[Re. gays who want to give blood.]
They’ll stop at nothing until everybody has AIDS.
Nobody who’s been to certain Asian or tropical locales has a problem with the restrictions. Not every one of them has a tropical disease, but it’s proven to be worth the exclusions.
74 comments
"They’ll stop at nothing until everybody has AIDS."
Right, because, as we all know, all homosexuals are homicidal maniacs.
Because it is untrue.
There is a strong correlation between serial killers and consuming bread. Driving a car and living in a house. Got it?
"Nobody who’s been to certain Asian or tropical locales has a problem with the restrictions."
Have you polled them all? Even so, so what?
"Not every one of them has a tropical disease, but it’s proven to be worth the exclusions."
Not the same thing, Simple. AIDS has a large "installed base" in the heterosexual community as well as the gay community. The fastest growing rates of HIV infection is within segments of the heterosexual community.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. I have not looked at or studied any data on the issue. If what he says is true, that homosexuals have a significantly higher rate of AIDS, then I think it would make sense to exclude them from blood donation.
Although suggesting that they are deliberately trying to infect the blood supply is....well......
@1033484 Here in D.C. I believe 70% of people who are HIV-positive are black. Should we ban blacks from donating blood? I mean, y'know, *just in case.* Because obviously they just poke your ass, drain the blood, and put it in someone else right off the bat.
Yep.
I give blood on a regular basis. They have a list of about 40 questions that they ask you. I'm sure that if you answer yes to enough of these questions they may restrict you from giving blood. Alot have to do with traveling abroad, using drugs and needles and who you have had sex with. Homosexual and hetrosexual, especially if you have had multiple partners, in both instances. I think they are all valid and fair questions to ask. We want to help who we can by giving blood, but we don't want to endanger anyone either. I think if you live a promiscuous lifestyle - I'm not judging, I was a product of the 70's so I liked my drugs and sex before I was married :) - either sexual or drug related, then I think it's better to take a step back and not give blood at this time.
But to make a general statement about gays giving blood is just stupid. Giving blood is one human helping another human, not one particular sexual preference wanting to harm another. Please grow up and join the real world.
Homosexual =/= AIDS. There is not a "strong enough correlation to warrant such questioning and subsequent restrictions". Fact is, if you are a heterosexual male and even if you admit to having unprotected sex with more than 100 women, you CAN donate blood. If you admit to being a homosexual male, even if you have been with one man, are still with that man, you were both virgins prior to each other, you were both tested before you had sex, and you were even tested negative 4 months ago you still CANNOT donate blood --EVER. With the shortage of blood in this country, this restriction is asinine. Similarly, if you are a promiscuous, hetero woman you can donate blood. Even lesbians can donate blood (and unless they changed it, no questions are asked about a woman with a woman). ....... As for not being allowed to donate if you have been to certain countries, etc. For some of this, there are medically valid reasons (for example, there are some foreign disease that take years to manifest and we cannot screen for them like we can for HIV). For some of those restrictions, the reasoning is not medically valid. .... SJSAMPLE, you are an asshat.
@ 1033432
I can kind of see the second half of his point. The restrictions do prevent a lot of people who could donate from doing so. On the other hand, male homosexual sex is a risk factor in North America (along with a lot of other things, which will also get you disqualified.) I'm not saying it's perfect (if you and your partner have both had one, monogamous relationship, you're not exactly a huge risk) but it's not something where they just decided to ban gays from donating just to be jerks. There are a lot of other people who probably won't pass anything on, who still aren't allowed to donate, because they're in a group that's high-risk for something. I'm not saying that the questions they ask couldn't afford to be refined, but it's not a crusade against gay men.
That said, the implication that gays are viciously plotting to donate blood to everyone as part of their evil scheme to give everyone on the planet AIDS...makes significantly less sense.
Tropical diseases that can be blood-borne are a lot harder to screen for. US doctors are familiar with HIV and how to test for it, they aren't familiar with tropical diseases not usually found in the US.
It's not a strong enough correlation anyway. Any factor that *was* a strong correlation would of course be legitimate reason - homosexuality doesn't have that correlation any longer. (In the US, the demographics may well be different elsewhere...)
The HIV test detects antibodies, not the virus itself. There's a lag time from being infected until your immune system starts making the antibodies, so you can test negative and be contagious for a short time. I don't know how long that lasts, but they should ask about unprotected sex of any kind, or shared needles. Any "yes" shouldn't donate unless they've abstained for however long that may be.
Idiot, I am a twenty year old homosexual male and entirely STD free, the worst thing I've ever caught was the flu. Now that people in both the homosexual community and heterosexual community know about STDs, contraception products that protect against STDs, and medice and medical techniques for treatment, no thanks to any theists, the diseases are relatively under control, and hopefully on the down fall. Now please do everybody a favor and shut up.
They’ll stop at nothing until everybody has AIDS
Blood Banks screen every donation for HIV, and they have since around 1987. Claiming otherwise is simply homophobic fear mongering.
