If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Universities are banning blood drives because they discriminate against gay people   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 324
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8193 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2008 at 10:48 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



324 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-11-11 07:19:26 PM
Liberal PC-dom has finally destroyed society.
 
2008-11-11 07:23:16 PM
I still don't understand the reason for discrimination. There are far more promiscuous straight people then gay people, generally speaking.
 
2008-11-11 07:24:28 PM
This is one of those situations where i can see both sides of the argument, they both have a good point, but theres no "good" solution.
 
2008-11-11 07:24:28 PM
What about discrimination against people who are going to die if they don't get some blood?

ridiculous. It's not like donating blood is a huge benefit. I mean, I got a free t-shirt but sheesh.

Talk about selfish.
 
2008-11-11 07:27:14 PM
CtrlAltDelete: I still don't understand the reason for discrimination. There are far more promiscuous straight people then gay people, generally speaking.

Its all about the statistics, same reason insurance companies are allowed to technically discriminate.
 
2008-11-11 07:32:29 PM
Male-to-male homosexual acts are still responsible for almost half of all new cases of HIV. Until that number drops, the Red Cross and other blood banks are going to say no to the blood. Given that HIV may not show up in a healthy person for several months, you could be a carrier, have been tested, and not know you were actually positive.

This happened on my campus. When I tried to reason with the LBGT group here and tell them to allow the blood drives and promote safer-sex education outside the drive areas, I was functionally ex-communicated as an 'ally' and told I was a gay-bashing homophobe. It turned into one of the nastiest witch hunts I have ever seen as they went after students, administrators, and faculty who didn't like the ban. It was years before I could talk to some of the people responsible, and every time they bring it up I literally have to sit the entire group of people down and say: "Look, dumbass, this is why people think there is a 'Gay Agenda'. Knock it off!"
 
2008-11-11 07:32:42 PM
Roook: What about discrimination against people who are going to die if they don't get some blood?

ridiculous. It's not like donating blood is a huge benefit. I mean, I got a free t-shirt but sheesh.

Talk about selfish.


After I came out in college I remember learning about the blood-drive rules in the worst way possible. I was all set for it to be the usual thing, you get jabbed, you sit in a chair for awhile, and they give you orange juice. I had donated before.

But I had never really thought about the questions before until I could answer with a confident affirmation.

"Have you given blood in the past six months?"
-"No."
"Do you have any tattoos?"
-"No."
"Are you a homosexual?"
-"Yes!"
"Um... I'm sorry but you can't donate."
-"What? Why?"
"There's a high percentage of HIV positive blood in the homosexual population."
-"Yeah, but..."
"I'm sorry."
-"No, I mean- I haven't actually slept with anyone yet."
"Oh. Well... Hmmmm."

It wasn't enough to be a crazy minority, but I didn't even qualify to be eligible for discrimination.

I wasn't gay, I was just a loser.

And I STILL didn't get to donate.
 
2008-11-11 07:37:20 PM
Nemo's Brother: Liberal PC-dom has finally destroyed society.

HIV is on the rise highest among African-American populations. Does the Red Cross ban blacks from giving blood? Mo. This is an ignorant and baseless ban that needs to end. Until then, I applaud universities for telling them, and the military recruiters, to fark off.
 
2008-11-11 07:37:49 PM
CtrlAltDelete: Roook: What about discrimination against people who are going to die if they don't get some blood?

ridiculous. It's not like donating blood is a huge benefit. I mean, I got a free t-shirt but sheesh.

Talk about selfish.

After I came out in college I remember learning about the blood-drive rules in the worst way possible. I was all set for it to be the usual thing, you get jabbed, you sit in a chair for awhile, and they give you orange juice. I had donated before.

But I had never really thought about the questions before until I could answer with a confident affirmation.

"Have you given blood in the past six months?"
-"No."
"Do you have any tattoos?"
-"No."
"Are you a homosexual?"
-"Yes!"
"Um... I'm sorry but you can't donate."
-"What? Why?"
"There's a high percentage of HIV positive blood in the homosexual population."
-"Yeah, but..."
"I'm sorry."
-"No, I mean- I haven't actually slept with anyone yet."
"Oh. Well... Hmmmm."

It wasn't enough to be a crazy minority, but I didn't even qualify to be eligible for discrimination.

I wasn't gay, I was just a loser.

And I STILL didn't get to donate.


That's a whole new level of FAIL.
 
2008-11-11 07:38:40 PM
There ought to be an alternative to these idiotic PC universities. Good ol'e learnin' or something.
 
