Gay rights, coming out, blood donation and discrimination.

Rev Hellfire

I.J. wrote: »

A promiscuous straight men who doesn't use protection is still allowed to donate while a mongamous gay man who uses protection isn't. Still doesn't sound just to me.

The priority here is not to provide some humanist ideal but to maximize the protection to the blood supply in as much as is easily and feasibly possible.
I'd much rather have your right to donate trampled upon rather than have the risk to the integrity of the blood supply increased for reasons of 'right on-ness'.

I.J.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The priority here is not to provide some humanist ideal but to maximize the protection to the blood supply in as much as is easily and feasibly possible.
I'd much rather have your right to donate trampled upon rather than have the risk to the integrity of the blood supply increased for reasons of 'right on-ness'.

I don't accept that. I do not believe that gay men are second class citizens. There are thousands of gay men who could donate blood no more dangerous than anybody else but are denied. Easily and feasibly? Such convenient words for discrimination. It was reported in 2000 that half America's blood banks called for the ban to be lifted. If I was in need of blood I would have no bother receving a gay mans blood once I knew it had gone through the same tests a straight persons had.

Rev Hellfire

I.J. wrote: »

I don't accept that. I do not believe that gay men are second class citizens.

Nor are people who lived in the UK, or people who had blood transfusions, or people from sub-Saharan Africa or people who ...

I mean if your argument is solely based on it makes you boohoo, what can you expect. We trust the medical professionals to make these uncomfortable decisions because they unlike us have the education and experience to make an informed decision not based on emotion or popular opinion.

Boston

I.J. wrote: »

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

Yes, per capita you have a man has a higher change of getting HIV from another man then a woman has. Apart from that, Anal sex is far more risky.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The priority here is not to provide some humanist ideal but to maximize the protection to the blood supply in as much as is easily and feasibly possible.
I'd much rather have your right to donate trampled upon rather than have the risk to the integrity of the blood supply increased for reasons of 'right on-ness'.

You have no right to donate blood, so no rights are being trampled. You as a straight male have no more a right to donate blood then I do. This idea that you have a right I don't is what causes confusion. No one can point to any law to back up such an assertion.

I.J. wrote: »

I don't accept that. I do not believe that gay men are second class citizens. There are thousands of gay men who could donate blood no more dangerous than anybody else but are denied. Easily and feasibly? Such convenient words for discrimination. It was reported in 2000 that half America's blood banks called for the ban to be lifted. If I was in need of blood I would have no bother receving a gay mans blood once I knew it had gone through the same tests a straight persons had.

Thousands of black people are banned on a similar basis, it's the same discrimination but I don't hear you complain. Millions of Americans are discriminated against because we refuse to buy their ****ty blood products.

I.J.

Boston wrote: »

Yes, per capita you have a man has a higher change of getting HIV from another man then a woman has. Apart from that, Anal sex is far more risky. .

I assume these results are based on anal sex only. Because thats all Im referring to.

In regard to other groups and races, I'm sure they all may have a reason to argue in their favour too. I am a gay man so this is closer to my heart so I'll argue for gay men. I can't argue for everybody.

Reflector

No matter how you justify it it is discriminatory, for anyone. I understand the need to screen but I did donate before I had sex with a man when I was 17.(yes I lied about my age). I remember reading the form and it saying that if you have had unprotected sex with someone from subsaharan africa you must wait 12 months to donate. If you have had sex with a man you can never donate.
That is just wrong.
If you are having lots and lots of sex with multiple partners you are high risk if you are not you are not a high risk.
In any case if I really wanted to give blood I would just lie as I think that a ****ed up bigoted system shouldn't get in the way of peoples lives.

Rev Hellfire

Reflector wrote: »

In any case if I really wanted to give blood I would just lie as I think that a ****ed up bigoted system shouldn't get in the way of peoples lives.

Yes clearly anyone who wants to should just lie and give blood.
I mean if it feels right why not :rolleyes:

philologos

I.J: I understand that these people may have hurt your feelings, but it appears that these guys were in the right if I am reading Bostons statistics correctly. Personally I think it shouldn't be a big deal to take blood from homosexuals as long as the blood is tested properly, if this can be guaranteed that is.

