they do, its how they made superaids

Dude, wtf. Rosa Parks was denied the right to ride in the front of the bus in a time when blacks went to inferior schools, used inferior public facilities, and in general had a genuine disadvantage to being successful. You think that is the same as gays giving up the "right" to give blood? With scientific reasons!! How are the gays ever going to survive this terrible injustice?

And yes, gays are stupid to be offended. Like someone else said, you should think about why discrimination is bad. I'm Asian. If Asian blood was somehow scientifically proven to increase the risk of harmfulness when donated, I would 100% not be offended. To be offended that my blood was rejected for scientific reasons would be very very selfish.

This thread is lacking only one thing:

Someone who is forbidden to give blood.

I am not gay and I don't have AIDS, but I do have an immune disorder (ulcerative colitis) that prevents me from giving blood in a lot of places (like the UK). However, it does not prevent me from giving blood in the United States. (I just have to feel "healthy and well").

Given the nature of my body, I think it is thoroughly unwise for me to give blood, because I really don't know what kind of risks my blood has. I think that the blood supply is simply better off without my blood in it.

It might be instructive to look through the restrictions on blood donation, because there are way, way more where that came from:

http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/don...quirements.php

Note the restrictions on anyone who spent a large amount of time in Europe (especially the UK) in the 80s or early 90s. (Aw man, SHOT beat me to this.)

everyone is missing the point except for the guy that pointed out that the risk group is in fact people who has had unprotected anal sex, not homosexuals. homosexual sex doesnt stretch any orifices, anal sex does. now cue the hysterical homophobe jokes about that, but its a very important distinction. a survey from a few years back here showed that teenage girls were actually MORE likely to have anal sex than homosexual males. its a ****ed up demeaning clause.

you stupid bigots.

I think this is discriminatory in about the same way and degree that rules where you have to be a certain length to go on certain amusement rides is discriminatory.

There is actually some logical reason behind it even if that might be somewhat arbitrary or even flawed. But most importantly, the consequences of the discrimination are so small that in the end it shouldn't matter.

If blood was "rationed" so that only people that had at some time given blood could recieve blood THEN I think gays and other groups that for various reasons can't give blood could have cause to be upset. It's not like there is some universal right to give blood.

/Bjorn

so your complaint is that their questionnaire is worded wrong? definite bigotry, imo

three things:

1: teenage girls are slightly less likely to get AIDS because it is more likely that their sexual partner is a virgin.

2: i very sincerely doubt that is true in the united states, and i'd wonder about the frequency of both - i.e. there might be more teenage girls who have had anal sex, but the homosexuals having it are likely having it more often, and thus increasing their chances of transmitting the disease (if one has it).

3: is AIDS even a problem in Sweden?

+1 it's that simple

LOL at complaining about not being allowed to give blood, jesus christ i hate people

edit : luegofuego you are an idiot. heterosexual anal sex does not carry the risks that homosexual sex does because a straight man is highly unlikely to catch HIV (how can people not know this? I learned it in highschool and I think it's important enough to pretty much be common knowledge)

what in gods name does your post even mean? the effect of the clause is a direct cause of the wording so of ****ing course the wording is the problem. are you ******ed?

1. point is, anal sex isnt a gay thing anymore. and after the whole AIDS stigma thing, i wouldnt think its impossible that the gay community is actually MORE concerned with protection than the heterosexual community is. it doesnt really matter anyway, the point is that homosexual sex doesnt automatically make you more likely to have AIDS so the clause is unnecessary and bigoted. a much better wording would be the one asking about unprotected anal sex and thats the point.

2. look, i have a lot of gay friends and while discussing their sexual habits in depth would kind of make me kinda uncomfortable, i have picked up enough to realize that anal sex is far from the norm when it comes down to it. its weird how all you heterosexual guys know aaalll about NOT ONLY what gay dudes do in the sack, but AT WHAT FREQUENCY THEY DO IT.

3. not really. why?

If they were recently tested for STDs since their last bout of anal sex and all tests came back clean, would they be allowed to donate?

...
On another note, a guy I work with is a regular donor and has a '50 Gallon Donor' license plate the Red Cross gave him. Thinking about all that blood always makes me feel icky.

lolol

not automatically, not causally, and i'm too lazy to do the research, but my guess is that AIDS is still much more prevalent in homosexual males than it is in any other demographic. it's still discriminatory - they're not asking straight people about it, right? so they are risking a small amount of contamination from straight men/women - but sensibly so.

anything i've ever read indicates the opposite (savage love, etc.).

i was wondering because of that survey - if it was a problem, it would make sense that more men were avoiding high-risk behavior.

this doesn't necessarily make them more likely to have aids though

its not discrimination. gay virgins can donate all they want. they ask both str8s and teh gays if theyve had buttsecks.

it takes 3-6 months for hiv to show up on a test. thats a long time after exposure and a wide window which shows how crappy their tests are.

I would think that the clinic would want all the blood they could get right? So if they have a rule that limits the potential blood supply, they must have a good reason for it.

This seems bad at face value- but the more you learn the more it makes sense. The blood drive people just need to do a better job of explaining the realties of how the blood is tested and grouped.

For some reason- some of the basics of how HIV is transmitted and why anal sex makes it infi more likely (and why it's really hard for a female to pass HIV to a male) aren't nearly as well understood as they should be.

It's this silly DARE style of education that is very black and white and hits you over the head with the obvious solution (condoms ldo) and not nearly enough background to understand things. IMO.

just wow

did u even read the OP?

Actually having ****-buttsecks does make you more likely to have AIDS; DUCY! If you cant see why you are completely blind because of politically correctness and should void your opinion on all further arguments in life. ***** with aids is significantly larger % then straights with aids; this isnt even close there is an extrordinary difference. Something like 1/4-1/3 of all **** men in San Fran have aids; do you want there blood Luego? Yes or no? I want you to answer the question...

lol

i dont even know what word was being censored there. but the fact that you felt the need to use whatever word it was is pretty telling. tell me what the word is and ill answer the question.

Yes, it does.

From the Centers for Disease Control New Estimates of U.S. HIV Prevalence, 2006

Nearly half of all people living with HIV in the U.S. in 2006 (48%, or 532,000 total persons) were men who have sex with men (MSM).1 Among men, MSM accounted for 64% of those living with HIV.

So yeah, I'd say there is plenty enough statistical certainty that male homosexual activity makes you much, much, much more likely to contract HIV/AIDS.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...prevalence.pdf

From a Constitutional Law standpoint, discrimination is the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.

Seems like a reasonable distinction (compare total % of male homosexuals to % of HIV/AIDS population who acknowledged male-to-male sexual activity), thus no discrimination. Obviously this is more complex, but this seems like a total non-issue.

You also aren't being denied any sort of right or privilege here.

So yeah, suck it up and donate cash monies to the Red Cross if you feel so strongly about their cause. They don't want your AIDSblood.

The word I used was h-o-m-o...as in short for homosexual...OMG IMA BIGOTZ!