2011: The Year for Gay Rights?

[barackattack]

2011: the year for war crimes (brutal murder of Muammar Gaddafi)

[pimpdave]

I'm just going to go back to what I've been saying all along. This isn't about discriminating against homosexuals, it's about preventing the spread of AIDS as well as other diseases that can lie dormant and undetectable for long periods of time. Having watched someone die from the disease (well, pneumonia, but you guys are old enough to remember how people die from AIDS, right?), I guess I'm a little bit more personally invested than most, and less willing to go the permissive "who gives a shit" route on this one that I normally take with social issues (this is public health, not social).

There are plenty of other things homosexuals can do to contribute to the Red Cross and since they only comprise about 2% of the world's population, there can't possibly be as many of them wanting to donate as everyone else. That they're discouraging other qualified donors who might get caught up in the political rhetoric isn't an act of fighting bigotry. It's not bigoted at all to refuse homosexual blood! Same as it isn't bigoted to refuse people who share needles.

They ask questions about recent heterosexual activity too. The full form asks questions about your sexual habits.

Clearly, none of you in here even give blood regularly or you'd know that you're not allowed to donate if you sleep around either. There are questions about your heterosexual activity too. You don't see the cast of The Jersey Shore organizing boycotts of the Red Cross...

[Neoteny]

I'm not the one who thinks that 'more gay people affected by a policy' = 'gay people being discriminated against'.

Incorrect. Reading comprehension, sir. A policy enacted to restrict an entire sexual orientation from something = discrimination.

They ask questions about recent heterosexual activity too. The full form asks questions about your sexual habits.

Clearly, none of you in here even give blood regularly or you'd know that you're not allowed to donate if you sleep around either. There are questions about your heterosexual activity too. You don't see the cast of The Jersey Shore organizing boycotts of the Red Cross...

Wow. Hyperbole lost on dave. Maybe the Maya are coming to kill us this year. Anyhow, I sorta expected better of you, though. When you have actually experience something bad you, or your online person, asplodes it to jaw-dropping levels. Good luck with that.

[Aradhus]

People who live in big cities are at a much higher risk of contracting a blood disease than people who live in small countryside towns. Lets ban city folk from giving blood! It makes sense, right?!

[pimpdave]

Oh, and don't forget, the Red Cross refuses blood from people with hemochromatosis, too! You know what that is? It's a condition that means a person absorbs iron easily. It evolved over centuries as a way to get by on iron deficient diets (possible the mutation also persisted because wounded dudes on the battlefield with it were more likely to survive large blood loss).

Do you know the most common treatment for hemochromatosis? It's to get a blood letting. That's right! It means those people are like dairy cows with blood. If they don't give it, by the time they reach middle age, their organs actually begin to rust. It is not transmittable, it does not diminish the quality of the blood AT ALL.

But those people are still "discriminated" against by the American Red Cross, even though they have an actual physical need to lose blood. They aren't lining up to boycott though... they're not bullying the Red Cross. Only homosexuals are doing that.


EDIT: and they fucking call you a bigot if you call them out on how dumb they're being.

[pimpdave]

I sorta expected better of you, though.

What are you talking about? I'm actually disappointed in you too... really thought you would take the scientific side of this, not the whiny political feelings side. I'd have thought you might actually know something more from the CDC, given where you live.

[barackattack]

A policy enacted to restrict an entire sexual orientation from something = discrimination.

Except it doesn't restrict them all, as discussed earlier.

[Neoteny]

I sorta expected better of you, though.

What are you talking about? I'm actually disappointed in you too... really thought you would take the scientific side of this, not the whiny political feelings side. I'd have thought you might actually know something more from the CDC, given where you live.

Science doesn't really equal ethics. But one of the things drilled into scientists is responsibility to ourselves and society to do the right thing. It may be that eliminating homosexual donors is right, but I'm unconvinced by your anecdote and your creepy minion's meandering. The statistics say we have certain high risk behaviors. The risks associated with anal sex can be mitigated by education, drug testing, std prevention, and responsible partnering, just like with heterosexuals. Blanketing an entire sexuality despite these facts is wrong. It does feel wrong, whether you like that or not, and you know it. A person without a blood disease, especially in the age of antigen testing, should be able to donate blood. It all gets tested anyway. We can ensure blood safety without such harsh discriminatory practices. So why keep doing it? We should discourage promiscuity in our donors, but a monogamous, drug-free homosexual is, very likely, a missed opportunity.

Also, according to the FDA, people with hemochromatosis can donate. They just have a few more restrictions they need to prepare for in advance. Homosexuals may even agree to a similar system, at least until their HIV rates lower. I'm trying to be nice here, pimp. I don't do this for everyone.

EDIT: the ARC does not accept blood from donors with hemochromatosis, which is strange, and, as you implied, unreasonable. They should protest, or otherwise try to change that.

A policy enacted to restrict an entire sexual orientation from something = discrimination.

Except it doesn't restrict them all, as discussed earlier.

Just the ones that are sexually active, yes. You know, living a normal adult life. You're so clever. You should be on Sesame Street.

[Skittles!]

I'm just going to go back to what I've been saying all along. This isn't about discriminating against homosexuals, it's about preventing the spread of AIDS as well as other diseases that can lie dormant and undetectable for long periods of time. Having watched someone die from the disease (well, pneumonia, but you guys are old enough to remember how people die from AIDS, right?), I guess I'm a little bit more personally invested than most, and less willing to go the permissive "who gives a shit" route on this one that I normally take with social issues (this is public health, not social).

