National Gay blood drive day

[thalassa]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

In that case I do have a problem because the whole thing seemed to be based on prejudice, rather than banning high risk groups from donating which would, at least to me, be understandable.

Giving the Red Cross the benefit of the doubt (I used to work for them), MSM (men that have sex with men--its the phrase used by people that do HIV work) are engaging in an activity that is fairly easy to target. Like getting prison tatts or eating beef in Britain... Some of the other groups are very. very broad. The problem here is that there MSM is a pretty broad category also, that fails to take into account behaviors that mitigate the risks involved.

...I will add (even thought I don't necessairly support this ban) that it targets a behavior, rather than an orientation. Not all MSM ID as gay, nor does it target women...

[Unlogisch]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

A straight man who has never had sex with another man and yet has contracted HIV through having sex with a woman will not be turned away from a blood bank yet I would be. I am a gay man, I have had sex with other men in the past and will have sex with other men in the future, I always use protection, and I am completely free of sexually transmitted diseases. I also have close relatives whose lives have been saved by donor blood, platelets, and marrow. I want to help save others' lives in return. End of fucking story - so, yes, I have a serious problem with it.

[Rick]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

A straight man who has never had sex with another man and yet has contracted HIV through having sex with a woman will not be turned away from a blood bank yet I would be. I am a gay man, I have Chad sex with other men in the past and will have sex with other men in the future, I always use protection, and I am completely free of sexually transmitted diseases. I also have close relatives whose lives have been saved by donor blood, platelets, and marrow. I want to help save others' lives in return. End of fucking story - so, yes, I have a serious problem with it.

I don't know how they do things in Cali, but in the Heartland, before anyone can donate blood they have to fill out a questionaire, and anyone that indicates they have engaged in anything that the medics consider 'at risk' behavior is turned down, whether it's gay sex, IV drug use, multiple sex partners, been a patient of Tulsa's Dirty Dentist that's infected several people, etc. It's not just gay men being turned away from donating. Oh, and a blood bank worker asks you all the questions over again, just in case you might lie on paper but admit it to a live person, I guess.

[Medusa]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

I've watched enough Dr Phil episodes to know heroine addicts who share dirty needles look like cute college girls. I think that's who should be banned.

Now how fair does that sound?

[Rick]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

I've watched enough Dr Phil episodes to know heroine addicts who share dirty needles look like cute college girls. I think that's who should be banned.

Now how fair does that sound?

Damned fair. I don't want anyone's infected blood, whether it's HIV, hep C, or just cooties.

[Medusa]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

Damned fair. I don't want anyone's infected blood, whether it's HIV, hep C, or just cooties.

I agree. Then ban everyone! No blood.
If you test one group, you test us all. Seems the only fair thing. Que no?

[Luce]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

"Pro-Gays"?

[Unlogisch]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

I don't know how they do things in Cali, but in the Heartland, before anyone can donate blood they have to fill out a questionaire, and anyone that indicates they have engaged in anything that the medics consider 'at risk' behavior is turned down, whether it's gay sex, IV drug use, multiple sex partners, been a patient of Tulsa's Dirty Dentist that's infected several people, etc. It's not just gay men being turned away from donating. Oh, and a blood bank worker asks you all the questions over again, just in case you might lie on paper but admit it to a live person, I guess.

You are aware that a person can contract HIV without being aware of it, right? There are a great many instances of couples wherein one partner cheats and contracts a sexually transmitted disease and then the other partner contracts it unknowingly, believing themself to be in a monogamous relationship.

Can you present to me any rational reason why, for instance, a faithful and completely STD-free gay couple who have been together for forty years should be turned away from a blood bank? For another: why should I be turned away from a blood bank when I have had less than three sexual partners in my entire life, always, always, use a condom and my tests have all come back squeaky clean while a straight man who possesses all of the same characteristics will be welcomed without much of a second thought?