You need to understand that people have differing views than your own, and if you are not willing to be able to tolerate differing opinions perhaps you shouldn't raise points that are likely to be controversial. Your point was kind of off-topic as well if I'm understanding the general course of your discussion.

I.J.

Jakass, I accept people have different views. Stop trying to twist this like you so often do to your own agenda. It was the delight they took in saying it that was the problem. For somebody who really does have a problem with homosexuals and I know you do, you show up on this particular group a lot.

philologos

I'm not twisting anything I.J. You are claiming that guys who had a different point of view to you on blood donation, were bigoted, discriminatory, homophobic and regressive (against equality) when they clearly were nothing of the sort. A highly unfair assessment if you ask me.

N.B - I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the slightest, I merely disagree on certain issues. If you look above, I have even said that if proper screening took place homosexuals should be fine for giving blood. I just think you were unfair to your friends. If you aren't willing to tolerate other peoples responses to what you say, you might want to consider if you can handle their opinions.

As for showing up on this forum, am I not entitled to read posts here?

Bottle_of_Smoke

I.J. wrote: »

I didn't say anything about a 10 year ban and I didn't say anything about giving up a sex life. If a test clears a straight person after a year or so, why not let a test clear a gay man after a year or so?

I was following on from what you said about a man not having sex with a man for 10 years. If I came on here as an ex heroin addict saying I should be allowed donate because I haven't used needles in a year and have tested negative I'd be rightly laughed at.

Just take a straight woman in the same position as a gay man. What really is the difference? Anal sex is riskier as you say but what about those gay men who don't have those overwhelmingly high rates? This is still unjust discrimination because, as i said, if a woman has anal/oral sex she can go ahead but a man can't. Even if the woman has had a lot more anal/oral sex than men.

As there's no evidence to show that as a group women who have anal/oral sex have an overwhelmingly higher incidence of HIV than the general population. This is monitored in sexual health clinic and hospital reports. There's plenty of evidence to show men who have sex with men as a group do have an overwhelmingly higher incidence of HIV.

The fact is, from what I see, its an old fashioned rule equated with the 1980s belief that ONLY gay men get Aids.

Do you actually accept that there is a higher rate of HIV transmission amongst men who have sex with men?
If so I don't understand why you'd come out with this statement.

There might be discrimination in many areas but I do not accept homosexuals being treated any different to heterosexuals. Locations and experiences with drugs etc.. are one thing but ruling out one type of human being is totally unacceptable.

Ok, you either don't understand what we're saying or you are completely refusing to accept it. There is no ban on homosexuals donating blood. None. Women engaging in homosexual activity are not banned from donating blood - Surely that clears up the the idea that "one type of human" are discriminated against. The ban is solely on men who partake in the activity of sex with other men.

If things are to be equal I say either put a ban on anybody who has had anal or oral sex if these are the risky ways to receive disease or put gay people on the same level as straight people, test everybodys blood, throw out whats useless and keep what tests consider fine.

I explained this in the previous post. We'd be losing valuable blood from a low risk group. Although anal sex is more risky, the main overwhelming issue is that there is a far higher level of sexually transmitted HIV in men who have sex with men than any other group.

Human error comes into everything but that still is no excuse to discriminate.

Yes, yes it is. HIV is a horrific disease and the consequences of a batch of infected blood being given to people already in need of a blood transfusion is far too serious to consider perceived discrimination.

Ok, so in regard to the man/woman example, I'm taking it that its proven that a man has a higher chance of getting HIV from one man than a woman has of it getting it from one man, even if both have the exact same kind of sex?

If an infected man had anal sex with an uninfected man and an uninfected woman and neither that woman or the man had any other predispositions then yes, as far as I know the chances of either contracting would be quite similar.

However, that's not what we're debating, we're looking at the overall statistics(which is your only option when you're dealing with thousands/millions of people) and it is overwhelmingly clear men who have sex with men are far more likely to contract the virus.

Reflector wrote:

I remember reading the form and it saying that if you have had unprotected sex with someone from subsaharan africa you must wait 12 months to donate. If you have had sex with a man you can never donate.
That is just wrong.

That's interesting all right. I would have thought the person who's had sex with someone from Sub Sah Africa would be banned for life. I can only assume research and statistics show these individuals have a low risk of catching the virus. However, going on current statistics I'd much sooner change the rules so that those individuals were banned for life than make the system more liberal.

