoms when they were introduced.

 

 

 

Let them donate blood if they want, I think this whole higher risk thing came from the homophobic period anyway, a period where they most people thought only gays could catch the "Gay Plague" (aids/HIV). IF they are rejected because of sexual oreintation, and end up being clean, i bet the family of the guy he could have saved will be pissed.

What is up with people stating things that are incorrect as facts? :-s

 

 

 

HIV/AIDS remains dormat for 11-13 years before actually damaging your body. It is undetectable until then.

 

 

 

As stated in above posts you can't tell if a person's infected with HIV for many years.

 

 

 

Simply not true...

 

 

 

Quoted from http://www.avert.org/testing.htm

 

Getting tested earlier than 3 months may result in an unclear test result, as an infected person may not yet have developed antibodies to HIV. The time between infection and the development of antibodies is called the window period. During the window period people infected with HIV will not yet have antibodies in their blood that can be detected by an HIV test. However, the person may already have high levels of HIV in their blood, sexual fluids or breast milk. Someone can transmit HIV to another person during the window period even though they do not test positive on an antibody test. So it is best to wait for at least 3 months after the last time you were at risk before taking the test, and abstain from unprotected sex or drug use with shared needles in the meantime. Some test centres may recommend testing again at 6 months if you're deemed to be at particularly high risk of infection.

 

 

 

Quoted from http://www.aids.org/info/how-long-test-hiv.html

 

The time it takes for a person who has been infected with HIV to seroconvert (test positive) for HIV antibodies is commonly called the "Window Period."

 

 

 

The California Office of AIDS, published in 1998, says about the window period: "When a person is infected with the HIV virus, statistics show that 95-97% (perhaps higher) of all infected individuals develop antibodies within 12 weeks (3-months)."

 

 

 

The National CDC has said that in some rare cases, it may take up to six months for one to seroconvert (test positive). At this point the results would be 99.9% accurate.

 

 

 

Please do some research before you post...

 

 

 

I think they might have meant symptoms of it for years... Best I can come up with... I mean, HIV/AIDS will probably kill you after that many (11-13) years if you aren't on any medication.

Oh well. They tried to give blood, but they didnt want the blood. I wouldn't say anything if it was me..hey, at least they tried.

At least it isn't just because their gay, they do have a pretty good reason.

 

 

 

:-k hmm i also agree... not because they are gay, but the chances are higher for gay men, cuz they "do it" differently then "men + women." so bleeding is expected when "doing it." thus getting infected with it.

 

i think its a good idea.. but overall, just have the clean ppl allowed to donate blood. its not like all straight ppl are clean... thats why we take blood tests.. :-k

I think the fact of the matter is that some people belive that there born that way and it's in there genes...So they don't want people who recive the blood to give birth to a child thats gay, who most likly wasnt going to be.

 

 

 

You may think this is just to outragous and cruel to do but think about it, only 2 stats allow gay marriage...That defently say somthing.

I think the fact of the matter is that some people belive that there born that way and it's in there genes...So they don't want people who recive the blood to give birth to a child thats gay, who most likly wasnt going to be.

 

 

 

I really hope I'm wrong here, but are you saying that genes can be transmitted through blood transfusions and to the kids of those who recieve the transfusions?

 

 

 

It seems that you're saying that if gayness is partly genetic and gays give blood transfusions, that their 'gay' blood and genes will somehow result in the kids of the transfusion recipients being gay?

 

 

 

Again, I really hope I'm wrong. :?

I think the fact of the matter is that some people belive that there born that way and it's in there genes...So they don't want people who recive the blood to give birth to a child thats gay, who most likly wasnt going to be.

 

 

 

You may think this is just to outragous and cruel to do but think about it, only 2 stats allow gay marriage...That defently say somthing.

 

RIP Postcount:Intelligience correlation :cry: .

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

:wall: .

I think the fact of the matter is that some people belive that they're born that way and it's in their genes...So they don't want people who receive the blood to give birth to a child thats gay, who most likely wasnt going to be.