2008-11-11 07:40:46 PM
IronTom: There ought to be an alternative to these idiotic PC universities. Good ol'e learnin' or something.

Bible College.
 
2008-11-11 07:41:23 PM
I actually had a discussion with the phelmbotomist (sp?) last week when I was donating. They said its a permanent ban in their organization from donating if you are male and admit to having sex, even once, with another male.

Cyno01: This is one of those situations where i can see both sides of the argument, they both have a good point, but theres no "good" solution.

Bingo.
 
2008-11-11 07:44:50 PM
Donald_McRonald: IronTom: There ought to be an alternative to these idiotic PC universities. Good ol'e learnin' or something.

Bible College.


yeah, but they won't allow the transfusions anyway.
 
2008-11-11 07:47:18 PM
mandingueiro: That's a whole new level of FAIL.

No sh*t. Took me awhile to comes to terms with that one.
 
2008-11-11 07:47:41 PM
My BF is not gay, but he has had...experimentations. He is a completely healthy guy, who just happened to have sex with a few guys a long time ago. Because of this, he cannot give blood. I hope the people who decide this think that the people who are dying right now because of a lack of available blood to give them think that this is policy is worth it.
 
2008-11-11 07:50:41 PM
IronTom: Donald_McRonald: IronTom: There ought to be an alternative to these idiotic PC universities. Good ol'e learnin' or something.

Bible College.

yeah, but they won't allow the transfusions anyway.


Not to mention that being gay and attending a school like that are not mutually exclusive activities.
 
2008-11-11 07:51:56 PM
CayceP: Male-to-male homosexual acts are still responsible for almost half of all new cases of HIV. Until that number drops, the Red Cross and other blood banks are going to say no to the blood. Given that HIV may not show up in a healthy person for several months, you could be a carrier, have been tested, and not know you were actually positive.

This happened on my campus. When I tried to reason with the LBGT group here and tell them to allow the blood drives and promote safer-sex education outside the drive areas, I was functionally ex-communicated as an 'ally' and told I was a gay-bashing homophobe. It turned into one of the nastiest witch hunts I have ever seen as they went after students, administrators, and faculty who didn't like the ban. It was years before I could talk to some of the people responsible, and every time they bring it up I literally have to sit the entire group of people down and say: "Look, dumbass, this is why people think there is a 'Gay Agenda'. Knock it off!"


Actually, Red Cross and most blood banks want gays to be able to donate. It's the FDA that's refusing.

"The Red Cross joined the American Association of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers in asking for guidelines that treat all donors equally."

Red Cross wants change in gay blood donor ban
Current FDA policy 'scientifically unwarranted,' blood banks say
(pops)

This is from 2006
 
2008-11-11 07:52:10 PM
I'm somewhat dubious that universities are banning blood drives, given the number of universities which are associated with hospitals.

*reads TFA*

Oh, it's the student unions. The last surviving enclave of Millie Tant and her friends. The ban only applies within the union building. Student unions (thank FSM) have very little power over uni. policies these days.
 
2008-11-11 07:58:18 PM
The ban dates from before 2006--I know about the conflict between the FDA and Red Cross; I should have included that. Thanks :)
 
amo [TotalFark]
2008-11-11 07:58:37 PM
CtrlAltDelete: And I STILL didn't get to donate.

That is crazy. Last time I gave blood, the question was a little different. Rather than "Are you a homosexual?" it was "Have you engaged in homosexual sex since 1977?"
 
2008-11-11 08:04:27 PM
Why don't they just accept blood from everyone, tag the donations from people who have high risk of diseases, and test them? What's the problem?
 
2008-11-11 08:07:15 PM
DamnYankees: Why don't they just accept blood from everyone, tag the donations from people who have high risk of diseases, and test them? What's the problem?

Tests arent good enough, at least they didnt used to be.
 
2008-11-11 08:20:40 PM
Maybe they should have two buses.
 
2008-11-11 08:29:42 PM
This has always pissed me off, and I know more than a few people who refuse to donate blood based on this reason alone.

I have a friend who is gay, has had less risky sex than me, and is type O negative.

They still won't take his blood.
 
2008-11-11 08:30:32 PM
DamnYankees: Why don't they just accept blood from everyone, tag the donations from people who have high risk of diseases, and test them? What's the problem?

Or just let gays donate and when they leave just throw away their blood. That makes about as much sense as stopping blood drives altogether so they don't hurt anyone's feelings.
 
2008-11-11 08:32:37 PM
what_now: and I know more than a few people who refuse to donate blood based on this reason alone.

