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.

 

1. The real argument is about MSM (men who have sex with men). Some of these MSM are not "gay" by definition, per se. (for example, people of indeterminate gender)

 

2. Most sources tend to suggest that homosexual females are at no greater risk of catching HIV than the rest of the population.

 

3. AIDS is not a virus -- it's a set of symptoms that is "acquired" anywhere from weeks to years after catching HIV. Many people are able to live for years with HIV -- but when you acquire AIDS you die reasonably quickly.

 

 

 

As for it being painful, I bet you're right. That's one of the reasons medical marijuana is gaining so much publicity. ;)

I know this is gonna sound like and [wagon] move, but I just always lie on that question. I've been tested...I know I'm not infected so I don't see whats wrong with it.

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

 

 

 

I love that you don't follow the lost post count sterotype =D> love the avatar

 

 

 

Your arguement shut me up, even if I'm the author.

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)

 

 

 

In regard to my first point, I apologize for posting without sufficient prior knowledge.

 

 

 

However, it happens that my second comment was sarcastic - of course you can, and I think it's absurd not to.

 

 

 

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS (a syndrome).

If the person didn't have sex or kisses or anything gay related but is gay, what the situation there?

I think it's legal.

 

 

 

Man + Man = Wrong.

 

 

 

Sorry, that's just the way it is. Notice how men and women "fit" together and men and other men dont? Men were not made to, and should not have sex with other men. It isn't right.

 

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with gays. Just as long as they don't have sex with/make out with other guys. And I wouldn't take blood from a man who had sex with another guy. Even if it would save my life.

Some of the replies on this thread are extremely disturbing.

 

 

 

The aims of the blood donation laws are to protect the donor and the potential recipient from harm, which of course includes minimising the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS, not to cause upset for people. Fact.

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. :?

 

 

 

It sounds like the guy who at the hospital I was volunteering at asked me to make sure they gave him the right color blood.

If the person didn't have sex or kisses or anything gay related but is gay, what the situation there?

I think it's legal.

 

 

 

Man + Man = Wrong.

 

 

 

Sorry, that's just the way it is. Notice how men and women "fit" together and men and other men dont? Men were not made to, and should not have sex with other men. It isn't right.

 

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with gays. Just as long as they don't have sex with/make out with other guys. And I wouldn't take blood from a man who had sex with another guy. Even if it would save my life.

 

 

 

Well that's slightly bigoted.

 

 

 

EDIT: @ the post above me - I don't see anyplace where Captain says that's his own thoughts - he's just explaining other peoples'.

Some of the replies on this thread are extremely disturbing.

 

 

 

The aims of the blood donation laws are to protect the donor and the potential recipient from harm, which of course includes minimising the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS, not to cause upset for people. Fact.

 

 

 

I understand that the intent was to protect people from HIV, but the method is actually quite a bigoted way of doing things. On the form that you fill out it asks you if you've ever had sex with another man since 197X even once, but it doesn't ask you if you've had promiscuous sex with 300 people the previous week. I understand that to most people the gay "culture" involves promiscuous unprotected sex, but a monogamous gay couple has a much lower risk of HIV/other STD's than a heterosexual person who has unprotected sex with multiple partners per week. The form should really be asking you how many different partners you've had in the past 3 years if it wants a fair way of doing things.

 

 

 

BTW, it is my understanding that the American Red Cross is already trying to get this law removed, so if even they think it is a bad idea then it probably is.

On the form that you fill out it asks you if you've ever had sex with another man since 197X even once, but it doesn't ask you if you've had promiscuous sex with 300 people the previous week. I understand that to most people the gay "culture" involves promiscuous unprotected sex, but a monogamous gay couple has a much lower risk of HIV/other STD's than a heterosexual person who has unprotected sex with multiple partners per week. The form should really be asking you how many different partners you've had in the past 3 years if it wants a fair way of doing things.

 

 

 

Absolutely, I agree with you on that.

 

 

 

BTW, it is my understanding that the American Red Cross is already trying to get this law removed, so if even they think it is a bad idea then it probably is.

 

 

 

Great, I have no problem with this as long as there is a suitable outcome. I don't feel that the law should be altered purely to spare the feelings of those who can't donate. However, if there is potential for more blood collection and there is a reasonable solution that will ensure the safety of everyone involved, so that men who have had safe sex with other men and do not carry the HIV virus can donate, then I'm all for it. :D

Wow this is something I hadn't known. The current test for HIV tests for the virus itself rather than the antibodies to it. So there should be little to no period where the virus is present but not detectable.

The Week, January 18, 2007, article "Health Scare of the week: Forgetting the danger of AIDS"

 

 

 

young, gay men who don't remember the plague of the 1980s and 1990s have become indifferent to the possibility of infection, and are returning to to the reckless sexual behavior of previous years. In New York City, rates of infection among homosexual men under 30 have increased by 32% from 2001-2006.

 

 

 

 

Followed by,

 

 

 

infectious disease expert Waffa El-Sadr tells The New York Times. Men in this age group have developed a fasel "treatment optimism" about the disease, experts say, since multi-drug "cocktails" can now keep the symptoms at bay for years.

 

 

 

 

Well, there's some more recent evidence. Clearly, the test is for antibodies, BUT antibodies do NOT recognize stagnant viruses. They have no markers on them, and therefore, antibodies percieve it as, to use an analogy, as O-. No markers, and completely adaptible and as far as the body is concerned, harmless.

 

 

 

So...there's...some...more...stuff. :-s I guess.

3. AIDS is not a virus -- it's a set of symptoms that is "acquired" anywhere from weeks to years after catching HIV. Many people are able to live for years with HIV -- but when you acquire AIDS you die reasonably quickly.

 

 

 

Technically when you have AIDS you still have the HIV virus, basically the HIV virus destroys your immune system and after you get sick one or two times while carrying the HIV virus the symptoms worsen to the point where getting sick again could be fatal. AIDS is like being on chemotherapy therapy constantly, one infections and it could be fatal.