Boston wrote:

You have no right to donate blood, so no rights are being trampled. You as a straight male have no more a right to donate blood then I do. This idea that you have a right I don't is what causes confusion. No one can point to any law to back up such an assertion.

Excellent point.

L1011

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's interesting all right. I would have thought the person who's had sex with someone from Sub Sah Africa would be banned for life. I can only assume research and statistics show these individuals have a low risk of catching the virus. However, going on current statistics I'd much sooner change the rules so that those individuals were banned for life than make the system more liberal.

IBTS figures show they're "high risk" but the IBTS use, as a whole, 1980s to early 1990s figures to build their ban list on. They're in a situation where they admit (web archive.org required for this) that their donation policies are "clearly discriminatory" and use very outdated methodologies to decide who can and can't donate... but those happen to be their rules.

As it happens I'm of a fairly rare and extremely useful blood type - O- - and have been asked by an IBTS staff member to lie when asked about sexual history. I won't. I've probably killed someone as a result of being honest at this stage...

I.J.

Bottle of smoke, in your points you keep referring to statistics which generalise all gay men who have had sex at least once. I am looking at each human being as an individual. I value every life. It makes no sense whatsoever that a promiscuous straight man who has unprotected sex is allowed to donate blood where as a monogamous gay men who has protected sex is not allowed. As I said over half the blood banks of America called for the ban to be lifted because they see it as a pointless discrimination. Why are various people still generalising and going by statistics? Each donation is checked so what difference does it make and don't give me that fast and cheap is the answer because if blood is needed, its needed no matter what the cost. You said we are looking at overall statisitcs but I am not. Statistics should never have been brought into this debate at all because I value every life and that was part of my original point that a couple of people happily got a dig at homosexual men by generalising.

Monkey61

Now I am usually the first to complain about discrimination against homosexuality, but in this case OP, I think you overreacted.

Firstly, as many have already mentioned, men who have sex with men are at a much higher risk, statistically, of STD's such as HIV, than the rest of the population. I don't think there can be any arguing with that.

This is how rules based on statistical information work - by analysing large groups, not individual cases. It is the same reason that young males have to pay higher car insurance premiums than females - because statistically, young males cause the most accidents. Yes, as an individual I could be a 17 year old guy with impeccable standards of safety and road awareness - but statistically I would be in a high risk group and this must be accounted for.

You can't just pick and choose which rules are appropriate for you to follow on an individual basis, this is not how society works.

Secondly, as was pointed out, donating blood is not a right automatically bestowed upon humankind which is being denied to gay men. It is not a right at all.

Personally, there are so many other areas of discrimination to be focusing one's attention on, the blood donation one seems a bit petty to me. I trust in the medical professionals and statisticians in this case, to be doing the best they can with the data that is available.

From the way you described it, those guys weren't being particularly discriminatory at all. Obviously we weren't there to interpret their tone or whatever, but by the sounds of things, they were merely quoting actual facts and you were reading into that perhaps more than was neccessary.

Coming out is scary. It can be a struggle to accept yourself and as part of that I think it is only natural that for a long while you will be hypersensitive to the remarks of others, and likely to take offense at things that aren't meant to be offensive. You just need to chill out a bit and be aware of that so that you don't upset yourself or the people around you unnecessarily.

elekid

I think what people have said above about no one automatically having a right to donate is very true, ultimately blood donation is for the benefit of the people receiving the blood, not donating it. I doubt it's homophobia because they discriminate against other groups too and are quite up front about it. If they really are crying out for blood donors I'm sure they'll be doing everything in their power to redefine who the high risk groups are, improve testing and make it so that as many people as possible can donate.

I can sympathise with I.J. though, if those guys said what they said in an aggressive manner and were generalising all gay people as promiscuous I don't think I'd have been too happy either and it is more difficult to hear that kind of thing if you've only recently come out.

