Gays Want Their Blood In Public Blood Supply

[AgeofKnowledge]

No, you as usual, are the one not listening. Blood donation bans should be applied to donors that belong to high risk populations because those populations present an unacceptable risk to the nation's blood supply. Whether or not they also qualify for minority status under Civil Rights legislation is completely beside the point.

You are the one that hasn't been listening. Blood donation bans or deferrals should be applied to donorsaccording to their individual level of risk and not based on their minority status

 

[IronChariots]

What if the gay people lie about being gay before they donate blood? How will people know
the difference?

 

[Elizabeth619]

What if the gay people lie about being gay before they donate blood? How will people know
the difference?

I can understand the concern considering 61% of HIV is transmitted through homosexual contact, but the fact is donated blood is tested, and retested. The chances of contacting this virus via transfusion is very low, but there is still a risk. When blood is being transferred there will always be a risk.
The way I look at it is if you donate blood then you should be required to be tested on a regular basis. Not just when you give blood. I don't care if you're gay or straight. HIV is not a "homosexual disease". Yes, homosexuals are more susceptible to it. but it is not restricted to just a particular group of people. This disease doesn't discriminate.

 

[pancakeface]

I can understand the concern considering 61% of HIV is transmitted through homosexual contact, but the fact is donated blood is tested, and retested. The chances of contacting this virus via transfusion is very low, but there is still a risk. When blood is being transferred there will always be a risk.
The way I look at it is if you donate blood then you should be required to be tested on a regular basis. Not just when you give blood. I don't care if you're gay or straight. HIV is not a "homosexual disease". Yes, homosexuals are more susceptible to it. but it is not restricted to just a particular group of people. This disease doesn't discriminate.

They are not more susceptible to it, no more than anyone else. They are however, more likely to come into contact with it.

 

[Elizabeth619]

They are not more susceptible to it, no more than anyone else. They are however, more likely to come into contact with it.

True. Bad wording on my part.

 

[pancakeface]

True. Bad wording on my part.

I hate being a grammar nazi, but I hear people being like 'oh yea aids is like, a gay disease and stuff' and I'm like .. don't feed the ignorant train.

 

[Elizabeth619]

I hate being a grammar nazi, but I hear people being like 'oh yea aids is like, a gay disease and stuff' and I'm like .. don't feed the ignorant train.

My 11 year old has been a grammar nazi since he learned to read. I'm used to it

 

[TracerBullet]

No, you as usual, are the one not listening. Blood donation bans should be applied to donors that belong to high risk populations because those populations present an unacceptable risk to the nation's blood supply. Whether or not they also qualify for minority status under Civil Rights legislation is completely beside the point.

Risks are not confined to just some groups. ANYONE can carry a blood born pathogen nomatter what minority or majority they might be part of. That is why INDIVIDUAL screenings need to be done.

 

[TracerBullet]

They are not more susceptible to it, no more than anyone else. They are however, more likely to come into contact with it.

Or more likely to have been tested for HIV

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Now you're just acting stupid. Individual screening is done twice for each blood donation and still, for the reasons I've already given twice which you deliberately choose to ignore so you can continue engaging in fallacious reasoning toward your political goal which has nothing to do with protecting the nation's blood supply, innocent people contract diseases and viruses via blood banks. As I've already stated numerous times, though I might as well be talking to a dead mule, barring high risk groups from donating blood IS part of the screening process that helps keep such occurrences at the low levels we currently.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself endlessly. Some mental illnesses result in individuals being "unable to acquire or retain new information." Have you been tested?

Risks are not confined to just some groups. ANYONE can carry a blood born pathogen nomatter what minority or majority they might be part of. That is why INDIVIDUAL screenings need to be done.

 

[pancakeface]

Now you're just acting stupid. Individual screening is done twice for each blood donation and still, for the reasons I've already given twice which you deliberately choose to ignore so you can continue engaging in fallacious reasoning toward your political goal which has nothing to do with protecting the nation's blood supply, innocent people contract diseases and viruses via blood banks. As I've already stated numerous times, though I might as well be talking to a dead mule, barring high risk groups from donating blood IS part of the screening process that helps keep such occurrences at the low levels we currently.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself endlessly. Some mental illnesses result in individuals being "unable to acquire or retain new information." Have you been tested?

Okay. Lesbians carry less STD's than heterosexual women. There. Your view is invalid. We'd be better off disallowing straight women to give blood and allowing homosexual women. So explain, after seeing, reading, and taking in that fact, how your stance is anything more than bigotry.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

My view is not invalid. You're false portrayal of it is as are your false assertions which follow. But then that's what you do: distort the truth and make false assertions in a morally blighted manner. That's both your modus operand and your primary communication method.