I guarantee they wouldn't do it anyways.
 
2008-11-11 08:34:09 PM
Roook: I guarantee they wouldn't do it anyways.

You're completely wrong.

I have friends who are gay. It would be pretty easy for them to lie, but they don't. They simply refuse to donate.
 
2008-11-11 08:35:45 PM
God damnit, you'd damn better take this here AIDs infected blood or you're just like the farking nazis. A little HIV never hurt anyone.
 
2008-11-11 08:37:31 PM
amo: CtrlAltDelete: And I STILL didn't get to donate.

That is crazy. Last time I gave blood, the question was a little different. Rather than "Are you a homosexual?" it was "Have you engaged in homosexual sex since 1977?"


That's just a loophole. They figure if you've had it once, chances are, you've done it again and again. It's legal talk for "you are a homo, and we don't want your blood.(till the statistics on HIV in the gay population reach lower levels)"
 
2008-11-11 08:41:48 PM
rcain: God damnit, you'd damn better take this here AIDs infected blood or you're just like the farking nazis. A little HIV never hurt anyone.

1) Do you think ALL gay men have AIDS?
2) Do you think ONLY gay men have AIDS?

If you say "yes" to one or both of these things, 1984 called, and wants it's retarded prejudices back.
 
2008-11-11 08:44:23 PM
what_now: Roook: I guarantee they wouldn't do it anyways.

You're completely wrong.

I have friends who are gay. It would be pretty easy for them to lie, but they don't. They simply refuse to donate.


Well that's stupid then. I'm sorry, but a life saving blood drive wins out over people's hurt feelings. Every time. Like I said above, total selfishness.

Yeah it's an outdated policy, but there are better ways to go about it then getting all butthurt and making others suffer. That's not a protect. That's not educating. That's being a douchebag.
 
2008-11-11 08:45:57 PM
Donald_McRonald:
|| IronTom: There ought to be an alternative to these idiotic PC universities.
|| Good ol' e-learnin' or something.

Bible College.


They take a wide stance on this issue.
 
2008-11-11 08:46:02 PM
I'm not too surprised by this though. Someone on this site once insulted me for 'bragging' about giving blood in a thread when they were in it, and I knew they couldn't give blood. Apparently it was being insensitive to homosexuals to mention it.

So I'd better go before I make someone cry. :/
 
2008-11-11 08:47:10 PM
Roook: Well that's stupid then. I'm sorry, but a life saving blood drive wins out over people's hurt feelings. Every time. Like I said above, total selfishness.

Umm...the Red Cross is telling them they don't want their blood. They are being told that among all the other things they can't do, they can't give blood, because their blood isn't desirable because they're gay.

So they don't give blood. They COULD lie, but they don't.
 
2008-11-11 08:53:10 PM
The Red Cross won't take my blood because I lived / worked in the UK in the 90's and that means I must have Mad Cow Disease.

Seriously.
 
2008-11-11 09:03:46 PM
DarthBrooks: The Red Cross won't take my blood because I lived / worked in the UK in the 90's and that means I must have Mad Cow Disease.

Moo
 
2008-11-11 09:11:50 PM
The ban makes sense. I mean, after all, it's not like donated blood is tested for diseases. Who has time to deal with all those bags of blood, anyway? Best they just grab a pint and pass it on down, before it gets cold.
 
2008-11-11 09:17:31 PM
They test ALL the blood. There's no merit to banning all men who've ever slept with another man from donating. The issue with detecting HIV is those who are recently infected, and tests are now very sensitive to those who are recently infected. The Red Cross supports changing the standard of deferral from all men who've had sex with men, ever, to men who've had sex with men in the past year. It's still kind of bogus because it doesn't address risky behaviour and treats all gay sex as "disease sex", but it's a better approach than the current one.

What they need is not a gay ban, but screening for risky sluts in general. I have some dear friends who are risky sluts and show up for every blood drive near them and I have shy gay nerd friends who've had like one boyfriend and can't get a date OR give blood. It's ridiculous!

The problem is recent risky behaviour. So make the questions about recent behaviour. Like a, "So... no condom on yet. Just the tip? Y/N" kind of thing, or "How many unprotected partners have you had in the past year" or "Do you often blow guys you meet in bars?" or "Craigslist hookups: good idea?" thing. Until then, I agree with a ban on blood drives because it does nothing but pathologize having sex with another dude without addressing the fact that risky sex is the problem, not the gender of the person you're schtupping.

