Across the Nation, Protests Call for ...

Across the Nation, Protests Call for End to Gay Blood Ban

There are 19 comments on the EDGE story from Jul 16, 2013, titled Across the Nation, Protests Call for End to Gay Blood Ban. In it, EDGE reports that:

On July 12, gay men in 52 cities throughout the nation held a protest in an attempt to change the Food and Drug Administration's ban on gay men donating blood.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Jul 16, 2013
I wish they would wait on this.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#2 Jul 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
I wish they would wait on this.
Yeah. I really don't think this is a bigotry issue. The FDA bases their decisions on science and statistics and there are many groups who aren't allowed to donate, like people who have visited certain countries within past ten years, people who have been in prison, etc. They just want to make sure the blood supply is safe, that's all.

According to the CDC, here in America, Men who have sex with men account for over 5 times the number new diagnoses of AIDS as men who don't. The cold, hard truth is that if we want to be able to donate blood in the future, it's up to us, as a community, to change those statistics by reducing (or better yet, Stopping) HIV transmission through safer sex, less sex, monogamy, etc.

The sexual liberation movement must end.

There, I said it, though I'm sure some people don't want to hear it.
Hymie

Pittsburgh, PA

#5 Jul 17, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. I really don't think this is a bigotry issue.

According to the CDC, here in America, Men who have sex with men account for over 5 times the number new diagnoses of AIDS as men who don't.
Well said! Thank you for being honest and truthful. Something I rarely hear from gays in this forum.

Since: May 12

Livonia, MI

#6 Jul 17, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
...
The sexual liberation movement must end.
...
What exactly does this mean?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#7 Jul 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
I wish they would wait on this.
I agree. This should be low on the priority list. There are more important issues to work on.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Jul 17, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. I really don't think this is a bigotry issue. The FDA bases their decisions on science and statistics and there are many groups who aren't allowed to donate, like people who have visited certain countries within past ten years, people who have been in prison, etc. They just want to make sure the blood supply is safe, that's all.
According to the CDC, here in America, Men who have sex with men account for over 5 times the number new diagnoses of AIDS as men who don't. The cold, hard truth is that if we want to be able to donate blood in the future, it's up to us, as a community, to change those statistics by reducing (or better yet, Stopping) HIV transmission through safer sex, less sex, monogamy, etc.
The sexual liberation movement must end.
There, I said it, though I'm sure some people don't want to hear it.
There are several problems with your "logic." It's still a life-time ban: Even if you haven't had sex with another man since before the HIV crisis began, you're still excluded from giving blood. At least the guy who went to Uganda can give after ten years.

Nope. That can't possibly be based on bigotry.

Non-monogamous heterosexuals give blood. But a men who entered a monogamous relationship with another at a young age and never had any other sexual contact may not give blood.

Nope. No bigotry there.

Now, let's get to the science. They now have tests that take less than half an hour to administer that are considered 100% accurate indicators of lack of infection prior to the preceding six weeks. While the tests may not be 100% accurate on positive results, you can be sure that you are negative when the test is negative. And six weeks--though it might seem like a lifetime without sex--certainly is not.

All blood is further tested after being drawn.

My opinion is that the Red Cross is always crying about lack of blood. Yet they support this policy which excludes many potential donors. So if they have enough resources to turn donors down, I guess they have enough. They don't want gay blood. They won't get it. And the Red Cross won't get my gay dollars, either.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Jul 17, 2013
DragonHung wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly does this mean?
Great question. I think it means we should return to secret liaisons.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#10 Jul 17, 2013
Hymie wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said! Thank you for being honest and truthful. Something I rarely hear from gays in this forum.
Really? Coming from you who has not used the same name twice EVER, you are happy to see others tell the truth? At least you admit that SOME people are capable of truth, just not you.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#11 Jul 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

Now, let's get to the science. They now have tests that take less than half an hour to administer that are considered 100% accurate indicators of lack of infection prior to the preceding six weeks. While the tests may not be 100% accurate on positive results, you can be sure that you are negative when the test is negative. And six weeks--though it might seem like a lifetime without sex--certainly is not.
So you know, six weeks in advance, that you are going to give blood? Sorry, I'm not willing to buy that. And I'm also not comfortable with the margin of error in testing after the fact.