 

 

 

You may think this is just to outragous and cruel to do, but think about it, only 2 states allow gay marriage...That definitely say somthing.

 

 

 

Its says that alot of people still live in the homophobic period.

 

 

 

I doubt our genes mean anything if we are gay or not. A gay gene sounds pretty moronic, no?

 

 

 

I don't think people are born with gay genes, we do not understand how the human brain works, so its more or less something to do with the brains. Human's genetic structure is basically all the same, any change in that results in a mutant, and (just because I felt like saying this, may have no relevance) Chimpanzees are 99% similar to humans in DNA.

 

 

 

I also fixed all the errors in your post.

Difficult topic... After thinking it over for a while, I agree with not allowing homo-sexual men to donate blood. I have nothing against homo-sexuals, but they do carry a risk with them.

 

 

 

If it were about a more simple disease then hiv, I would be inclined to allow them to donate blood, but it's difficult with hiv. First of all, just about anyone knows that homo-sexual men have increased risk of contracting hiv. If it could be easily screened for, there would be no problem. But the thing to remember is, hiv has a window period. This means that for a certain period, one is already infected with hiv, but it is not yet detectable. This is what makes this issue so difficult for me.

 

 

 

Ultimately I have to be against the homo-sexuals on this one. I am against discrimination, but this is for the greater good. (imho)

 

 

 

 

 

Any one can carry that risk

blaat

 

 

 

 

 

Any one can carry that risk

 

 

 

True. It's just that the risk is higher for people who engage in unprotected anal sex and as far as I know homosexual men do this more often than heterosexual men. (I do not base this on any sources, just on my feeling)

that's pretty silly if the patient is going to die without a donor :roll:

Clearly you've never experienced death by AIDS. I hear it's painful. Dying from a car crash relatively quickly is probably less unpleasant. Besides, it's not like 'Gay blood or you die'. There's just a slight shortage. It's not like they can't supply blood.

 

The majority of the people in the world right now are O+, that means they can receive O+ AND O- blood. Those two blood types together make (I think, I know I'm close) 40% of the human population as we know it. Not to mention there's other blood types, including AB+ (can receive ANY blood, which is the type of blood I have :D ) and the sort.

 

 

 

Point is, you're not going to die without gay blood. You're just one step closer to running out of normal blood. When we have a shortage of blood, and people are dying because we can't give them transfusions, then we can talk again.

Before you start throwing statistics around I'd like to know exactly how much more likely gay people are to have HIV/AIDS.

 

 

 

Further to that, it's not like you can store blood from gay people separately and use it only in times of shortage :roll:

Before you start throwing statistics around I'd like to know exactly how much more likely gay people are to have HIV/AIDS.

 

 

 

Further to that, it's not like you can store blood from gay people separately and use it only in times of shortage :roll:

 

 

 

I can't remember figures but I've read before that gays have a higher percentage of HIV/AIDS carriers than straight people. It's just discriminatory that they're not letting gays donate full stop however, absolutely stupid to segregate them like that because it's just stopping any chance of equality.

 

Now I can see their point that there is a higher chance of the blood possessing HIV/AIDS. What I don't see is why they're stopping them donating blood however, cause it still exists in straight people.

 

Either way, if they're that picky about it I don't see why they can't make people get tested before they give blood, and even wait a few months after and make them re-test to make sure everything's okay. I'm sure people in the gay community are happy to donate blood just like some straight people are, and stopping a large community from doing it altogether doesn't make much sense.

Still seems(sp?) unfair just because of your sexuality you can't donate blood to lil Jonny right there with the dying heart 2 days before christmas/dog's birthday, mother's operation, and cookies...

 

 

 

To be realistic, I mean come on! I don't care if your gay or no. You didn't have sexual relation so your CLEAN (to the doctor's point of view) It not like your a walking disease.

Here are some sources.