Boston

I.J. wrote: »

Bottle of smoke, in your points you keep referring to statistics which generalise all gay men who have had sex at least once. I am looking at each human being as an individual. I value every life. It makes no sense whatsoever that a promiscuous straight man who has unprotected sex is allowed to donate blood where as a monogamous gay men who has protected sex is not allowed. As I said over half the blood banks of America called for the ban to be lifted because they see it as a pointless discrimination. Why are various people still generalising and going by statistics? Each donation is checked so what difference does it make and don't give me that fast and cheap is the answer because if blood is needed, its needed no matter what the cost. You said we are looking at overall statisitcs but I am not. Statistics should never have been brought into this debate at all because I value every life and that was part of my original point that a couple of people happily got a dig at homosexual men by generalising.

I've addresses all the points you've raised already but here we go again. It makes statistical sense to differentiate between groups of people for the purposes of blood donation. It's no about the value of someone life, its hard cold statistics. Using what some American blood banks want as a basis for our policy decisions is foolish, these blood banks operate to make money and that's there primary motivator. The blood products which caused the hepatitis blood transfusion infections came from the states. Each donation maybe checked but no check is 100% and mistakes do happen. 1 mistake or one error in 100,000 could end up killing several people. Other countries have better screening processes and thus rely less on draconian measures. You're not in a position to say statistics should or shouldn't be used, they are used to track infections vectors and haven proven to be a very effective tool for medical professionals.

I.J.

Monkey61 wrote: »

Coming out is scary. It can be a struggle to accept yourself and as part of that I think it is only natural that for a long while you will be hypersensitive to the remarks of others, and likely to take offense at things that aren't meant to be offensive. You just need to chill out a bit and be aware of that so that you don't upset yourself or the people around you unnecessarily.

Well I'm glad you pointed this out. Only a few could truly understand this. One thing though, i never said anything about it being a right. Somebody else stated that. The tone wasn't pleasant I have to stress. It was a tone which said, we have one up on homosexuals. However, just because statistics are how the system works doesn't mean it has to stay like that and can be changed and homosexuals could eventually be giving blood which is no worse than heterosexuals. There isn't any test which can prove that a male driver below 25 is not a risk to roads but there are medical tests that show some homosexual mens blood are not a risk. Boston states that mistakes do happen. I accept that but I'm sure this happens for tests of heterosexuals too. I guess I'll have to accept that as a homosexual I am a second class citizen.

With regard to responses again, people like Jakkass, ready to preach some religious fanaticism, who based on previous posts most likely isn't gay and most likely doesn't know what its like to be gay and most likely doesn't know whats it like to be coming out and is also one to have previously argued for the homosexuality is not natural side, have some nerve to be telling me how I should reacting though. Can anybody point out, obviously privately or Jakkass will only stalk me there, to a gay forum which doesn't just have anybody wandering in and telling homosexuals how they should be living their lives?

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

With regard to responses again, people like Jakkass, ready to preach some religious fanaticism, who based on previous posts most likely isn't gay and most likely doesn't know what its like to be gay and most likely doesn't know whats it like to be coming out and is also one to have previously argued for the homosexuality is not natural side, have some nerve to be telling me how I should reacting though. Can anybody point out, obviously privately or Jakkass will only stalk me there, to a gay forum which doesn't just have anybody wandering in and telling homosexuals how they should be living their lives?

I.J: Ad hominems aren't necessary. I don't come here to "preach" anything, I offer my opinion, people disagree, that's the nature of it. I am no more preaching about anything than you are. Most people can disagree with their friends without implying that they are bigoted, homophobic, or regressive for doing so.

As for not being gay, does one have to be gay to read posts in the LGBT forum?

As for homosexuality not being natural, my position is that homosexuality does occur in nature, but we do not know currently whether or not it is biologically predetermined.

I have my right to my opinion, and I think you took it too far, as do other gay people on this forum. This isn't about gay or straight, it's just that you went too far.

As for stalking, I don't particularly stalk anyone. In fact I responded to another thread at the same time as my first response to this one if you compare the times of my responses it should be fairly clear.

Again, I don't mean to disrespect anyone, I merely offered my point of view. If you feel that I shouldn't be allowed to post on this forum please contact a moderator.

I.J.

You have absolutely no concept of the difficulties some homosexuals face. Yes you have a right to an opinion but you're certainly no help. It isn;'t as black and white as what the rules are so this isn't anything to do with contacting a moderator. You have upset homosexuals on forums outside of this one by creating arguments which marginalise them so you are capable of doing it at any time. Of course you can read this forum without being gay. Stop trying to twist my argument.

