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 was humiliated and embarrassed,” said Pace, 22. of Gary. “It’s not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can’t. And I’m not even a homosexual.”
I don't neccessarily agree with the policy, but when you make comments like the one listed above, it is very telling.
I believe that he is gay (or at least bisexual) and that he has an agenda. The law is the law. Anyone can lie on the "confidential" questionaire. I believe they did the right thing by making this judgment call.
I also don't agree with the homeless being able to give blood, either (unless it was a center that didn't hand out $$$ for donations). I'm curious how many homeless people donate at places that don't pay. People will say anything for money, especially junkies and alcoholics.
Huh. I guess you think "the law" says: Anyone who looks gay, or you think might be lying on the questionnaire, cannot give blood.
Just a serious question UM. Does the HIV virus show up immediately in a test if it was just contracted through sexual intercourse say, a month or a week earlier? I heard it can take up to six months to show as positive on blood tests.
Just a serious question ditchlights:
Q: Can anyone be HIV positive, straights or even someone who has never had sex?
[I'll just go ahead and tell you the answer]
A: Yes
So I guess you think policy should be that anyone woman who, you know, "looks" like she might be "loose" shouldn't be allowed to give blood. Or any guy who "looks" like a "player"?
Yeah, that sure sounds like a brilliant policy!
Or do you save your brilliant judgment-call policy only for gays?
Just a serious question UM. Does the HIV virus show up immediately in a test if it was just contracted through sexual intercourse say, a month or a week earlier? I heard it can take up to six months to show as positive on blood tests.
In very, very rare cases the antibody test used to detect HIV can take six months. In 99% of infections, the antibody test will detect HIV within a month of infection.
However, in the US, blood banks use an RNA test that tests for the presence of the actual HIV virus rather than the HIV antibodies produced by the body's immune system. That test is something like 99.9999999% accurate within 9 days of infection.
Here we go again. Waaa it's not fair to gays. The reason HIV outbreaks stopped is because of this policy. So now that the gay's are seeking their special place in society they want to taint the blood supply again. Maybe if this guy would get a job instead of whining about not getting his $40 to gamble or buy booze.
That is a blatant lie and made up.
I would like to see proof that outbreaks stopped, how many viruses were transmitted by blood donations and if any of them were gay.
You can not show me anything because there have been only a handful of cases where this happened and nobody would even know if they were gay.
Nice try. Next.
Just a serious question ditchlights:
Q: Can anyone be HIV positive, straights or even someone who has never had sex?
[I'll just go ahead and tell you the answer]
A: Yes
So I guess you think policy should be that anyone woman who, you know, "looks" like she might be "loose" shouldn't be allowed to give blood. Or any guy who "looks" like a "player"?
Yeah, that sure sounds like a brilliant policy!
Or do you save your brilliant judgment-call policy only for gays?
OK. It was a simple question. Thanks for evading it. I like how you pick the parts of my post you feel like bashing. As I ALSO stated, I don't neccessarily agree with the policy. I never said anything about only gays being subject to the virus. Cool down a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
In very, very rare cases the antibody test used to detect HIV can take six months. In 99% of infections, the antibody test will detect HIV within a month of infection.
However, in the US, blood banks use an RNA test that tests for the presence of the actual HIV virus rather than the HIV antibodies produced by the body's immune system. That test is something like 99.9999999% accurate within 9 days of infection.
Thank you HT for taking a moment to answer the question. I do appreciate it.
Nine days is still a fairly large window. I don't think it is a good risk to take. This goes for straight or gay. The questionaire does also ask straight people about unprotected sex as well. It all comes down to honesty.
Regardless of the policy preventing gay men from donating blood, why was this man not even allowed to take the survey?
They looked at this guy, made an unfounded judgment that he's gay based on a stereotype, and then told him to not even bother with the survey to see if he's a qualified donor. I think that's pretty disgusting. It perpetuates the false stereotype that all gay men are feminine and that if a man is feminine he must be gay.
What next? A restaurant refusing to serve a black man because they know he'll leave a bad tip?
I would like to see proof that outbreaks stopped, how many viruses were transmitted by blood donations and if any of them were gay.
You can not show me anything because there have been only a handful of cases where this happened and nobody would even know if they were gay.
Nice try. Next.
I got an idea hero. Go ahead and let gay's donate blood but mark it as so and fools like you can mark a box on your license that you only accept blood donated by gays. That should make you "feel" so much better about yourself. Fool.
They looked at this guy, made an unfounded judgment that he's gay based on a stereotype, and then told him to not even bother with the survey to see if he's a qualified donor. I think that's pretty disgusting. It perpetuates the false stereotype that all gay men are feminine and that if a man is feminine he must be gay.
I think it's worse than that. Their stereotype is not only that all gay men are effeminate, it's that all gay men are effeminate AND HIV-positive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
I got an idea hero. Go ahead and let gay's donate blood but mark it as so and fools like you can mark a box on your license that you only accept blood donated by gays. That should make you "feel" so much better about yourself. Fool.
American Blacks are several times more likely to be HIV-positive than whites. Would you accept blood donated by a black person?
Regardless of the policy preventing gay men from donating blood, why was this man not even allowed to take the survey?
They looked at this guy, made an unfounded judgment that he's gay based on a stereotype, and then told him to not even bother with the survey to see if he's a qualified donor.
I may have missed it, but where in the article does it say that he was not even allowed to take the questionaire? It said he was denied during the screening process. The sit down interview comes after a potential donor fills out the questionaire.
In the grand scheme of things, though, it probably didn't make a difference either way since he was denied upon looks/behavior.
Blacks are several times more likely to be HIV-positive than whites. Would you accept blood donated by a black person?
Or a women from Africa. They're much more likely to have HIV than a US gay.
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.
