• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should gays be allowed to donate blood?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
well logically, they say that homosexuality is now hereditary. so it has to be in the DNA, if so, if mixed with straight blood would that change the DNA of the straight person and make him gay!!! J
 
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: upsciLLion
As long as they aren't engaging in risky behavior, I don't see why they shouldn't. Though we're close to having synthetic blood, so this is quickly becoming a moot point.
Click to expand...

What's this synthetic blood deal about?
Click to expand...

See here.
 
well logically, they say that homosexuality is now hereditary. so it has to be in the DNA, if so, if mixed with straight blood would that change the DNA of the straight person and make him gay!!! J
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly ..and might make him allergic to strawberries also ..better hope you don't get that asian blood ....
 
Shouldn't they be testing the blood, instead of worrying about who is donating it? Or are not all instances of infecton picked up with the blood testing procedures?

 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Shouldn't they be testing the blood, instead of worrying about who is donating it? Or are not all instances of infecton picked up with the blood testing procedures?
Click to expand...
Certain STDs can remain dormant for 6-12 months, undetectable using current methods.
 
Originally posted by: rbloedow
I'd certainly say that I'm no more at risk any other person. If you practice safe sex, waht's the problem?
Click to expand...

Partly the problem is there is no way to determine if the donator has been practicing safe sex. This and the fact it can take up to 3 months for the signs of AIDS/HIV infection to show on a test is the reason we are banned from doing this. While this is true for straights just as much as gays it is the fact that they ask if you have ever had anal sex before which bars many gays, and yes straights too, from giving the gift of life. Simply because, If you answer yes to any of the sex based prequalification questions you are turned away. I see this as understandable as no one would want their gift of life to be the ultimate death of someone else. I know I could not bear the thought that my one time neglgence in bed led to anothers death, and will ultimately lead to mine as well.

So should gays be allowed to donate? YES! But we need to improve our detection technology for the AIDS/HIV virus, FIRST, and we are getting there slowly. Better yet, we simply need to find a cure for this plague of mankind so no one has to worry about years of endless wasting away simply waiting to die.
 
i spent the last hour searching through all your past posts to find out what the spider ordeal was about. wtf happened now i want to know too 😛

spider.
 
Originally posted by: machintos
If the gay person is healthy with no diseases, I don't see why not.
Click to expand...

True. But lets say this person had sex with a trick 2 months ago. This person went to his doctor and got a full aids test and it came out negative. He goes and gives blood. Then 6 months later finds out that trick 8 months ago wasn't exactly honest about his HIV/AIDS status or just did not know he had the virus. So now we have blood that is infected with aids being given to another human being and their life is now destroyed.
 
Ok, I guess I'll take the unpopular side of this argument.

Basically, the Red Cross tries it's best to screen out those who engage in what is (statistically observed) high-risk behavior. If you get tattoos, if you use IV drugs, if you engage in sex with prostitutes etc (there's a long list of questions), then it makes sense for the Red Cross not to include your blood donation into the general blood supply. One of those high-risk behaviors is having anal sex with a man. Since homosexual relations (between men) automatically includes this statistically high-risk behavior, it is rational to exclude men who engage in homosexual relations as a high-risk group.

Now you can argue all day long about safe sex etc, but statistics indicate that people who engage in 'risky' behavior have a significantly higher statistical chance of having blood borne diseases and STD's.

Bottom line, it's not the person's orientation that matters, it's whether they engage in behavior that has been determined to be statistically 'high risk'. Gay men are not excluded from giving blood because they are gay, it's because they engage in one of the defined high-risk behaviors. There are heterosexuals that engage in behavior that is high-risk as well (such as drug users). They are also excluded from donating blood.

Until there's a proven 100% effective method of screening out tainted blood of any kind, it makes sense to prevent people who engage in high-risk behavior (of any kind) from donating.
 
Originally posted by: tagej
Ok, I guess I'll take the unpopular side of this argument.

Basically, the Red Cross tries it's best to screen out those who engage in what is (statistically observed) high-risk behavior. If you get tattoos, if you use IV drugs, if you engage in sex with prostitutes etc (there's a long list of questions), then it makes sense for the Red Cross not to include your blood donation into the general blood supply. One of those high-risk behaviors is having anal sex with a man. Since homosexual relations (between men) automatically includes this statistically high-risk behavior, it is rational to exclude men who engage in homosexual relations as a high-risk group.