Okay. Lesbians carry less STD's than heterosexual women. There. Your view is invalid. We'd be better off disallowing straight women to give blood and allowing homosexual women. So explain, after seeing, reading, and taking in that fact, how your stance is anything more than bigotry.

 

[pancakeface]

My view is not invalid. You're false portrayal of it is as are your false assertions which follow. But then that's what you do: distort the truth and make false assertions in a morally blighted manner. That's both your modus operand and your primary communication method.

Yep, fantastic argument on the subject matter there. Thanks for that wonderful insight.

*your
*operandi

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're welcome. Glad I could correct your false assertions and distortions yet again. The Bible directs me to do that so really it's God's operandi which makes you wrong and corrected yet again.

Yep, fantastic argument on the subject matter there. Thanks for that wonderful insight.

*your
*operandi

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Oh and happy trails. Another troll bites the dust.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You've obviously never taken statistics. Let me give you a crash course as it relates to your false assertions.

In statistics, a subset of a population is called a subpopulation. Different subpopulations have different properties. For example, the homosexual population (e.g. people who engage in homosexual acts) of the U.S. is a subpopulation of the nation's population.

Though the homosexual subpopulation comprises only about 1.7% (see Gallup polling data) of the nation's population: the CDC reports that the homosexual subpopulation has the highest rate (e.g. per capita) of HIV infection and state that over the course of their lives fully half of all people who regularly engage in homosexual acts will become HIV positive. Their studies indicate that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. CDC studies also show that the homosexual subpopulation has inordinately high rates for STDs and hepatitis B.

Obviously, this subpopulation represents an unacceptable blood donor risk to the nation's blood supply.

Now what you've done, is make a false assertion that the far greater subpopulation of heterosexuals (e.g. 98.3%) must have more cases of HIV infection than the subpopulation of people who engage in homosexual acts (e.g. 1.7%) but you're wrong: they don't.

The CDC's 'Diagnoses of HIV Infection, by Transmission Category expanded' clearly shows that the 'Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection' for the homosexual subpopulation is much greater than the heterosexual subpopulation.

For example, in 2011 JUST the male component of the homosexual subpopulation had 30,573 new HIV infections while the entire heterosexual population (including all heterosexual IV drug users) + homosexual women combined had only 13,402 new HIV infections.

Your false assertions are patently untrue as always.

So, the majority of HIV infection is carried by white gay men, black people in general, and heterosexual women of all major races. That's right, heterosexual women, collectively, in America, carry as much HIV as black gay men. So should heterosexual women be disallowed to donate blood?

 

[Mammachickadee]

Did you know that statistically HIV is more common among heterosexuals as it is homosexuals? All blood that is donated for a blood bank is screened for HIV and a plethora of other STD's, I believe... so as long as everyone does their job, blood from homosexuals is still safe. As long as everyone does their job.​ Should that lady bleeding out from a miscarriage suffer the consequences of someone's choice to sleep with a person of poor character?

 

[Mammachickadee]

At age 50 have you failed to learn patience and the love of Christ? A person may be wrong and ignorant... but they are still deserving of respect. Stating people "always" do something is neither kosher nor Christian. The same goes for being insolent.

"Now you're just acting stupid. Individual screening is done twice for each blood donation and still, for the reasons I've already given twice which you deliberately choose to ignore so you can continue engaging in fallacious reasoning toward your political goal which has nothing to do with protecting the nation's blood supply, innocent people contract diseases and viruses via blood banks. As I've already stated numerous times, though I might as well be talking to a dead mule, barring high risk groups from donating blood IS part of the screening process that helps keep such occurrences at the low levels we currently.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself endlessly. Some mental illnesses result in individuals being "unable to acquire or retain new information." Have you been tested?

 

[BillyTheKid]

Take their blood. Who cares? As long as it is tested I am happy with that. People think just because someone says they are not gay makes it true. I have a friend that I have known for years that is homosexual and is very active sexually. Very few people know this. If he donated blood and I needed it or I was going to DIE, I would take the blood. I don't see this as a Homosexual issue. I see it as America is still homophobic, and every last one of the homophobes are convinced if they take blood from a homosexual they will get AIDS. Seriously? People would rather die than take a blood transfusion from a homosexual? Not to offend anyone, but that is dumb. I am sure there are millions of people that donate blood and just lie and say they aren't gay. Now someone will freak out after reading this and go get tested because they are afraid of getting HIV or AIDS lol.

 

[RedTent]

As Christians we are to look at this from God's point of view, not the secular. So how does blood from gays fit into God's plan? I can think of many things about God that applies. God relates blood to life in many ways.

This blood from gays represents giving life to others, it doesn't represent being gay. Gays are outside of God's plan for them. That doesn't mean that God would not welcome them with joy at their return, or that God would say they may not help bring life and joy to others. Or that it is wrong for us to accept that part of them.