U.S. Rep Mike Quigley Discusses MSM Blood Ban with OutLaw

Apr 8, 2014 Full story: EDGE 22

On March 31, U.S. Representative Mike Quigley spoke to OutLaw, an organization for LGBT students at the University of Chicago Law School, highlighting the need to reevaluate the FDA's blood donation criteria that unfairly discriminates against men who have sex with men .

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Apr 8, 2014
Belly Laugh wrote:
There's a reason why Queers can't donate blood, they're disease infested.
A very few are, but SO are hetero junkies, hetero prostitutes, and a whole lot of street kids to dumb to know better, yet they can donate.

I don't think that promiscuous gay men should be able to donate, but then I don't want ANY of the above to be able to do so either.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3 Apr 8, 2014
Belly Laugh wrote:
There's a reason why Queers can't donate blood, they're disease infested.
What in the WORLD makes you think gay people can't donate blood? What kind of an iron-clad "ban" do you think this is? Had any transfusions lately?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4 Apr 8, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the WORLD makes you think gay people can't donate blood? What kind of an iron-clad "ban" do you think this is? Had any transfusions lately?
Sure they could lie. They did it to get into the military for years.
1 post removed

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6 Apr 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Sure they could lie. They did it to get into the military for years.
And both for pointless reasons. People must resort to lying to serve their community, when stupid reasons force them to.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#7 Apr 8, 2014
Belly Laugh wrote:
Didn't say they don't do what they do best, LIE.
Did someone lie to you? You sound like you've been hurt.

Don't support foolish bans which FORCE people to lie in order to serve their community.
Belly Laugh wrote:
But Queers aren't allowed to donate blood. That's because the odds are very high for diseases. Simple conclusion.
It's a "simple conclusion" to subject something as important as the national blood supply to a roll of the dice? That's ridiculous.

TEST ALL BLOOD. Now THAT'S a simple solution. It's utterly moronic to just ASSUME that someone is safe to donate, just because they aren't gay.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#8 Apr 8, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
And both for pointless reasons. People must resort to lying to serve their community, when stupid reasons force them to.
Taking blood from high risk individuals is foolish, banning them from donating is anything but pointless.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9 Apr 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Taking blood from high risk individuals is foolish
Deciding that ALL gay people are risky, and that ALL straight people are therefore safe, is what's foolish. Test ALL blood, regardless of the source.
Wondering wrote:
banning them from donating is anything but pointless.
A ban that has NO mechanism for enforcement is the very definition of pointless. Test ALL blood, regardless of the source.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#10 Apr 8, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Deciding that ALL gay people are risky, and that ALL straight people are therefore safe, is what's foolish. Test ALL blood, regardless of the source.
I believe blood is tested. Gays are the highest risk population in the country. The tests are inadequate. A person can transmit HIV for 3 months or longer before antibodies can be detected in the blood. Since the number of gay blood donors is insignificant it makes sense to refuse their blood.
1 post removed

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#12 Apr 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I believe blood is tested. Gays are the highest risk population in the country. The tests are inadequate. A person can transmit HIV for 3 months or longer before antibodies can be detected in the blood. Since the number of gay blood donors is insignificant it makes sense to refuse their blood.
It doesn't make a lick of sense. The tests are inadequate? Then all blood is at risk. But it's the BAN that's inadequate. Explain how this ban stops anyone. Is there an electric fence? A moat full of Westboro Baptist Alligators? There's NOTHING. There's a single line on the questionnaire which essentially says oh please please PLEASE don't give us your gay cooties. A gay person with no diseases (like myself) can easily ignore it. A straight person riddled with STD's can equally ignore it. Useless.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13 Apr 8, 2014
Belly Laugh wrote:
Doesn't matter what you say or want, queer, the fact is, there is a ban on queers giving blood.
And how do you think this ban protects anyone? If you're worried about the marauding hordes storming your castle, you don't put up a paper wall and ask them if they'd be ever so kind to turn around.
Belly Laugh wrote:
I do believe you're practicing what you do best, LIE.
You know me so well, from all the times we've met.

Yes, that's what I do best, I lie. Oh, but what if that's a lie?

Oxygen is breathable. NOW what will you do?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14 Apr 8, 2014
I am perfectly willing to keep the ban in place, and also completely willing to keep lying when I donate.

My blood is clean.

So is my conscience.
1 post removed
Moral Truth

Stafford, VA

#16 Apr 9, 2014
There's a reason why Queers are banned from donating blood, they're disease infested.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17 Apr 9, 2014
Moral Truth wrote:
There's a reason why Queers are banned from donating blood, they're disease infested.
All 10+ millions of us?

