Turn on thread page Beta

UK National Blood Service doesn't accept non-heterosexual blood. Homophobia? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should practising Homosexuals be allowed to donate blood? (Public Poll)
    Yes - provided they've not had unprotected sex in the last three months
    49.19%
    No -Not at all.
    50.81%

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demokrat)
    There is no positive right to be able to give blood. It's a service that you provide for the health of others. If you're annoyed that you're being restricted the 'right' to give blood then probably you're lucky you don't have bigger things to be annoyed about.
    Quite.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Considering most straight males have a much higher risk of getting HIV than me I will have to agree that it's nothing but homophobia. As someone who despises the idea of having sex outside a relationship, nevermind unprotected sex, I find it disgusting that a man who gets with a different woman every week is judged to be at less risk. Women can pass on HIV too if they have it.

    The best way to deal with the issue is to rule out promiscuous people as they tend to be more at risk than people who are sensible about sexual encounters.

    I'm actually amazed that so many people on a website such as this are voting "no". Then again most of them will just agree with what they've been told rather than think.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    Considering most straight males have a much higher risk of getting HIV than me I will have to agree that it's nothing but homophobia. As someone who despises the idea of having sex outside a relationship, nevermind unprotected sex, I find it disgusting that a man who gets with a different woman every week is judged to be at less risk. Women can pass on HIV too if they have it.

    The best way to deal with the issue is to rule out promiscuous people as they tend to be more at risk than people who are sensible about sexual encounters.

    I'm actually amazed that so many people on a website such as this are voting "no". Then again most of them will just agree with what they've been told rather than think.
    Of course it's not homophobia. It excludes those men who have had anal sex with another man, not gay people.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prudy)
    Of course it's not homophobia. It excludes those men who have had anal sex with another man, not gay people.
    How many straight men do you know who have anal sex with men?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    How many straight men do you know who have anal sex with men?
    That's immaterial. The point is the rule excludes people based on an act they have commited which statistically puts them in a higher risk category. It does not exclude people because they are gay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    How many straight men do you know who have anal sex with men?
    Not many. But then if people choose to have gay sex then they have to take the consequences of that choice. Including the grossly increased risk of HIV, and rationally the blood service does not want to pass it on further. One case could potentially hit dozens of people, and waste lots and lots of blood too...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gyrase)
    My beliefs override my life, so I'd rather die than recieve homosexual blood. It isnt preference, its religion, the idea is disgusting.
    If I got blood from you, would that turn me into a suicide bomber? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    How many straight men do you know who have anal sex with men?
    Are you saying that having anal sex is a key component, integral if you will, to being homosexual?

    If I was gay then I would find that belittling.

    One can be homosexual and not have anal sex.
    Pedantic? Of course.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prudy)
    Of course it's not homophobia. It excludes those men who have had anal sex with another man, not gay people.
    I don't think you understand what homophobia is, in the legal sense anyway.

    Attacking a camp guy who isn't gay, because you perceive him to be gay, is still a homophobic hate crime.

    What you are saying is simple pendantry. The gay guys who suffer the most abuse tend to be the most "different", camp guys. Does that make picking on them and not a "normal" gay guy not homphobic?

    In legal terms certainly not.


    (Original post by Allthewayhome)
    Are you saying that having anal sex is a key component, integral if you will, to being homosexual?

    If I was gay then I would find that belittling.

    One can be homosexual and not have anal sex.
    Pedantic? Of course.
    Ok, lets ban those who have vaginal sex.

    It's not heterophobic at all......
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prudy)
    That's immaterial. The point is the rule excludes people based on an act they have commited which statistically puts them in a higher risk category. It does not exclude people because they are gay.
    Statistics can be made to show anything you want them to. While the risk may be higher to catch HIV through anal sex than vaginal sex, the fact remains it other factors are way more important in determining HIV risk. A man who has had vaginal sex with 100 different women is at much higher risk than a man who has had anal sex with a few men. Then we have the added issues of protected vs unprotected and how the person is choosing their sexual partners. The fact the NHS don't assess these other risk factors shows that they are focussing on the fact these men are gay or bisexual.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frodz)
    I don't think you understand what homophobia is, in the legal sense anyway.

    Attacking a camp guy who isn't gay, because you perceive him to be gay, is still a homophobic hate crime.

    What you are saying is simple pendantry. The gay guys who suffer the most abuse tend to be the most "different", camp guys. Does that make picking on them and not a "normal" gay guy not homphobic?

    In legal terms certainly not.
    Picking on someone because they are camp is more picking on someone for being a total overblown narcissist than homophobia imo. Being "camp" per se is a nasty little facade that some people put on to fuel their need for attention, and like most attention seeking behaviour, can have unwelcome consequences.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allthewayhome)
    Are you saying that having anal sex is a key component, integral if you will, to being homosexual?

    If I was gay then I would find that belittling.

    One can be homosexual and not have anal sex.
    Pedantic? Of course.
    No, I am saying that in general heterosexual men do not engage in anal sex with other men. Of course, some may choose to but I imagine its extremely rare because few people will have sex with someone they aren't attracted to at all.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
    Picking on someone because they are camp is more picking on someone for being a total overblown narcissist than homophobia imo. Being "camp" per se is a nasty little facade that some people put on to fuel their need for attention, and like most attention seeking behaviour, can have unwelcome consequences.
    The law disagrees.......
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    Statistics can be made to show anything you want them to. While the risk may be higher to catch HIV through anal sex than vaginal sex, the fact remains it other factors are way more important in determining HIV risk. A man who has had vaginal sex with 100 different women is at much higher risk than a man who has had anal sex with a few men. Then we have the added issues of protected vs unprotected and how the person is choosing their sexual partners. The fact the NHS don't assess these other risk factors shows that they are focussing on the fact these men are gay or bisexual.
    I refer you to Helenia's post. Whether or not the staistics are true is a different issue to whether or not it is a homophobic rule.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frodz)
    I don't think you understand what homophobia is, in the legal sense anyway.

    Attacking a camp guy who isn't gay, because you perceive him to be gay, is still a homophobic hate crime.

    What you are saying is simple pendantry. The gay guys who suffer the most abuse tend to be the most "different", camp guys. Does that make picking on them and not a "normal" gay guy not homphobic?

    In legal terms certainly not.
    I don't understand what you're trying to say here. This point doesn't compare as far as I can tell.

    Anyway, I refer you to my subsequent post.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frodz)
    The law disagrees.......
    Could you please substantiate these comments with law. As a lawyer I like things like that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    Statistics can be made to show anything you want them to. While the risk may be higher to catch HIV through anal sex than vaginal sex, the fact remains it other factors are way more important in determining HIV risk. A man who has had vaginal sex with 100 different women is at much higher risk than a man who has had anal sex with a few men. Then we have the added issues of protected vs unprotected and how the person is choosing their sexual partners. The fact the NHS don't assess these other risk factors shows that they are focussing on the fact these men are gay or bisexual.
    The risk is orders of magnitude higher. From stuff linked earlier, 80% of HIV cases are in homosexual men, which make up about 5% of the population if we are generous. The risk is nearly 100 times greater. You may as well be arguing that blind people be licensed to drive, because hopefully they will have a sighted passenger to point out the hazards..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frodz)
    The law disagrees.......
    So. The reality is if you go around looking like and acting like a prat you are going to increase your risk of being thumped. The problem is that the gay rights movement have been given way way too much support in the law and society...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    Statistics can be made to show anything you want them to.
    Myth. Arising from the fact that some people dont understand statistics-Or want to stay igorant from fact.
    While the risk may be higher to catch HIV through anal sex than vaginal sex, the fact remains it other factors are way more important in determining HIV risk. A man who has had vaginal sex with 100 different women is at much higher risk than a man who has had anal sex with a few men.
    Thats a bit extreme because in reality, the average man doesnt sleep around that much, so your being extreme.
    Then we have the added issues of protected vs unprotected and how the person is choosing their sexual partners. The fact the NHS don't assess these other risk factors shows that they are focussing on the fact these men are gay or bisexual.
    Not at all. Blood transfusions represents a very small role of what NHS does, and NHS doesnt have the time, money and resources to provide assesment for risk factors associated with an STD, they'd rather there be no risk factor by excluding homosexual group donations.

    I see no problem here, and there isnt even a shortage of blood at the moment. This topic is just another reason for homosexuals to debate over for discrimination due to lack of statistical and scientific knowledge of blood transfusions.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prudy)
    I don't understand what you're trying to say here. This point doesn't compare as far as I can tell.

    Anyway, I refer you to my subsequent post.
    The point is simply because having sex with the same sex isn't required to be gay, homosexuality is still the stereotypical male homosexual behaviour.

    Just because a particular gay person has not had sex with someone of the same sex does not mean discriminating against men who have had sex with men isn't homophobic.


    It's like saying jews are fine, but they can't build synagogues. You don't have to go to synagogue to be a jew afterall :rolleyes: Of course it's discrimination, even if it's not targeted at that group specifically.


    Remember, we aren't even talking about anal sex, this includes people who only do oral.






    Personally i'd have no problem with the decision.........if women who had had sex with men who had sex with men couldn't give blood for life. The fact that they can is unjustifiable.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 9, 2008
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.