I'd want to see the stats though - exactly how much higher is the incidence of any nasty blood born illness in this specific population? If it's truly not statistically much different then there's no cause for a ban. If it's still is, the Red Cross has to weigh their options.

I can't blame them if they opt to err on the side of caution. Most folks getting their product would likely be of the same opinion.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Jul 17, 2013
Apatheist wrote:
<quoted text>
So you know, six weeks in advance, that you are going to give blood? Sorry, I'm not willing to buy that. And I'm also not comfortable with the margin of error in testing after the fact.
I'd want to see the stats though - exactly how much higher is the incidence of any nasty blood born illness in this specific population? If it's truly not statistically much different then there's no cause for a ban. If it's still is, the Red Cross has to weigh their options.
I can't blame them if they opt to err on the side of caution. Most folks getting their product would likely be of the same opinion.
What you just said makes no sense at all.

First, you should know when you go to give blood whether you've had sex outside a primary relationship recently or not.

While it is well-established that, in the USA, the incidence of HIV among gays as a group is much higher than among heterosexuals, we're talking about further distinctions. The incidence of HIV among HIV- partners is the same whether heterosexual or homosexual: Nil.

Tests are a far more accurate predictor than somebody's statement about the safety of their own sexual practices.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#13 Jul 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What you just said makes no sense at all.
First, you should know when you go to give blood whether you've had sex outside a primary relationship recently or not.
While it is well-established that, in the USA, the incidence of HIV among gays as a group is much higher than among heterosexuals, we're talking about further distinctions. The incidence of HIV among HIV- partners is the same whether heterosexual or homosexual: Nil.
Tests are a far more accurate predictor than somebody's statement about the safety of their own sexual practices.
It makes perfect sense.

First: people lie. All the time. Due to peer pressure or whatever. There is still a stigma associated with homosexuality - most don't have the strength of character to tell their buds during a blood drive that I can't donate because I had sex two weeks ago at the club. Or whatever. Talk to someone who actually knows the process.

Second, if it "is well-established that, in the USA, the incidence of HIV among gays as a group is much higher than among heterosexuals" then you are making my argument.

Last, tests are not 100% accurate. The Red Cross has to weigh the odds. And, again, they err on the side of caution.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14 Jul 17, 2013
We are in a war. We have been invaded and we know our enemy: HIV.

In this war, ANYONE who gives aid to the enemy though action or inaction is a traitor to our species.

I don't give a rat's ass about how someone feels about being excluded from the blood supply.

We need to do more.

You care about this issue?

Drop your keyboard and go out into the streets and alleyways where these youngsters are, grab them by the ear and MAKE them listen. ANY "businesses" that enable these quislings need to be talked to by a large group of people who mean REAL business to MAKE them listen.

If they won't ... beat the living shit out of them.

Tell them that if you have to come back, it won't be for just a beat down.

We could wipe out this enemy in ONE generation. Stop it cold.

That is ... IF we were serious about it.

This is how we could give back.

It's about our level of commitment.

(THERE! I feel much better now.)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15 Jul 17, 2013
Apatheist wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes perfect sense.
First: people lie. All the time. Due to peer pressure or whatever. There is still a stigma associated with homosexuality - most don't have the strength of character to tell their buds during a blood drive that I can't donate because I had sex two weeks ago at the club. Or whatever. Talk to someone who actually knows the process.
Second, if it "is well-established that, in the USA, the incidence of HIV among gays as a group is much higher than among heterosexuals" then you are making my argument.
Last, tests are not 100% accurate. The Red Cross has to weigh the odds. And, again, they err on the side of caution.
Actually, you just made my argument for me. People lie. They lie about whether they are gay or not. They lie about whether they spent their lunch hour in a nearby hotel room. "Heterosexuals" are at least as likely to lie as gay men. Do you think guys want to tell their buds that they can't donate because they just paid $250 for a roll in the hay?