MagicMarker

I.J. wrote: »

You have absolutely no concept of the difficulties some homosexuals face. Yes you have a right to an opinion but you're certainly no help. It isn;'t as black and white as what the rules are so this isn't anything to do with contacting a moderator. You have upset homosexuals on forums outside of this one by creating arguments which marginalise them so you are capable of doing it at any time.

You're getting all bent out of shape here, as much as I disagree with Jakkass about most things, there has been absolutely nothing wrong with his responses in this thread.

I.J.

MagicMarker wrote: »

You're getting all bent out of shape here, as much as I disagree with Jakkass about most things, there has been absolutely nothing wrong with his responses in this thread.

I am able to anticipate him based on his history. He is getting involved in something that does not concern him, no matter what his "rights" are to do it.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

You have upset homosexuals on forums outside of this one by creating arguments which marginalise them so you are capable of doing it at any time. Of course you can read this forum without being gay. Stop trying to twist my argument.

How have I done this?

Yes I have certain beliefs concerning the morality of sexual activity between two of the same gender and marriage laws being changed, but certainly my beliefs do not restrict my possibility to regard homosexuals as individuals worthy of respect.

I'm not twisting anyones argument here. You have made accusations against me (such as stalking) and this latest one that I am effectively promoting hatred when I haven't done anything of the sort.

People have differing views, if you wish to discuss them one will have to learn how to accept them.

Edit:

I am able to anticipate him based on his history. He is getting involved in something that does not concern him, no matter what his "rights" are to do it.

What exactly is my history? Just a note, if one intends to have calmer discussions with people with opposing views, it might be best not to be so hostile.

MagicMarker

I.J. wrote: »

I am able to anticipate him based on his history. He is getting involved in something that does not concern him, no matter what his "rights" are to do it.

I'm not gay, why aren't you having a go at me?

I.J.

Jakkass wrote: »

How have I done this?

Yes I have certain beliefs concerning the morality of sexual activity between two of the same gender and marriage laws being changed,
People have differing views, if you wish to discuss them one will have to learn how to accept them. .

I think you answered your own question there and also I should add the issue of homosexuality not being natural. This is not the views of somebody aiming for equality.

Magicmarker, I'm not aware of any negative views you take on homosexuals. Also, I'm not having a go at anybody. Just trying to brush off the people who are of no help.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

I think you answered your own question there and also I should add the issue of homosexuality not being natural. This is not the views of somebody aiming for equality.

I never said that homosexuality never occurred in nature. In fact I believe it does. However, currently we don't know whether or not sexuality is biologically determined. If we have no clear picture of whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, I'm not going to lie to conform to your viewpoint.

What do I aim for? This might be a good question to deal with. I aim to be receptive to what other people are thinking in my society, but I also aim to remain true to my beliefs. I don't aim to conform or compromise them.

I think you have this stereotyped notion that I somehow hate homosexuals which is completely out of line. I merely disagree with the morality of sexual activity between people of the same gender, likewise I disagree with atheists on the existence of God, yet I do not hate atheists.

I.J. wrote: »

Magicmarker, I'm not aware of any negative views you take on homosexuals. Also, I'm not having a go at anybody. Just trying to brush off the people who are of no help.

You are clearly having a go at me.

I.J.

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that homosexuality never occurred in nature. In fact I believe it does. However, currently we don't know whether or not sexuality is biologically determined. If we have no clear picture of whether or not sexuality is biologically determined, I'm not going to lie to conform to your viewpoint.

What do I aim for? This might be a good question to deal with. I aim to be receptive to what other people are thinking in my society, but I also aim to remain true to my beliefs. I don't aim to conform or compromise them.

I think you have this stereotyped notion that I somehow hate homosexuals which is completely out of line. I merely disagree with the morality of sexual activity between people of the same gender, likewise I disagree with atheists on the existence of God, yet I do not hate atheists..

Maybe you do not hate homosexuals but you clearly have some sort of problem with them. I come to a gay forum to get away from people like you because your disapproval of me makes me uncomfortable. I avoid religious forums because I disaprove of what those people do, although I don't hate them.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

Maybe you do not hate homosexuals but you clearly have some sort of problem with them. I come to a gay forum to get away from people like you because your disapproval of me makes me uncomfortable. I avoid religious forums because I disaprove of what those people do, although I don't hate them.