Now you can argue all day long about safe sex etc, but statistics indicate that people who engage in 'risky' behavior have a significantly higher statistical chance of having blood borne diseases and STD's.

Bottom line, it's not the person's orientation that matters, it's whether they engage in behavior that has been determined to be statistically 'high risk'. Gay men are not excluded from giving blood because they are gay, it's because they engage in one of the defined high-risk behaviors. There are heterosexuals that engage in behavior that is high-risk as well (such as drug users). They are also excluded from donating blood.

Until there's a proven 100% effective method of screening out tainted blood of any kind, it makes sense to prevent people who engage in high-risk behavior (of any kind) from donating.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
I gave blood and I was asked if I'd had relations with anyone that is or ever was gay. LOL

I should have said yes, punched them in the face, and walked away.
 
Originally posted by: SilentVixen
I gave blood and I was asked if I'd had relations with anyone that is or ever was gay. LOL

I should have said yes, punched them in the face, and walked away.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. The nurses who work there are not there to discrimate.
 
Originally posted by: Syringer
mean sure the rate of disease among them may be statistically higher than the rest of the population

Not only that, the blood will be tested before it will be used, so if there are any problems with the blood it won't necessarily spread anyways.
Click to expand...

Theres your answer. It costs money to process and test blood. Why go through that process when odds are higher that the blood may not be safe. Studes have shown gay guys have tons more sexual partners.

And you say anyone whos had any sort of sex is at risk for the disease, well I had a very good time with my wife this weekend and there is 0% chance of me catching an std from her.
 
Originally posted by: cyberfuzz
i spent the last hour searching through all your past posts to find out what the spider ordeal was about. wtf happened now i want to know too 😛

spider.
Click to expand...

could you provide a link to the relevant spider thread?
 
Originally posted by: tagej
Ok, I guess I'll take the unpopular side of this argument.

Basically, the Red Cross tries it's best to screen out those who engage in what is (statistically observed) high-risk behavior. If you get tattoos, if you use IV drugs, if you engage in sex with prostitutes etc (there's a long list of questions), then it makes sense for the Red Cross not to include your blood donation into the general blood supply. One of those high-risk behaviors is having anal sex with a man. Since homosexual relations (between men) automatically includes this statistically high-risk behavior, it is rational to exclude men who engage in homosexual relations as a high-risk group.

Now you can argue all day long about safe sex etc, but statistics indicate that people who engage in 'risky' behavior have a significantly higher statistical chance of having blood borne diseases and STD's.

Bottom line, it's not the person's orientation that matters, it's whether they engage in behavior that has been determined to be statistically 'high risk'. Gay men are not excluded from giving blood because they are gay, it's because they engage in one of the defined high-risk behaviors. There are heterosexuals that engage in behavior that is high-risk as well (such as drug users). They are also excluded from donating blood.

Until there's a proven 100% effective method of screening out tainted blood of any kind, it makes sense to prevent people who engage in high-risk behavior (of any kind) from donating.
Click to expand...

Are lesbians free to donate?
 
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: tagej
Ok, I guess I'll take the unpopular side of this argument.

Basically, the Red Cross tries it's best to screen out those who engage in what is (statistically observed) high-risk behavior. If you get tattoos, if you use IV drugs, if you engage in sex with prostitutes etc (there's a long list of questions), then it makes sense for the Red Cross not to include your blood donation into the general blood supply. One of those high-risk behaviors is having anal sex with a man. Since homosexual relations (between men) automatically includes this statistically high-risk behavior, it is rational to exclude men who engage in homosexual relations as a high-risk group.

Now you can argue all day long about safe sex etc, but statistics indicate that people who engage in 'risky' behavior have a significantly higher statistical chance of having blood borne diseases and STD's.

Bottom line, it's not the person's orientation that matters, it's whether they engage in behavior that has been determined to be statistically 'high risk'. Gay men are not excluded from giving blood because they are gay, it's because they engage in one of the defined high-risk behaviors. There are heterosexuals that engage in behavior that is high-risk as well (such as drug users). They are also excluded from donating blood.

Until there's a proven 100% effective method of screening out tainted blood of any kind, it makes sense to prevent people who engage in high-risk behavior (of any kind) from donating.
Click to expand...

Well said.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top