Get a clue, shortpants.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#18 Apr 9, 2014
Moral Truth wrote:
There's a reason why Queers are banned from donating blood, they're disease infested.
Feel good about that ban, do you? Feel safe? It must be iron clad, huh? There must be some serious security keeping the gays out. Armed guards, cameras, force fields... right?

No? Just a single question on a questionnaire? Oh. Well, good luck with that, then. I guess it's a good thing that no straight people have any diseases. THAT'LL make you safe.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#19 Apr 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel good about that ban, do you? Feel safe? It must be iron clad, huh? There must be some serious security keeping the gays out. Armed guards, cameras, force fields... right?
No? Just a single question on a questionnaire? Oh. Well, good luck with that, then. I guess it's a good thing that no straight people have any diseases. THAT'LL make you safe.
What makes you safe is storing your own blood in case you need it. I understand it's growing in popularity. I'm lucky, my spouse is type O.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#20 Apr 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
What makes you safe is storing your own blood in case you need it. I understand it's growing in popularity. I'm lucky, my spouse is type O.
Ah, then you've got it all figured out. No bans are needed. Not that they had any power anyway.
1 post removed

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#22 Apr 9, 2014
Absolutely wrote:
It's always been that way with Queers. They're born liars. They lie to donate blood. They lie to get into the Boy Scouts. They lie to become a scout leader to be around little boys. They lie to become priest to have access and to enable a false security blanket for young boys. They lie to marry any even have children just to conceal the fact that they're gay. You're not telling me something I don't already know.
Oh if you say so. I'm sure that's why we all make such a big deal about coming out, because we want to hide that we're gay.

But if that's all true, then WHAT GOOD IS THIS BAN? How safe does it make you feel? How does it work? Who does it stop? Why does it let straight people through who may have diseases? Why is it a good idea to have a ban which uses the primary (only) mechanism of a single question in a questionnaire? How in the hell does anyone call that a "ban"?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#23 Apr 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh if you say so. I'm sure that's why we all make such a big deal about coming out, because we want to hide that we're gay.
But if that's all true, then WHAT GOOD IS THIS BAN? How safe does it make you feel? How does it work? Who does it stop? Why does it let straight people through who may have diseases? Why is it a good idea to have a ban which uses the primary (only) mechanism of a single question in a questionnaire? How in the hell does anyone call that a "ban"?
None of that makes it ok. I think a good start would be to stop allowing the sale of blood.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#24 Apr 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
None of that makes it ok.
I'm not asking if anything is "ok", I'm asking how this ban can be considered "effective" or "safe" in any way.

Whether a person believes that all gay people tell lies all the time or not (and your colleagues here, for whom you are answering, certainly believe that), you cannot have an effective ban based on the honor system. If my own personal honor tells me that I've been monogamous with the same person for years, and we've both long since been tested a couple times, then I can simply step over this unintimidating line they've drawn in the sand. No one can stop me, no one will even know I've done it, and I can hold my head up high while I do it.
Wondering wrote:
I think a good start would be to stop allowing the sale of blood.
Well that's a whole different ball of wax, but STILL results in the abandonment of the ban.

However, I don't know why that would be a good start. Blood is a vital bodily tissue, and is supplied by medical personnel when necessary. Not really any different from donated kidneys, lungs, etc. Should ALL these practices be stopped? What happens if someone is injured who does not have a ready supply of their own blood? What is an effective alternative?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#25 Apr 9, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
Well that's a whole different ball of wax, but STILL results in the abandonment of the ban.
However, I don't know why that would be a good start. Blood is a vital bodily tissue, and is supplied by medical personnel when necessary. Not really any different from donated kidneys, lungs, etc. Should ALL these practices be stopped? What happens if someone is injured who does not have a ready supply of their own blood? What is an effective alternative?
It would be a good start because people that sell their blood often do so to get drug money.
Everyone knows that if you share needles you can get HIV among other serious diseases.

It's very different than donating an organ or even blood. People donate because they want to help, people sell their blood/organs for the money.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New fear: What happens in Ferguson if no charges? 1 min xxxrayted 1,180
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 min Quirky 269,785
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 1 min dannyBOY lies again 11,444
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min Subduction Zone 120,871
Eric Holder's legacy: From Guantanamo to Ferguson 1 min Michael 28
Second Texas nurse tests positive for Ebola; wo... 3 min Foster 119
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min harmonious 1,125,418
GOP types accused of 'thinly-veiled racism' for... 15 min Great Caesars Ghost 174
Obama wants an election about the economy, not him 18 min Great Caesars Ghost 514

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE