Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    :ditto: either we tolorate discrimination or we don't.
    I see your argument, and I agree with it to a great extent, but an either/or stance on this issue is far too simplisitc, and naive in my opinion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -1984-)
    Are you serious, or am I at fault for not grasping your particular sense of humour?
    Of course I am serious. If I run, say, a shop or a public house then I am fully responsible for deciding who I let use my service. I don't have to serve any person that I don't want to - that is slavery.

    I feel it has to be one or the other. Human rights are not goals, they are constraints. The law either respects them or doesn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Fact: There's no way to get HIV if you're straight

    :rolleyes:
    Bullocks.

    You don't even need to have sex to get AIDS.

    You can get it simply by sharing needles, blades or razors with another infected patient.

    Think your family member having AIDS, or if you're a drug abuser, etc.

    On that note, I don't see why they should be banned from donating (especially given the current chronic shortage of supplies in blood banks) provided they test negatively for such blood conditions.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nutter)
    Bullocks.

    You don't even need to have sex to get AIDS.

    You can get it simply by sharing needles, blades or razors with another infected patient.

    Think your family member having AIDS, or if you're a drug abuser, etc.

    On that note, I don't see why they should be banned from donating (especially given the current chronic shortage of supplies in blood banks) provided they test negatively for such blood conditions.
    Jesus Christ, do people have NO sense of sarcasm? Were the rolling eyes insufficient?
    It makes baby Jesus cry
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Jesus Christ, do people have NO sense of sarcasm? Were the rolling eyes insufficient?
    It makes baby Jesus cry
    lmao.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Jesus Christ, do people have NO sense of sarcasm? Were the rolling eyes insufficient?
    It makes baby Jesus cry
    Ah, I didn't see the rolleyes. Apologies for that.

    Then again, I detest the use of the rolleyes in general. And sarcasm as a tool.

    For the little kid who negged me, you know what's coming your way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nutter)
    Ah, I didn't see the rolleyes. Apologies for that.

    Then again, I detest the use of the rolleyes in general. And sarcasm as a tool.

    For the little kid who negged me, you know what's coming your way.
    lmfao. With all the repping power you have, I wouldn't want to have a grudge with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It doesn't matter. Only about 2% of people who are allowed to give blood actually do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly, don't ever got stabbed - we don't have the blood for you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    It doesn't matter. Only about 2% of people who are allowed to give blood actually do.
    Its principle, surely?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If they don't want my blood, then f**k 'em.

    What I think is great, is that a man can have sex with a hooker, and still be eligible to give blood after a year, but the filthy dirty gays aren't allowed to give it in any circumstances, even if they wear 50 condoms during sex.

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quadruple_twist)
    If they don't want my blood, then f**k 'em.

    What I think is great, is that a man can have sex with a hooker, and still be eligible to give blood after a year, but the filthy dirty gays aren't allowed to give it in any circumstances, even if they wear 50 condoms during sex.

    :rolleyes:
    Its blatant discrimination.

    On this particular issue, the gay community is far to passive.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Renal)
    Gay men aren't banned from donating blood.

    It's men who have had oral or anal sex with another man.

    And women who have had sex with a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man.
    i.e. gay men who AREN'T celibate...

    I think its right that gay men were banned in the past, and i certainly think its right that gay men and prostitutes be banned in less developed countries, but in the UK the safegaurds and blood checking is such that i don't see a careful gay man as being any more risk of donating a contaminated blood product (which will be screened anyway) than your average black immigrant.
    thats not racism incidentally, thats statistics.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by quadruple_twist)
    If they don't want my blood, then f**k 'em.

    What I think is great, is that a man can have sex with a hooker, and still be eligible to give blood after a year, but the filthy dirty gays aren't allowed to give it in any circumstances, even if they wear 50 condoms during sex.

    :rolleyes:
    But how many straight men use pros versus the number of gay men who have sex with gay men.
    gay men have umpteen times higher levels of a whole number of diseases - hiv, hepb, syphillis etc.
    the rules are a throw back to a time when this sort of 'discrimination' as you put it saved lives.
    if we get some evidence based data to prove this discrimination is no longer a life saver then i agree it should be removed. But don't for a second think this is an anti-gay movement. Things often move slowly in the medical world, because whenever one changes things rapidly for political reasons, people suffer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nutter)
    On that note, I don't see why they should be banned from donating (especially given the current chronic shortage of supplies in blood banks) provided they test negatively for such blood conditions.
    They do test for such conditions, but as with all tests there are 'misses', as in false negatives. Given there isn't much worse you can give someone with a blood transfusion it seems fair to reduce the chances of HIV+ blood getting through the net.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't mind giving blood but apparently cos I've been to Africa I'm not allowed...

    I don't think gays should be stopped from giving blood, all blood should be screened effectively so it shouldn't matter who gave it. Straight people have AIDS too...
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    The blood people came to talk to 6thform last year, so I was looking through the leaflet for restrictions.It stated that anyone who has had a blood transfustion before 1990 cannot donate blood. This applies to me because I had major surgey as a child. Apparently 1990 is when they started all of this checking to see if diseases are in the blood malarky, so I can't give blood because I may have a disease like HIV or something. that was a nice thing to learn.

    Gay men are supposedly not able to give blood because AIDS/HIV is passed on through anal sex, and then oral sex. However Anal sex happens just as much, if not more, in straight relationships. How ****ing rediculous.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Any blood being better than none at all; yes. However, I shouldn't be averse to some manner of discrimination by way of prioritisation or hierarchy according to statistical 'threat': otherwise, you might as well advocate donating 'O+' blood to everyone irrespective; because there's certainly more than enough to go around, and it's simply not fair otherwise.

    That's right, children: I'm potentially playing Russian roulette with your health and well-being on a premise of political-correctness. By all means, sue me; because, if you don't, I'm liable to lose all faith in humanity.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by coaster)
    Is it right that gay men are denied the chance of giving blood purely because of their sexuality?

    I'm not saying that all gay me are infected with HIV, but it does seem to reduce the risk considerably of wasting time collecting blood that can't be used.
    You can just say you are not gay. You can always lie. No?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Any blood being ... otherwise, you might as well advocate donating 'O+' blood to ... all faith in humanity.
    I'm sure your language becomes more convoluted everytime I read another of your posts; nevertheless I believe 'O-' blood would be more appropriate in this case.

    (Original post by celeritas)
    You can just say you are not gay. You can always lie. No?
    They don't make these regulations to make people feel excluded you know, there is medical reasoning behind the apparent madness. As such it would be irresponsible (and potentially libellous) to lie in such a situation.

    (Original post by Tag)
    Gay men are supposedly not able to give blood because AIDS/HIV is passed on through anal sex, and then oral sex. However Anal sex happens just as much, if not more, in straight relationships. How ****ing rediculous.
    Those people who have had sex with a man are not allowed to donate blood because statistically they are more likely to have HIV or hepatitis; as the screens for both diseases are not perfect the measure is taken to protect those recieving blood.
 
 
 
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.