Lastly, I'd like to point out that your 'rebuttal' pretty much amounts to an implied ad hominem attack in combination with implied red herring and hasty generalization fallacies. Just saying.

[MoonRaven]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

Warning!: This post contains references to sexual actions, albeit in a very detached and clinical way.

Giving the Red Cross the benefit of the doubt (I used to work for them), MSM (men that have sex with men--its the phrase used by people that do HIV work) are engaging in an activity that is fairly easy to target. Like getting prison tatts or eating beef in Britain... Some of the other groups are very. very broad. The problem here is that there MSM is a pretty broad category also, that fails to take into account behaviors that mitigate the risks involved.

...I will add (even thought I don't necessarily support this ban) that it targets a behavior, rather than an orientation. Not all MSM ID as gay, nor does it target women...

I could understand it if it was truly a certain behaviour they wanted to ban, but what makes the MSM group, as a whole, a high risk group is that this group, again as a whole I am not speaking of the conduct of individuals, engage in unprotected oral and anal sex, which have a higher chance than unprotected vaginal sex of transferring STD's. But the MSM group is not the only group who conducts this behaviour, so does a lot of heterosexsual women, and as far as I can tell they aren't automatically banned from donating.
Actually any form of unprotected sex have a great risk of transferring STDs, HIV may be the most serious but is by far the only one, so anyone who has it should be banned. But having protected sex, at least if the protection is a condom, carries a very low risk, so banning those who conduct that, no matter who they conduct it with, feels slightly silly. Not to mention it would ban the majority of the human race.

If they were genuinely banning a certain form of risk-filled behaviour, and I can understand doing that, then all who conduct themselves in this way should be banned. Period.

[Bobbybobby99]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

"Radical Pro Gay"

Reallly? You used that expression there? You call someone a radical pro gay just for wanting people to be able to help people? For wanting to take down a law that prevents people from helping people and doesn't target equally risky subgroups such as women who have anal sex? For wanting equality?

[thalassa]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

I could understand it if it was truly a certain behaviour they wanted to ban, but what makes the MSM group, as a whole, a high risk group is that this group, again as a whole I am not speaking of the conduct of individuals, engage in unprotected oral and anal sex, which have a higher chance than unprotected vaginal sex of transferring STD's. But the MSM group is not the only group who conducts this behaviour, so does a lot of heterosexsual women, and as far as I can tell they aren't automatically banned from donating.

Can you present to me any rational reason why, for instance, a faithful and completely STD-free gay couple who have been together for forty years should be turned away from a blood bank? For another: why should I be turned away from a blood bank when I have had less than three sexual partners in my entire life, always, always, use a condom and my tests have all come back squeaky clean while a straight man who possesses all of the same characteristics will be welcomed without much of a second thought?

Statistics. It all comes down to statistics. And the statistics are not specifically about being gay. Its about men that have sex with men--lesbians are excluded from this, men that identify as straight but have or have had sex with other men are not (and there are more of them than one might think). MSM have disproportionately high rates of HIV compared to their population size. It just happens that most gay guys engage in MSM (although some do not, a priest I know is openly gay and very celibate...and a blood donor).

I might add, that I don't agree with this practice, that I think it is unfair, and that I think with good enough screening practices, the risk should be negligible in comparison to other groups. And (once again) the FDA is going to be reviewing it.

[Corvus]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

It's my understanding that heterosexual transmission is still the fastest way in which HIV is spread. I can understand that MSM have a higher percentage of HIV positive people but it does seem ridiculous to ban the entire group because it's barring millions of potential donors who are clean when the red cross is constantly saying how they need more blood. As a MSM I'm undeniable biased but what is the problem with the increasing use and availability of condoms? not to mention that they're supposed to screen the blood. I'm actually slightly scared that they don't screen the blood like they say they do potentially opening people to blood borne diseases.