 

 

 

MSM "19 times more likely" to catch HIV

 

[1][/url]":dxtrtz1l][One study] found that in 38 low- and middle-income countries, men who have sex with men have an average 19 times greater chance of being infected with HIV than the general population.

 

 

 

In some countries MSM [= men who have sex with men] are more than 100 times more likely to be infected, the study found.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

In the most comprehensive analysis of HIV among MSM populations to date, researchers found that in the Republic of Georgia, MSM were about 24 times more likely to be infected than the general population; in Senegal they were 27 times more likely; in China, 45 times more likely and in Mexico, 109 times more likely.

 

 

 

The study indicates that even in countries with low HIV prevalence in the general population, the epidemic among MSM is raging.

 

 

 

H.I.V. Rises Among Young Gay Men

 

[2][/url]"]Statistics gathered by New York City health officials show that new diagnoses of H.I.V. infection ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

Before you start throwing statistics around I'd like to know exactly how much more likely gay people are to have HIV/AIDS.

 

 

 

Further to that, it's not like you can store blood from gay people separately and use it only in times of shortage :roll:

 

 

 

Why not? Just ask the guy/girl if she's a homo or not. If they're really proud about being gay, which apparently they should be if it wasn't a choice and they want equal treatment, then they can just mark it as 'Gay' blood and store it elsewhere.

 

 

 

And bob, can you go read the FDA's report? You're acting like a completely uneducated fool when you refuse to read the evidence that was already provided. (Check page 2? trytos, I think)

 

 

 

Still seems(sp?) unfair just because of your sexuality you can't donate blood to lil Jonny right there with the dying heart 2 days before christmas/dog's birthday, mother's operation, and cookies...

 

 

 

To be realistic, I mean come on! I don't care if your gay or no. You didn't have sexual relation so your CLEAN (to the doctor's point of view) It not like your a walking disease.

 

 

 

baalboy5, let me state it again VERY clearly:

 

 

 

There is NO shortage of blood. No gay blood doesn't mean 'lil johnny' is going to be dying. It's not gay blood or death! In fact, it's quite the opposite.

 

 

 

And furthermore, if you didn't HAVE any sexual relation and you can prove it, then sure. You're clean. Whoopdy-friggin' do. But that's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about homosexuals whom have had sex with their partners and therefore dramatically increasing the risk of transmitting or carrying an HIV/AIDS virus! This is NOT a joke any more than the Holocaust was one. AIDS and HIV is a practically Africa exclusive virus, the last thing we need to do is spread it across this sex-happy America.

 

 

 

P.S. for those whom doubt the fact that AIDS is an almost Africa exclusive disease, you might find it funny to know that in The Week, December 2007, the UN admitted that they had blown AIDS numbers and statistics out of proportion. AIDS/HIV is relatively uncommon in the western world.

 

 

 

P.P.S. is there really any difference between AIDS and HIV? I frankly don't quite know... :-s :-k

Having read the thread, just a few things.

 

 

 

Gay sex is more dangerous not because of the practice itself, but because of the way it's practiced. Condom use between heterosexual couples is practiced because of a very practical reason, that of avoiding pregnancy. Gay sex, on the other hand, has no such reason. As a result, the only reason to use a condom if you're a gay male is to avoid STDs, which as a fear ranks somewhere around the fear of getting into a car accident. It gets pushed to to the list of "It's not going to happen to me" possibilities, and as a result they drop like flies.

 

 

 

Hospitals cannot use gay blood, even with disclaimers. The reason? Segregation (which is what separation of gay and straight blood is) would provoke a lawsuit faster than you could say "Gay Jesse Jackson."

blaat

 

 

 

 

 

Any one can carry that risk

 

 

 

True. It's just that the risk is higher for people who engage in unprotected anal sex and as far as I know homosexual men do this more often than heterosexual men. (I do not base this on any sources, just on my feeling)

 

 

 

Did you know that when condoms first were made, gays were the group of people to use them the most?

 

 

 

I assume that some still do, possibly a lot of them.