I think it's the same here (Belgium), at least i know gay men can't donate, dunno about lesbians, but since they aren't mentioned on the questionnaire I just assume they're allowed to.
--
I'm but a simple companion in the pack of gurus whereof SuperNiceDog is the pack leader!
Yeah, I'm gay and even I understand this. It's not like it's totally random that they're allowing it for lesbians but not gay men. Pretty different cases.
I don't really know why we can't just do tests on the blood, since HIV is found in plenty of people who don't engage in gay sex also, but whatever, it's just the reality of the situation that man-on-man sex has risks associated with it. Woman-on-woman pretty much doesn't though so hooray China for actually being progressive for a change?
I assume they wouldn't test the blood because testing might be expensive. It's probably easier and cheaper to ban gay men from donating than it is to just test all of their blood. If the statistics say that gay men have a significantly higher rate of HIV than the general population, then it makes sense. It sucks, but that's probably the best way to go. I would assume that blood is randomly tested, however.
-- multiple updates tomorrow or i will publicly admit that zachnorn is better than me -Sess/MRNICEWATCH Posted 3/5/12, no more updates since...
I assume they wouldn't test the blood because testing might be expensive. It's probably easier and cheaper to ban gay men from donating than it is to just test all of their blood. If the statistics say that gay men have a significantly higher rate of HIV than the general population, then it makes sense. It sucks, but that's probably the best way to go. I would assume that blood is randomly tested, however.
All blood is tested. You don't want to give someone hiv when giving them a blood transplant.
--
I'm but a simple companion in the pack of gurus whereof SuperNiceDog is the pack leader!
I assume they wouldn't test the blood because testing might be expensive. It's probably easier and cheaper to ban gay men from donating than it is to just test all of their blood. If the statistics say that gay men have a significantly higher rate of HIV than the general population, then it makes sense. It sucks, but that's probably the best way to go. I would assume that blood is randomly tested, however.
All blood is tested. You don't want to give someone hiv when giving him a blood transplant.
Yeah, this is the thing I don't get. HIV and other diseases/bad things are prevalent enough in anyone's blood that not testing it for these things is far too risky. I guess they just figure that the rate is too high among those participating in gay sex that it's not worth it. I buy that the rate is higher but I don't buy that it's not worth it.
I think they're incorrect but that doesn't mean it's not understandable.
All blood is tested, but the tests can return false negatives fairly often.
You are also prohibited from giving blood if you've had sex with a prostitute, lived in some countries, or had a variety of medical treatments.
Even by testing every donation and prohibiting a large number of people from donating, people still get incurable diseases from transfusions. This is not political by any stretch of the word. Blood centers literally never turn down blood, they take all they can get. The idea that not accepting blood from males that have had sex with other males is some sort of moral or political decision is reprehensible.
--
"What if you just eat vegetarians?"-neonreaper "^ You are what you eat. ^_~"-Koiji
All blood is tested. You don't want to give someone hiv when giving them a blood transplant.
Ah, my mistake.
I don't understand it, then. Maybe it takes some time for HIV to develop or something? I admit that I don't know enough about HIV in particular. I did notice that it mentioned this:
The ban still applies to men who are sexually active with other men, but celibate homosexuals are permitted to give blood, according to the Ministry of Health's website.
That's important. It would make sense to ban sexually active (two key words there) gay men if HIV cannot be detected for a significant period of time. I did hear before that it takes several months after being infected for it to show up on a test.
The policy still sucks, but at least it is understandable if my interpretations on HIV are correct. I don't like the idea of stereotypes and discrimination, but if that is what helps prevents HIV, then it may be a necessary evil in this case.
-- multiple updates tomorrow or i will publicly admit that zachnorn is better than me -Sess/MRNICEWATCH Posted 3/5/12, no more updates since...
Para you continue to be the most astonishingly prideless gay man I have ever met
I can't believe you actually defend a policy like this
It's not like it's a ban against gay people. It's a ban against dudes who have had penetrative sex with other dudes. The fact is that this does mean a higher risk of diseases and I sure as heck wouldn't want to have sex with someone who didn't know this. They aren't just excluding gay people for no reason, like they do in pretty much every other facet of life that excludes gay people. This is like the one time where it might be legit.
And I'm sort of tired of having to subscribe to a specific set of ideals because I'm homosexual, thanks.
From: Paratroopa1 | #018 Being black isn't a direct contributor to having HIV. Sexual contact is.
Being gay isn't a direct contributor to having HIV. Sexual contact is.
Boom.
...Okay, but it's not a ban against gay people.
I don't know why they don't reject people who have heterosexual anal sex. They probably should, if for no other reason than it would keep the heat off of them for supposedly being homophobic. Shrug.
From: WazzupGenius00 | #040 In the US they don't ban gay men, the ban men who have had sex with men (and women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man)
"I'm not discriminating against you because you're black, I'm discriminating against you because your grandparents were black."
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]
From: WazzupGenius00 | #040 In the US they don't ban gay men, the ban men who have had sex with men (and women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man)
"I'm not discriminating against you because you're black, I'm discriminating against you because your grandparents were black."
How is that even close to an accurate analogy? One you have direct control over, and one you have absolutely no control over.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu
The "no women who have had sex with a man who had sex with a man stipulation" is hilarious. How many guys are going to disclose their history of homosexuality with a woman they're about to sleep with?
Anyway, I'm guessing the rationale is(or was originally) that the amount of unusable blood they got from practicing homosexuals was just so significant that they figured "why bother" and banned it.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu
And I'm sort of tired of having to subscribe to a specific set of ideals because I'm homosexual, thanks.
From: KingButz | #035
Mer, just because both para and you are gay doesn't mean you have to have the same thoughts on everything gay-related.
Let him have some individuality for crying out loud
Oh, please. Para should have the self-respect and the common sense to recognize this for the blatantly homophobic policy it is. Defending this is like being against gay marriage.
I can't believe the majority of B8ers are actually defending this. Did everyone loan their accounts to SmartMuffin and MWC for the day?
smuffin and mwc are just more extreme versions of the majority of white men in this country
if they had social skills/did anything more than obsess over politics and make their ideology their life they would probably be just like everyone else here