They want to remove the Homosexuality = AIDS stigma,
Heterosexuals comprise the majority of HIV infections in the US and a vast an overwhelming majority in the world at large. Further more the percentage of cases of HIV in the homosexual community is in the minority.
even though there’s strong enough correlation to warrant such questioning and subsequent restrictions.
No, there is not. The descriptor "gay" is not synonamous with AIDS or HIV.
You know, this is really starting to get tiring. I am sick of being told how because I happen to be attracted to other males, that automatically makes me bad, that I automatically have AIDS, that I wish to spread AIDS to every person on the planet, and that I would have an interest in children. It's starting to grate on me because these right-wingnuts seem to be getting LOUDER with their hate.
@#1033432
As far as these fuckwits are concerned, anybody who identifies as gay spontaneously has AIDS.
The amazing thing is how they use their willful ignorance as a weapon against their prejudice-chosen target.
There seems to be no realisation the blood is screened. I hate gays, therefore they all have AIDS, therefore they are out to give it to the rest of us. Some logic!
There are heterosexuals who live a far more lurid lifestyle than I do, or indeed most gay people that I personally know. Yet this idiot sees no problem with them giving blood. For what it's worth, I have had one partner in my life, and we are now 36 years together. How many marriages last that long? But the arguement is then turned on its head when it comes to recognising in law the fact that gays can, and do, live decent and faithfully together. That is an inconvenient fact as it destroys the basis for anti-gay prejudice.
I call hypocrisy!
"It's not bigotry I tell you, it's all about disease control! I'm not discriminating. I know hetties can get AIDS too. We should ban them from giving blood too!"
Oh wow.
I'm an Army brat. When I was a baby, my dad was stationed in Germany. This happened to be during the time period between 1985 and 1990.
Despite the fact that an infant infected with the disease would almost certainly have died, the Red Cross won't let me donate blood--because I might be carrying Creutzfeld-Jacobs (a.k.a. Mad Cow) Disease.
I'm none too happy about that and am waiting for them to change the rules yet again.
"They’ll stop at nothing until everybody has AIDS."
They screen blood for things like that, you know.
"They want to remove the Homosexuality = AIDS stigma, even though there’s strong enough correlation to warrant such questioning and subsequent restrictions."
First of all, correlation does not equal causation.
Second, homosexuality =/= AIDS.
"Nobody who’s been to certain Asian or tropical locales has a problem with the restrictions. Not every one of them has a tropical disease, but it’s proven to be worth the exclusions."
I've often wondered what kind of raging fit someone like you would have if someone wanted to place "restrictions" on you arbitrarily. Say, for your hair color or some such.
I would assume the resulting vein bulging, eye popping, "I have rights, damn it!" tirade would be almost unmatched in human history. But it's perfectly acceptable to want to "restrict" someone else instead, right?
Why would "they" want everybody to have AIDS? What would that benefit? While we're on, who would that benefit? (oh, right; Satan, I suppose).
You know, this 'sample' guy wouldn't have the bollocks to say this shit to a real gay person's face. The people I know would rip his arms and legs off and then beat him to death with the wet ends.
I'm gay. I would never even consider having unprotected sex until after I'm married (the state can call it whatever they want - to me and my future husband, we'll call it what it is). I have been tested for HIV just to be safe, and I'm negative. I don't go around having casual sex.
So explain to me, exactly, why I'm considered a higher risk than some of my straight fraternity brothers who bang as many chicks as they possibly can, and think that "she's on the pill" or "I didn't have a condom, so I pulled out" are acceptable responses to the question "were you safe?" Or more to the point, the straight females who ARE the chicks being banged by a different guy every weekend without using protection. The questionnaire for donating blood only asks if they were paid for it and other things like that, not if they just plain had sex with a stranger without a condom.
So I guess accusing a girl of being high-risk for being a slut is insensitive, but accusing me of being high-risk for having been in a 4-year relationship with another man (way longer than most of the straight relationships I've seen among my peers) isn't...
Yes, obviously gay people just want to give blood in order to infect everybody with AIDS. It's not like we're capable of compassion and would want to give blood because it could potentially help someone who needs our blood type. Nope, we're just evil demon people.
The thing that always scares me about quotes like this is that I honestly don't think the thought process goes "Gay people aren't like me, therefore they must be evil, therefore their motivation must be the worst possible." I actually think it's more like, "What would I do in this situation?" and since people like SJSAMPLE are horrible people, they assume everybody else is too.
It seems the solution to a safe blood supply is simple:
100% of all AIDS cases occur among human beings. So if we just ban all humans from giving blood, we'll have a perfectly safe blood supply. Not an especially adequate blood supply, but a safe one.
While the OP is clearly an idiot for asserting that gays want everyone to have AIDS, the restriction is there because the ratio of HIV infection in the gay population in the US is much higher than it is in the straight population, just as IV drug users, who are also restricted, are at greater risk. If you look at the statistics, disagreeing with the restriction can only be due to political correctness, which has no place where people's lives are at risk.
LOTS of other people are also excluded from giving blood. I have an automimmune disease, and I and thousands of people like me are excluded because our blood contains so many antibodies. It doesn't hurt my feelings, it's just a fact.