I've attempted to donate blood before, but the drives keep getting cancelled due to a lack of donors (further illustrating that they should accept all donors). I know several people that are MSM who just lie on the questionnaire because they don't want the drama but still want to help the cause. In my opinion that's totally understandable. This isn't even mentioning the local pride center gives out free condoms and does free HIV screening at all their events. It's just unfair.

[thalassa]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

It's my understanding that heterosexual transmission is still the fastest way in which HIV is spread. I can understand that MSM have a higher percentage of HIV positive people but it does seem ridiculous to ban the entire group because it's barring millions of potential donors who are clean when the red cross is constantly saying how they need more blood.

Right, but the reasoning (which I don't agree with) is that the MSM "pool" of people has a higher chance of having HIV infected blood in it than everyone else. Say you have two jars...a big jar and a little one, if you put 100 red marbles in each jar, and filled the rest up with blue marbles, you have a higher chance of picking a red marble from the little on than the big one.

That's the concern--the FDA hasn't yet decided that the risk to the recipient of the donor blood is worth pulling from the little jar yet. I don't necessarily agree (neither, I might add, does the Red Cross anymore...although, for a time I think these were reasonable precautions until the tech for detection was super good), but that is the *why*.

[Monster]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

"Radical Pro Gay"

Reallly? You used that expression there? You call someone a radical pro gay just for wanting people to be able to help people? For wanting to take down a law that prevents people from helping people and doesn't target equally risky subgroups such as women who have anal sex? For wanting equality?

I assume you're talking to me. The term I used was rabid pro gay. If you're going to quote me, get it right.

First off, gays aren't the only ones "targeted" to use your expression. There are plenty of other reasons that people aren't allowed to give blood. And secondly....as much as it pains me to admit that she has a good point, Thalassa does bring up an excellent explanation.

Statistically, gay males.....or bisexual males...are infinitely higher risk than hetero couples. Why? Anal sex. It is infinitely easier to contract a disease through anal sex than it is vaginal. Where some hetero couples don't engage in anal sex.....for penetrational purposes....gay men only have anal as an option.

*You* may not like it. And *you* may not fall into a high risk category, and be monogamous and practice safe sex and all that. But a goodly number of your brethren don't. Which is why these laws were implemented in the first place.

But because you're gay, you'd rather get all bent out of shape at what you can't do...instead of understanding that law is there for a reason....and go do what you CAN.

Your little rant about wanting to help people? So what if you can't give blood? Go be a nurse or a paramedic or a police officer or a fireman. You could hands on help people every day and see what your good works have done. Instead you want to bitch about what you can't do....which makes me believe you'd rather be a victim instead of making a difference.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: National Gay blood drive day

I have to admit it sort of bugs me that there is an uproar because gay men are typically excluded from giving blood due to the probability of being HIV infected. I'm retired military and can't give blood which as a segment of society places me in probably the same minor subset portion numbers. We do what we can when we can but find it a waste of time to bitch about what we can't do. Our supposed discrimination due to where we were stationed or things we were exposed to while serving our country that make us unable to give blood.

Perhaps it is more an matter of personal honor and ethics that is the actual question here. I could lie upon a questioner and say I was not exposed to any of that or engaged in any of those activities but my own morals and ethics prevent me from doing so. That to me is as important in aiding and helping others as trying to get upset because of a condition or operation meant to protect the greater whole including those within the subset getting offended by it. Especially a condition that has been as catastrophic to society as HIV has across the boards. I can't help but wonder if Cancer or other catastrophic conditions where as easily passed would there be those contesting if those donors were prevented from giving blood or other fluids / parts that could potentially convey the disease to others?

I find it sad that a group complains they can't do a thing when they'd equally complain were they to get tainted blood or organs because of a mistake or lapse somewhere in the chain of events. That a given lifestyle has a higher percentage should be a definer in deciding what is best or not best for a material that can be utilized upon the whole of society, negatively or positively. To insist otherwise seems to be focused upon ego vice actual concern for society or idea of actually helping another person.