Home More advice Politics & Law
An Ontario court has allowed the blood services to enforce their ban, because they are not a government entity, but do you think that it's fair? What makes these men more at risk than promiscuous women, for example?
I don't propose to speak for freefromself... but I am as likely as he is to accuse people of parroting establishment propaganda. This isn't an assumption of intelligence. This is a reasoned inference based on the enumerations of the establishment agenda. If I hear the reiteration of an argument first spelt out in some yellow rag... then I can reasonably assume that its influence played a part in the persons argument. I know how intelligent I am... or better stated how ignorant I am. I understand the difference between ignorance and stupidity. I also know that saying certain things may marginalize the perception others may have of me... but truth does not bend to fashion. It is not too much of a stretch to suggest that those people of means have an agenda to further their means. These same people of means have the means to influence others on a larger scale than anyone else. Intelligent people may be ignorant of the total picture because they haven't been exposed to it. To paraphrase Hitler or Goebbels or whichever NAZI propagandist... "The bigger the lie... the more apt people are to believe it." If I suggest that someone is espousing establishment rhetoric... it is not an attempt to insult their intelligence... it is an informed observation.
All you did with this question is prove force fed we are in this country when it comes to questions like this. We are programmed by our media to respond to anything gay in a divisive manner. Anything black, in a divisve manner. Anything @bortion in a divisive manner. Our media complex wants division, because divide and counquer is how you control the masses. Not one G-damned free thinker in this whole bunch. Everyone to a fault responded with the Media inspired Pc answer, that has been beaten into there brains. I am done with pop culture, and I pick which news I want to digest. And I study facts.
No I dont think it is right! /angry
I have to agree with Mandyloo here...I think its unreal that in today's society people in general are being judged...regardless of sex, race or color...for pete's sake, if someone needs blood and there is none to give them do you think they will question if the person that gave them the blood was red/white or blue...if it was a male, female, gay or straight...for that matter?! Come on, this is 2010...we are supposed to be moving fwd not backwards...
Gay, bi, straight or anything in between....what ever happened to peace & love?!
It's really sad...:(
Sadly, the statistics do show that hiv/aids affects a huge majority of the gay population....far more than in straight promiscuous women. However, i dont believe that its fair to deny a man the ability to give blood just because of his sexuality. Just with every other statistic, there are clean people who have only had one partner, why should they be denied the opportunity just because that partner happens to be a man. I would think that anyone...regardless of sexuality...would refrain from giving blood if they knew that they were promiscuous or had a chance of having an std or disease.
This isnt about "homophobia" this is about protecting our blood supply. I cant give blood because I joined the Army and was stationed in Germany for 3 years. Do I feel discriminated against? Sometimes we have to look past our sensitivites and do what is sensible. This is more about the survival of the human species that it is about human rights. These are not anti-gay activists who are making these decisions, these are medical professionals. Most of the comments on this thread are devisive and incinerary, and totally off topic.
I dont know. I know that in NZ, homosexual men are the group most likely to be affected by HIV/AIDs, so I kind of see the reasoning. However, people in the past have been infected through blood transfusions even with the ban in place, so surely the blood would be screened. If you blood from a homosexual man tests negative, I dont see why they couldnt donate if they wanted to. Its not the mad cow thing where they cant be sure if a person has it or not
ok so if we say, just for aurgument sake that the tests are like a pregnancy test and come back 99% accurate then i would say that no human being, straight and gay should be able to donate.. ive just spoken to my mate whos in the adult film industry and she said that the tests are more than enough for the said industry so if i went on that i would say yes allow anyone to donate. i keep hitting a brick wall hah
hello
my name is miss gift, i am a lady i saw your profile to day, i want us to be friends i don't know how you will feel about it, please you can write to me through my email (gift1oromo@yahoo.com) so that i can send you my photo and also tell more about me i am sorry if i am embarrassing you, i don't mean to do that. thank you for your understanding. your lovely gift (gift1oromo@yahoo.com)
Since they are not a goverment entity is within their rights to protect themselves against potential liability and it probably makes it less costly to operate their business by banning potential risk. Why go thru the process of harvesting tainted blood and waste time and money?