Let's see how many fallacies I can find in this one today...
1. Appeal to Fear (Homosexuality=AIDS)
...I'm pretty sure there are more...
"#1034586
If you look at the statistics, disagreeing with the restriction can only be due to political correctness, which has no place where people's lives are at risk."
Please explain to me how the statistics show that a gay man who's been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years in which both partners have been tested and shown negative, and have never had unprotected sex with anyone else, is a greater risk than a straight woman who gets drunk and has unprotected sex with a different stranger she meets at a bar every weekend.
Yeah, but people CHOOSE to travel to certain Asian, tropical, or African locales.
Nobody CHOOSES to be gay!
@WMDKitty
No one chooses to get cancer or autoimmune disease either. I probably can't donate blood (I'll find out when I'm 17, at the end of the month). I would like to, but I don't see it as being reasonable to claim that they should let me just because my inability wouldn't be my fault. Whether or not you chose to be ineligible isn't really relevant; you can be completely blameless and still be a risk. Also, this would vary between places, so it may or may not be true in the US, but in Canada the question relates specifically to male homosexual contact, which is a choice.
I'm not claiming it's completely fair at it is, but arguing that you should let anyone donate because they didn't choose to be a risk to the recipients does not make sense.
I'm banned from giving blood because I "Lived in the UK prior to 1996"
@Gloria Wouldn't it be better to ask if anyone(straight gay or bi) has had sex within the last six months with out using a condom?
So why can't homosexuals live with the same "have you had more than one sexual partner in the last year?" question that the rest of us do?
You'd think that the local bar tramp would be much more likely to have AIDS than a homosexual man who's been in a monogamous relationship.
Oh right, I'm looking at it logically.
Your theory sinks when you see that lesbians actually can give as much blood as they wish because they're even cleaner than most heterosexual women. Moreover, do you know that before giving blood EVERYBODY is tested?. So, problem is over.
Nobody who’s been to certain Asian or tropical locales has a problem with the restrictions. Not every one of them has a tropical disease, but it’s proven to be worth the exclusions.
Really? You know, I can't give blood because I spent more time in the UK than is allowed in order to give blood. Now no matter what, I can't give blood because I went to go visit my grandparents too many times. So you might want to take a poll before you read off the results.
Fact 1: The fastest-growing and highest-risk group for AIDS infection is "heterosexual males."
Fact 2: The lowest-risk group for AIDS infection is "homosexual females."
Fact 3: SJSAMPLE is an ignorant tool.
I'm bi. I've had sex with 2 men. I'm STD free... yet by UK laws, im unclean and can't give blood. Ever again. Hell even just oral sex with another man is enough to ban you for life.
Oh and if I had sex with a woman? She won't be allowed to donate blood for 6 months, because thats how long it takes for my "unclean" to escape for bloodstream.
Blood donation buisness is rather wonky around here, you can lie on questionnaires about your sexual preference and such.
Being Asexual MS-Patient myself, I got booted out from blood runs even, I had 0- and way above average hemoglobin and I wasn't on any immune-supressive medication at the time either, no explanation given.
{singing}
Ev'ry-one has AIDS, AIDS, AIDSAIDSAIDS,
EDIT: Damn you, nemesis , you beat me to it!
IanC:
Actually, that's how long it takes for the virus to become detectable in a reliable manner.
EDIT: outside the body, that is.
@Lulzmonger
For a long time anyone with a generalized autoimmune condition was banned, not because of medications, but because they were concerned that the blood would cause the same health problems for recipients that it causes for it's orignal owners. It doesn't work that way, but not every blood bank is aware that the elligibility requirements have changed.
@ IanC
Because not everyone who uses a condom does it right, with no risk, every time. In fact, almost no one does.
Hetreosexuals can have AIDS too, this is why all donated blood gets screened for AIDS and other blood-borne diseases. And the majority of homosexuals do not have AIDS, and very few people, if any, want to spread it.
The restrictions on gay people giving blood is an extremely outdated reactionary measure which is now pointless, if it ever did any good at all.
Here in Sweden I think most people who got AIDS in the "beginning" were intravenous drug abusers.
I can't donate blood, as I understand it, because I take medicine for my epilepsy. I once escalated my dosage too quickly, by mistake, and I couldn't stand still; I had to sit down on the floor to hold myself still. Hence, I can understand why it would be bad for an already sick person to receive my blood.
Blanket accusations of conspiracy to commit genocide are hateful and entirely unhelpful.
That said, I don't really understand why there is a restriction on homosexuals being allowed to donate.
_All_ blood that is donated is tested for HIV (and a lot of other diseases) by multiple independent methods. If _any_ of them register as positive, that donor is permanently disbarred from donating.
This applies even when the result is a false positive, which happens a lot more often than real positives. The rate of false negatives is very very low.
So why is it worth immediately excluding 10% of potential donors just because they are statistically more likely to have a disease that will be checked for anyway?
>implying that all gays have AIDS
Also, if homosexuality is a "choice", why do you guys say gays have AIDS? What about gays that don't have sex? What, do they have aids just from looking at a man?
Seriously, what?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