What problems?

Again, I am not saying that you cannot live as you determine. I am merely saying that I do not share the same morals as you concerning sexuality.

In fact, I only came onto this thread to say that you were a bit harsh with your friends. Most of the other posters agreed whether or not they were gay or straight.

I even continued on to say that if there were adequate safeguards in place it would be fine for homosexuals to give blood by my book. Why do you only select what you want from my posts?

By the way, I don't "disapprove" of you. I didn't even come on this thread to say that I disapprove of you. Let's be a bit fair here. I'm not here to condemn you or anyone else, I am here to share my opinion.

What is clear is that you have an issue with my posting here, which is regrettable

rainbow kirby

Jakkass wrote: »

By the way, I don't "disapprove" of you. I didn't even come on this thread to say that I disapprove of you. Let's be a bit fair here. I'm not here to condemn you or anyone else, I am here to share my opinion.

You say you don't "disapprove" of the LGBT community, but in any discussion related to us, you spend half the thread arguing that we should not be treated as equal citizens...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Reflector wrote:

I would define risky as having unprotected sex with multiple partners. If you don't do this then you should be allowed donate. gay or not.

By multiple partners do you mean 2 or say 5+? And in what time period?
Too much low risk blood would be lost by banning heterosexuals who have multiple partners.

I don't agree in your second statement. I believe in free choice and these saunas serve an important function. it would just bring it out onto the streets. But if you are having sex regularly in a sauna maybe you shouldn't donate. But if a straight guy was visiting prostitutes he would be allowed donate.

Perhaps important functions but functions that spread HIV nonetheless.

Guys who visit prostitutes in this country wouldn't be at an increased risk of HIV. Its actually difficult for a man to catch HIV from sex with a female with unprotected sex (in white and some other ethnicities anyway) With a condom its virtually impossible.

The reason for this is that semen carries the virus. After sex a women and one gay man has semen inside him. A straight man never does. Also after anal sex there's no natural sexual lubricant so tearing/small cuts are more likely. This is why heterosexual women are at a higher risk than heterosexual men and everyone is at a higher risk than lesbians.

I.J. wrote: »

Bottle of smoke, in your points you keep referring to statistics which generalise all gay men who have had sex at least once. I am looking at each human being as an individual. I value every life.

This is a medical discussion as it refers to blood donation. Therefore how you look at each human being is utterly irrelevant.

Please stop saying gay men are generalised against. You know well gay men are not banned from donating as it has been pointed out to you several times by several posters that the ban is on men who have sex with men. If I decided to do gay porn for money it would not make me gay, it would however ban me from donating. Gay men who haven't had sex with another man are not banned. Lesbians are not banned. Sex is an activity. There is no ban on homosexuals donating blood

It makes no sense whatsoever that a promiscuous straight man who has unprotected sex is allowed to donate blood where as a monogamous gay men who has protected sex is not allowed.

If it turned out that promiscuous men were at a high risk of catching HIV in this country then they would be banned. They're not. They're at a high risk of catching chlamydia and genital warts but they're really in a different league to HIV/Hep.

As I said over half the blood banks of America called for the ban to be lifted because they see it as a pointless discrimination. Why are various people still generalising and going by statistics? Each donation is checked so what difference does it make and don't give me that fast and cheap is the answer because if blood is needed, its needed no matter what the cost. You said we are looking at overall statisitcs but I am not. Statistics should never have been brought into this debate at all because I value every life and that was part of my original point that a couple of people happily got a dig at homosexual men by generalising.

Because of medical evidence/advice and the seriousness of HIV. Its something you have to be really careful with. As pointed out before there's a level of error with everything. Therefore we minimise the consequences of a potential error by keeping high risk groups out of the system.

Do you think its a coincidence that so many western nations ban blood from msm people? Some of these countries who allow gay men to adopt children? If they were so bigoted toward gay men why do they give them equal rights in every other area........SAFETY

As I said in my original post. I empathise with your feelings, it must have been tough for having people sneer at you in that way. I don't think you were paranoid either because I recently started a job and during the training I heard this topic being discussed between an openly gay guy and two other guys. The two other guys were going on as if gay men should just stop being gay because they're spreading AIDS, without actually saying it but I felt really sorry for the gay guy.