That's why we already rely on tests to keep the blood supply safe.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#16 Jul 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you just made my argument for me. People lie. They lie about whether they are gay or not. They lie about whether they spent their lunch hour in a nearby hotel room. "Heterosexuals" are at least as likely to lie as gay men. Do you think guys want to tell their buds that they can't donate because they just paid $250 for a roll in the hay?
That's why we already rely on tests to keep the blood supply safe.
*laugh* You are a bit too close to the issue to be logical, I think.

How many straight folks, do you think, would lie and say they were gay? Probably pretty close to zero. So, we can say with some assurance that those who DO identify as gay probably are. And per your last post, gays have a higher incidence of HIV infection.

And, again, tests are NOT 100% accurate and they will NOT pick up newly infected folks. Since we've also established that everyone lies, you cannot rely on the donor to always be honest about recent activity.

Frankly, I don't see how the Red Cross has a choice.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#17 Jul 17, 2013
Apatheist wrote:
<quoted text>
*laugh* You are a bit too close to the issue to be logical, I think.
How many straight folks, do you think, would lie and say they were gay? Probably pretty close to zero. So, we can say with some assurance that those who DO identify as gay probably are. And per your last post, gays have a higher incidence of HIV infection.
And, again, tests are NOT 100% accurate and they will NOT pick up newly infected folks. Since we've also established that everyone lies, you cannot rely on the donor to always be honest about recent activity.
Frankly, I don't see how the Red Cross has a choice.
You seem to be too dumb to make any sense. Every post is more bizarre.

The guys who lie about being gay are, oh, say, Larry Craig and George Rekers. You know: the good family guys who spend their days expounding how evil gay people are and their lunch hours haunting tea rooms.

Hey: It just occurred to me! Maybe you're one of them?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#18 Jul 17, 2013
more important things to worry about...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#19 Jul 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be too dumb to make any sense. Every post is more bizarre.
The guys who lie about being gay are, oh, say, Larry Craig and George Rekers. You know: the good family guys who spend their days expounding how evil gay people are and their lunch hours haunting tea rooms.
Hey: It just occurred to me! Maybe you're one of them?
Those guys lie about NOT being gay. How many straight folks do you know of that would lie and say they WERE gay?

Follow me here, Sparky: if the gay population has a higher incidence of HIV and almost no one lies to say they ARE gay, you'd be wise to have special handling for admittedly gay donors. And, again, since no test is 100% accurate and there is a window where recent activity wouldn't be picked up, wouldn't it make sense, if you're very cautious, to reject gay donors outright?

Comprende?

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#20 Jul 17, 2013
DragonHung wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly does this mean?
The sexual liberation philosophy tends to embrace things like open relationships and other non-monogamous behavior.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#22 Jul 18, 2013
Apatheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Those guys lie about NOT being gay. How many straight folks do you know of that would lie and say they WERE gay?
Follow me here, Sparky: if the gay population has a higher incidence of HIV and almost no one lies to say they ARE gay, you'd be wise to have special handling for admittedly gay donors. And, again, since no test is 100% accurate and there is a window where recent activity wouldn't be picked up, wouldn't it make sense, if you're very cautious, to reject gay donors outright?
Comprende?
Let me type slowly so that even you can understand:

Gay and bisexual men lie to hide that fact.
So do heterosexual men who have flings with prostitutes.
So relying on somebody who claims they're "straight" to tell the truth about their sexual exploits is ridden with risk.
That's why we test all the blood for HIV, Hepatitis, and other blood-born diseases before it enters the replacement blood supply.
Do you think lying about having sex with prostitutes and other men somehow protects you or the blood supply from infection?

You really do sound like one of those anti-gays who hangs out in airport bathrooms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clini... 2 hr fubar 24
Human Sexuality 2 hr avg23 1
does anyone have a premature ejaculation fetish (Jan '11) 3 hr TheTruth 5
News The Latest: Wendy Davis calls abortion ruling g... 4 hr WelbyMD 3
News Worker at spa near Willowbrook faces prostituti... 6 hr John Caliendo 5
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 7 hr sonia 6,849
News We may be able to reverse early Alzheimer's (Dec '14) 9 hr Deraildup 3
More from around the web