In the town where I live there are a couple of places that will not accept people that have too many tattoos or piercings.
I don't think it's right....if the concern is the fact that a lot of homosexual men have STD's or something...then why don't they simply test the blood for a disease...instead of denying ALL homosexual men the right to donate blood. Not all homosexual men have a disease...they are no different than us. Straight people can get STD's, just as well as a homosexual can.
eh, i would say that anyone who goes into a blood bank should be checked for disease before being able to give blood. The more people checked, the lesser the disease will spread.
But of course those higher authority types are very closed minded on some subjects which leaves a huge riot of homos*exuals trying to fight for their rights....again.
are these tests 100% accurate? like if a person gets tested for hiv and its negative does that really mean they are negative :S but yeah i agree it doesnt matter if someones a gay or not we should all be able to help save a life. i cant give blood. yes give it the sex cases and let them suffer for years and yes to the last 1 too lol
Truth is easy. I dont have a dog in the fight here. I was merely pointing out the obvious here. Look at the typical answer on this posted question. Are they in line with A mainstream media bias or not? It is sad to say, but i believe one definition of so-called Free thinking is not being tethererd to mainstream PC Bull$hit.
I think the issue here is that testing blood costs money and by excluding the part of the population most likely to be infected with HIV you are saving yourself money. I don't however see how this will be implemented practically, I mean do you reall walk into a blood bank and go hey I'm gay!?
No,saying that all homosexual men have HIV is a homophobe stereotype.Homos wanting to donate blood should be tested as everyone else for HIV.If the patient doesn't want homo blood because of beliefs... then just give them straight blood not to cause offence.
I don't really care- I don't plan on letting someone have my blood anyway. Iguess it is sort of homophobic but whatever...and you could always just lie about your sexuality if you wanted your blood donated or whatever that badly xD
I have to say, I dont think the definition of a free thinker is someone who conforms to your way of thinking. My answer had nothing to do with the media, it was based on disease incidence and prevalence in my country.
NO! whats wrong with them? they just chose a different path of life from other people and now theyre being discriminated?!?!?!?! :P its just plainwrong. srry to ppl with other beliefs.
Hell no thats not right at all!! Just because your gay doesnt mean your a bad person or you have some STD and its not like you can catch gay from getting blood from some one who is!!!
Thats wrong it's sexist and really bad and surely they have the same chances of getting an STD as anyone else thats horrible andbsexist and totally outrageouse
So then they'd have to start labeling the blood with straight or gay or trans, or bi or whatever? For Example "AB Postitive Straight"
:O you cant catch being gay >:( and if you can then it would make the world a better place :) so no i dont think its fair >:(
E
And another rant about how we are oh so mindless compared to you... The whole superior than thou is kinda getting annoying...
yeah and as hiv/aids is a bigger risk to the gay community maybe its ok for them to do it, as in not allow them to donate
But if they test every sample why does it matter if its gay people cos they can just chuck it out cant they? lol
They could put a code on like 0230(meaning straight) and 0458 or something for gays,its political correctness.
Yes if they are healthy yes why not in any case homos are not the only ones with rare blood transfusions
I think the most common test is an ELISA, which is pretty sensitive but I dont know the exact percentage
im not sure why there is a random "you" in my second to last sentence. Im my defence, its almost 4am
im not sure what the sensitivity and specificity of the test is but I would say its not 100%.
Dont they check the blood for things like that anyway? Surely thats standard procedure.
and, it would let people know that they have it if they didnt know already....or not?
That is not what this is about. No one said anything about anyone being anti-gay.
lol, that happens to me a lot when i am typing at that time...its all good! :)
no that makes no sense the only difference is that they like both sex
I agree this seems to be taken totally out of context.
i would have thought so? Hmmmm. lol
Or give it to peadophiles lool
really?
exactly