For what it's worth, African-Americans have been 42% of all people diagnosed with HIV during the entire history of the epidemic, are 41% of those currently living with HIV, and were 49% of those diagnosed with HIV in 2006. But that's like, only the CDC's opinion, man. I point this out because so frequently HIV is stereotyped as a disease affecting gay-identified, white, younger men.
 
2008-11-11 09:29:18 PM
Let's just ban anyone who's ever had sex. I mean, we all know condoms don't stop AIDS, so anyone here could have AIDS. We don't need your filthy sex-mongering AIDS blood.
 
2008-11-11 09:37:46 PM
bobbette:
For what it's worth, African-Americans have been 42% of all people diagnosed with HIV during the entire history of the epidemic, are 41% of those currently living with HIV, and were 49% of those diagnosed with HIV in 2006. But that's like, only the CDC's opinion, man. I point this out because so frequently HIV is stereotyped as a disease affecting gay-identified, white, younger men.



For what its worth...one can draw correlation between socioeconomic status and homosexuality coupled with HIV infection. Before you draw a racist rhetoric lets look at empirical data first before framing the data precluding the argument.

/neither black or gay.
 
2008-11-11 09:50:15 PM
I was going to guess that it was Bible-Thumpers screaming that they don't want no gay blood in their son's veins that could turn them gay.
 
2008-11-11 09:52:53 PM
if it makes you feel any better I cant donate either because i dated someone who was born in africa. go figure.
 
2008-11-11 09:56:45 PM
bobbette:
For what it's worth, African-Americans have been 42% of all people diagnosed with HIV during the entire history of the epidemic, are 41% of those currently living with HIV, and were 49% of those diagnosed with HIV in 2006.


For what its worth, 71% of the people in US that have HIV are white, and you need to look up your definition of African-American
 
2008-11-11 09:58:26 PM
what_now: rcain: God damnit, you'd damn better take this here AIDs infected blood or you're just like the farking nazis. A little HIV never hurt anyone.

1) Do you think ALL gay men have AIDS?
2) Do you think ONLY gay men have AIDS?

If you say "yes" to one or both of these things, 1984 called, and wants it's retarded prejudices back.


No, but I think it's perfectly fine for a blood drive to not accept blood from people who live high risk lifestyles. The fact is HIV screening is not 100% and every year a few people get infected by blood transfusions.

So if you want to say it's discriminatory for groups who are more likely to exposed to certain diseases than other groups to be weeded out for the common good, that's your right. And it's my right to think you're a raging asshat if that is indeed your view.

If you have gay sex, do drugs intravenously, have frequent unprotected casual sex with many partners, have been the recipient of a blood transfusion in the last year ... etc... etc.
KEEP YOUR BLOOD TO YOURSELF.

Is it really that unreasonable to ask?
 
2008-11-11 10:16:31 PM
do they also ban whores?
 
2008-11-11 10:20:50 PM
DarthBrooks: The Red Cross won't take my blood because I lived / worked in the UK in the 90's and that means I must have Mad Cow Disease.

Seriously.


I was stationed in Germany in the mid to late 80's. They won't take mine for the same reason. Apparently the US Army got some of their beef from the UK.
 
2008-11-11 10:34:40 PM
amo: That is crazy. Last time I gave blood, the question was a little different. Rather than "Are you a homosexual?" it was "Have you engaged in homosexual sex since 1977?"

A MUCH better question, absolutely, considering the number of people who "just did it once" but would never in a million years consider themselves gay.

Cyno01: Tests arent good enough, at least they didnt used to be.

That's rather scary, actually, considering all the ways one can get a disease.

I suspect part of the protest is about people somehow being outed by not being able to donate and people seeing them refuse. But, I thought at least in the US it was a common thing for people in such pressure situations (not just teh ghey, but people who know they have some diseases too) to be allowed to donate but then put a sticker on the vial at the very end so it will not be used.
 
2008-11-11 10:48:44 PM
GoGoGo: do they also ban whores?

Yes. If you've ever had sex for drugs of money you can't donate.
 
2008-11-11 10:53:39 PM
the red cross discriminates against me because I was in england for more than 3 months in the 80's.

and I'm whatever-damn-virus-it-is negative so they used to give my O+ to premies.

OH NOES TEH MAD COWZ!
 
2008-11-11 10:54:19 PM
Nemo's Brother: Liberal PC-dom has finally destroyed society.

But I thought The Liberals liked The Gays. It's been said in these august pages that very oftentimes The Liberals and The Gays are very commonly the same person.

/Wait, might see what you did there:
//It would be more PC to accept blood from these The Gays and risk HIV in the interest of not making them sad?
 
Displayed 50 of 324 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report