Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, most do, and gay men use condoms at much higher rates than straight men.
My goodness. What planet are some people living on?
And perhaps it would be a good idea for straight men to use condoms more often. After all, it's generally not gay men who are responsible for the approximately one million fetuses that are aborted in the U.S. every year.
Homosexual men use condoms at much higher rates that straight men? Something is wrong with you analogy (nothing to do with anal, by the way.
I have the "suspicion" that the US heterosexual male population is quite a lot larger than the homosexual male population. Even so, the incidence of AIDS in the homosexual population is quite higher per capita than the incidence of AIDS in the heterosexual male population. If the use of condoms in the homosexual male population were as high as you said, the incidence of AIDS would be quite low. I wonder if some of the heterosexual condom workers are introducing defects on their product?
I did hear of protests, I'll post if I can find the info.
Thank you. I also expected a different outcome, and I've been patient throughout the years, with the understanding that changes don't come quickly. But this is ridiculous. It's time to start challenging the authorities on this, and maybe even causing some trouble.
Thank you. I also expected a different outcome, and I've been patient throughout the years, with the understanding that changes don't come quickly. But this is ridiculous. It's time to start challenging the authorities on this, and maybe even causing some trouble.
In my view it would be of utmost importance for Americans to unite and concentrate in the subject of creating a national economic recovery (jobs), than worrying about blood donation bans. Don't you think so? Our national spending has already reached our GDP (100%). Greece's GDP was surpassed by spending, which then reached 180% of the GDP.
In my view it would be of utmost importance for Americans to unite and concentrate in the subject of creating a national economic recovery (jobs), than worrying about blood donation bans. Don't you think so? Our national spending has already reached our GDP (100%). Greece's GDP was surpassed by spending, which then reached 180% of the GDP.
ya know most people can walk AND chew gum at the same time
I think all the people who voted yes should be strapped down in a chair and given a blood transfusion form a Gay Male.......not all of us Carry diseases..........i'm beginning to think the only that will make Straight ppl realize we want = Rights is a Gay vs. Straight war .......which we would win easily..........Why can't we donate blood? They Test it , so it should catch any disease's. Us Gays might as well start are own Blood Bank , and show how clean we are........You keep treating us like second class citizens , you did that to African Americans and it didn't end so well. I guess this country doesn't learn past mistakes........I guess this shows how retarded and stupid our Country is , may God Bless a America.....
The simple truth is, Americans have no concept of freedom. Most Americans don't want freedom, they just want to tell others what they should be doing and what should be acceptable. Americans make their decisions based off fear and emotions, rather than facts and tolerance.
The truth is, in principle theres basically no difference between denying blood from a gay man and denying blood from a black woman. The fact that most Americans will defend one and not the other is a testament to the distorted view of freedom that Americans tend to posess.
The government is supposed to be an extension of the majority of the people. If the majority of the people tomorrow decided that black women's blood was less safe than a white mans blood, should we be able to ban it? Why or why not?
The question you have to ask yourself is, should the government be able to take away a persons rights if the majority agree?
By supporting legislation by the government that tells a private institution they must discriminate is opening the door for more and more intrusions by the government. If the government can say one group is less safe for the public good, then it could make a case that any group is less safe for the public good. And that goes for far more than just giving blood. So where do you draw the line?
This country is not a democracy, and the federal government was intentionally limited because of the danger that our freedoms would be taken away by mob rule.
I don't support a federal law that upholds the rights of gays or lesbians or by race/religion/creed/ethnicity/whatever when it comes to private institutions, such as the Red Cross. I don't believe that anyone specifically should get special treatment just because they are a minority of any sort(which is all these laws produce, especially things like affirmative-action and hate-crime legislation which gets consistently distorted). But I also don't believe the federal government has the right to tell a private institution such as the Red Cross that they must discriminate, regardless of if the majority of the people think it is for the public good. If the Red Cross thinks it is wise to discriminate, that is fine, they can do that. If the Red Cross thinks it is unscientifically founded to prohibit homosexuals from donating blood.
This this country needs to understand what the true test of freedom is. It is for the citizens of a country to be able to tolerate the actions and ideas of people they disagree with, understanding that if you don't give them that freedom, then how could you ever expect the same for yourself?
If given the choice to get blood for a straight man or a gay man, I would choose to get blood from the straight man. But I still think this ban by a federal agency is an absolute travesty, and an attack on the fundamental basis of freedom. If you don't stand against it, then you do not believe in freedom.
This isn't a 'rights' issue it is a public health issue.
All the statistics being bandied about on here seem to show that homosexual males have a very high (the highest?) rate of AIDS. IF (and I don't think either side of the argument has shown that it does or doesn't) refusing blood donations from homosexual males results in a decrease in infected blood, then it IS a good thing.
::Waits for the shouts of 'You hate gays' to die down::
No. I don't. That the refusal targets homosexual males in incidental to me. The refusal to take blood from people who lived in England from ?? - ??, the refusal to take blood from whomever else, I feel the exact same way. If these policies make the blood supply more safe, then I am in favor of them.
Now, are these refusals the BEST way to ensure a safe blood supply? I don't know. I don't think anyone here has the information to prove or disprove that.
The ideal situation, obviously, would be to refuse the blood of anyone carrying a blood-borne disease and accept the blood of anyone who does not carry a blood-borne disease. I'm not sure that we currently have the ability to test each individual. IF we do, and the cost is not prohibitive, then that would be the best solution. IF we don't, then determining high-risk groups is in our best interest.
Once again, this IS NOT a rights or freedom issue. Rights and freedoms end when those actions cause harm to another person. Donating infected blood causes harm to innocent people.
This isn't a 'rights' issue it is a public health issue.
All the statistics being bandied about on here seem to show that homosexual males have a very high (the highest?) rate of AIDS. IF (and I don't think either side of the argument has shown that it does or doesn't) refusing blood donations from homosexual males results in a decrease in infected blood, then it IS a good thing.
::Waits for the shouts of 'You hate gays' to die down::
No. I don't. That the refusal targets homosexual males in incidental to me. The refusal to take blood from people who lived in England from ?? - ??, the refusal to take blood from whomever else, I feel the exact same way. If these policies make the blood supply more safe, then I am in favor of them.
Now, are these refusals the BEST way to ensure a safe blood supply? I don't know. I don't think anyone here has the information to prove or disprove that.
The ideal situation, obviously, would be to refuse the blood of anyone carrying a blood-borne disease and accept the blood of anyone who does not carry a blood-borne disease. I'm not sure that we currently have the ability to test each individual. IF we do, and the cost is not prohibitive, then that would be the best solution. IF we don't, then determining high-risk groups is in our best interest.
Once again, this IS NOT a rights or freedom issue. Rights and freedoms end when those actions cause harm to another person. Donating infected blood causes harm to innocent people.
The ban on people visiting the UK is backed by science. The ban of people who have recently engaged in anal sex with multiple partners, and engaged in other high-risk activities is valid. People who lead low-risk lifestyles should be able to donate. That's what testing is for. I don't believe anyone here is proposing that people who engage in frequent, unprotected anal sex be allowed to donate, they lead high-risk lifestyles. If you are excluding gay men, but allowing black women who also have very high infection rates, that makes no logical sense. If you are to ban a group based on high incidence, then black women should be included in that group. The logic behind banning an entire group is flawed. The questionnaires are there to filter out high-risk behaviours, as they should.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
....I guess this shows how retarded and stupid our Country is , may God Bless a America.....