You just have to accept its for medical reasons and not a homophobic rule. Just because the rate of HIV transmission is higher among men who have sex with men doesn't actually mean many sexually active gay men have HIV. People talk about Africa as if 80% of the continent have it but in reality its around 3% in Nigeria and the worst end of the scale some countries have up to 28%. Its the same bullsh*t with gay men because there's a lot of underlying homophobia in people and HIV is pretty scary.

Don't let it get you down, and just imagine how offensive you getting up in arms about this must be to people who actually are infected. You taking such offence to the ban must really make them feel like sh*t.

jady88

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Because of medical evidence/advice and the seriousness of HIV.

Well the latest evidence suggests that monogamous young women are the most at risk


"The research, published in the European Journal of Public Health, showed for the first time that heterosexuals are at higher risk of these diseases than gay or bisexual people."

from the times today...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6860374.ece

Bottle_of_Smoke

that times article is referring to all stis including skin stis so theres no point in comparing it to HIV transmission, especially when the vast majority of all sti cases are HPV related, which wouldn't affect blood donations.

Were women shown to have a higher incidence of hiv then they should be banned. Though I would imagine it being down to women sleeping with men from high risk areas like Africa. And those individuals are already restricted

jady88

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

that times article is referring to all stis including skin stis so theres no point in comparing it to HIV transmission, especially when the vast majority of all sti cases are HPV related, which wouldn't affect blood donations.

I agree but the article and the research included HIV and said "these diseases".

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Were women shown to have a higher incidence of hiv then they should be banned. Though I would imagine it being down to women sleeping with men from high risk areas like Africa. And those individuals are already restricted

Perhaps but they clearly suggested that it was down to monogamous womens tendency to not use condoms.

Cabbage Brained

Jakkass wrote: »

I am merely saying that I do not share the same morals as you concerning sexuality.

Would you expand on this please? Why do you care? How can sex between two consenting adults ever be immoral?

You must have a very well defined perception of morality to be able to hold these opinions. I am genuinely fascinated by people like you, please elaborate on how you have reached these conclusions with the certainty which is so evident in all your posts. It really baffles me.

I am not being sarcastic, by the way, I genuinely am intrigued.

Nevyn

Well why not go have it in a different thread if you want to talk about Jakkass' christian morals, rather then dragging this thread off topic.

Untense

I.J. wrote: »

One person immediately and swiftly said, "thats because they are a higher risk" and briskly wanted to move onto something else. I got them back to the subject and said that straight people are also a great risk because of promiscuity. Then the other person said, in an aggressive manner, "statistics show that gay men are more likely to have a high risk of disease and that there are a lot less gays in monogamous relationships than straight people". I really was shocked at the generalisation.

You don't actually know why this guy was snapping, it could just as well have been he thought his point of view right and felt defensive about his point of view being questioned, it's not hard to see that kind of attitude is rife. (especially on boards)

Either way, I wouldn't get too worked up about it. I'm also banned from giving blood for having lived in the UK in the 80's.

Bottle_of_Smoke

jady88 wrote: »

I agree but the article and the research included HIV and said "these diseases".



Perhaps but they clearly suggested that it was down to monogamous womens tendency to not use condoms.

It also says down the bottom HIV accounted for less than 1% of the diseases. Therefore there's no point bringing it up in this thread

the other thing is that condoms dont protect against hpv, so its skewing the results when included

Lame Lantern

I'd always be very wary of politicising medical research as it compromises the public health recommendations you'll get (short of the exposure of an inherent bias that, I think most people would agree, doesn't exist in this case). If you want to get political, make noise for the government to support tackling HIV/hepatitis or sexual health issues more generally specific to the gay community (most condom use advertising revolves around the prevention of pregnancy which is insanely irresponsible, to name but one institutional issue). Working to lower the numbers of new annual cases would be more beneficial than disputing what the numbers themselves mean.

AARRRGH

jady88 wrote: »

Well the latest evidence suggests that monogamous young women are the most at risk

"The research, published in the European Journal of Public Health, showed for the first time that heterosexuals are at higher risk of these diseases than gay or bisexual people."

from the times today...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6860374.ece

One of my weird hobbies is monitoring HIV stats from the CDC. I assure you heterosexuals are in no way whatsoever at a higher risk of contracting HIV than gay people. If you want me to quote some figures, I will.

Nevyn

There are a heap of other sti which condoms which do not protect fully from.

jady88

AARRRGH wrote: »

One of my weird hobbies is monitoring HIV stats from the CDC. I assure you heterosexuals are in no way whatsoever at a higher risk of contracting HIV than gay people. If you want me to quote some figures, I will.

That is an odd hobby... I'm not an expert I'm only posting the link to what I read in the times. No your all right though you seem rather eager.

AARRRGH

jady88 wrote: »

That is an odd hobby... I'm not an expert I'm only posting the link to what I read in the times. No your all right though you seem rather eager.

Yep it is a weird hobby. My uncle died of AIDS related complications so I've sort of been researching it since then...

jady88

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yep it is a weird hobby. My uncle died of AIDS related complications so I've sort of been researching it since then...

I am sorry... I know that homosexuals are more susceptible.

Boston

AARRRGH. Is it not true that women are the demographic with the fast rising rate of HIV infection? Some have interpreted that as greatest risk, it isn't, but it is something to be aware of no?

jady88 wrote: »

I am sorry... I know that homosexuals are more susceptible.

Pedant hat on.

No they are not. Sexuality has nothing to do with susceptible. Someone with a preexisting medical condition maybe more susceptible. According to some research a male with a forskin is more susceptible then a male without one. But there's nothing inherent in homosexuality which makes you more susceptible. Certain sex acts and behavior carry a higher risk then others, that is where it stopped. Sorry to be a pedant, but terminology is important.

jady88

Boston wrote: »

No they are not. Sexuality has nothing to do with susceptible. Someone with a preexisting medical condition maybe more susceptible. According to some research a male with a forskin is more susceptible then a male without one. But there's nothing inherent in homosexuality which makes you more susceptible. Certain sex acts and behavior carry a higher risk then others, that is where it stopped. Sorry to be a pedant, but terminology is important.

:eek: Oh I can't believe I wrote that... I know susceptible was the ABSOLUTE wrong word... I'm sorry:(:eek:

Boston

Ah we forgive you.

JupiterKid

It's a discriminatory ban and whilst I do see the reasoning behind it, is it wrong IMO. Everyone giving blood, irrespective of gender, sexual orientation, race etc. should be screened for blood borne diseases. There's no point either AFAIK for gay men to carry organ donor cards either - they won't want your organs as you are consideed a higher risk of HIV/AIDS. Maybe ITBS should run a new advertising campaign to encourage people to give blood*

*but sorry, not if you're gay.

It does make gay men into second class citizens and I can understand why the OP was offended by the rather blase comments made by his educated but still quite ignorant classmates.

I'm also disgusted with certain posters who think they can just come on here with impunity and spew their homophobic hatred and drivel. On most LGBT message board forums, they'd be promptly banned.

Boston

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm also disgusted with certain posters who think they can just come on here with impunity and spew their homophobic hatred and drivel. On most LGBT message board forums, they'd be promptly banned.

Well this is Sparta! I see little in the way of "homophobic hatred and drivel" in this thread. We don't ban people for having a different view. If you read the thread fully you'll be people being challenged successfully on any ignorant or potentially homophobic comment.

JupiterKid

Boston wrote: »

Well this is Sparta! I see little in the way of "homophobic hatred and drivel" in this thread. We don't ban people for having a different view. If you read the thread fully you'll be people being challenged successfully on any ignorant or potentially homophobic comment.

Well anti-gay sentiments do seem to be the staple of some occasional posters on this forum. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure others differ.

Does anyone know whatever happened to the campaign to change the discriminatory policy by ITBS on gay men giving blood?

MagicMarker

I can't give blood and I'm not gay, am I considered a second class citizen aswell?

Boston

The campaign seemed to amouth to calling a bunch of civil servants homophobes and fell apart when it got no where as a result. Largely student run from what I could tell and how little traction 12 months after it started, which is typical of student campaigns. Perhaps LGBT Noise, a seemingly extremely professional grouping will focus on this issue at some point in the future?