There are plenty of other things homosexuals can do to contribute to the Red Cross and since they only comprise about 2% of the world's population, there can't possibly be as many of them wanting to donate as everyone else. That they're discouraging other qualified donors who might get caught up in the political rhetoric isn't an act of fighting bigotry. It's not bigoted at all to refuse homosexual blood! Same as it isn't bigoted to refuse people who share needles.

They ask questions about recent heterosexual activity too. The full form asks questions about your sexual habits.

Clearly, none of you in here even give blood regularly or you'd know that you're not allowed to donate if you sleep around either. There are questions about your heterosexual activity too. You don't see the cast of The Jersey Shore organizing boycotts of the Red Cross...

Despite the fact that heterosexuals have a higher chance of contacting AIDS, the Red Cross still discriminates against homosexuals purely because they can't be bothered to spend a tiny bit more money to test the blood before they give it out.

I should be able to give blood, but I can't. All because I partake in homosexual acts. And I don't have AIDS. I have no chance of contacting AIDS, because my partner doesn't have the disease. That is discrimination. I do not have any STI's, I do not have anything wrong with my blood, yet I still cannot donate, even though I would like to. Hell, I would love to donate and save people's lives but I cannot because an organisation is discriminating against a whole sexual orientation of males.

Believe it or not, a lot of homosexuals use condoms (shock, and horror). And those that don't, normally don't have sex with people with the disease. Cause, hey, they don't want to die. Shock and horror, again. Just because they may not use condoms, doesn't mean they'll get AIDS. Hell, there is a portion of the community that doesn't even partake in anal sex. Just like in the heterosexual community. But I guess that doesn't matter when someone's life is on the line, hey?

I hadn't replied to this bullshit the whole thread cause I thought you were joking, but no, you're not. If someone has AIDS, and knows about it, then donates blood, that's cruel, and they should be punished by it. If someone has AIDS, but doesn't know about it, and donates blood, then it is the responsibility of the Red Cross to SCREEN THE BLOOD. If someone doesn't have AIDS, but is homosexual, they should be able to donate blood, because they are doing the RIGHT thing in saving someone's life.

The amount of blood that the Red Cross would receive every year would increase a f*ck load if they stop discriminating against homosexuals. Just that simple Dave, and I'm sorry you lost someone to whatever idiot decided to donate, but you cannot support something like this. It's cruel.

[Skittles!]

2011, the year for special rights

It's still nice to know you're against equal rights for humanity.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can we give each other a slap on the back, good job, how bout a handjob now?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not the one who thinks that 'more gay people affected by a policy' = 'gay people being discriminated against'.

Incorrect. Reading comprehension, sir. A policy enacted to restrict an entire sexual orientation from something = discrimination.

Not precisely true. First, it is definitely not discrimination against homosexuality in general, only perhaps homosexual males. Second, the word discrimination is usually used to mean "exclusion without real cause". In this case, the fact is that a specific behavior results in a much higher probability of certain illnesses, (not solely AIDS, though AIDS/HIV is perhaps the most well known). That it is a class of people who meet those criteria is essentially cooincidental. That is, the Red Cross could care less who you are attracted to, etc. They only care that their blood supply is safe.

Now, whether that evidence is real or not might be another question. There, the issue is whether someone in a monogamous homosexual relationship would be a risk. The problem with that is that its impossible for even the people involved to really know. That part is true for heterosexuals, but the risk for homosexuals is still much higher.. both of the gay individual having had a prior relations and of the disease being transmitted, though that is changing.. and the criteria are slowly changing as well, but to be more restrictive, not less.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm just going to go back to what I've been saying all along. This isn't about discriminating against homosexuals, it's about preventing the spread of AIDS as well as other diseases that can lie dormant and undetectable for long periods of time. Having watched someone die from the disease (well, pneumonia, but you guys are old enough to remember how people die from AIDS, right?), I guess I'm a little bit more personally invested than most, and less willing to go the permissive "who gives a shit" route on this one that I normally take with social issues (this is public health, not social).

There are plenty of other things homosexuals can do to contribute to the Red Cross and since they only comprise about 2% of the world's population, there can't possibly be as many of them wanting to donate as everyone else. That they're discouraging other qualified donors who might get caught up in the political rhetoric isn't an act of fighting bigotry. It's not bigoted at all to refuse homosexual blood! Same as it isn't bigoted to refuse people who share needles.

They ask questions about recent heterosexual activity too. The full form asks questions about your sexual habits.

Clearly, none of you in here even give blood regularly or you'd know that you're not allowed to donate if you sleep around either. There are questions about your heterosexual activity too. You don't see the cast of The Jersey Shore organizing boycotts of the Red Cross...

Despite the fact that heterosexuals have a higher chance of contacting AIDS, the Red Cross still discriminates against homosexuals purely because they can't be bothered to spend a tiny bit more money to test the blood before they give it out.

This is an incorrect assertion. The fact is that the tests are not 100%, at least at this time. Also, per cost..t he question is whether it would be more cost effective to do A or B. And, it is not the American Red Cross who will pay this cost. They are a non profit. It will be born by the users, or money will have to be diverted from other Red Cross operations, such as emergency assistance and emergency training to pay for this. So, characterizing this as an issue of a bunch of greedy or lazy or just plain ignorant individuals is just wrong. So far, asking those who engage in high risk behavior is the cheaper AND safer route. That is likely going to change soon. However, the change will actually be to broaden the groups asked not to donate... However, that will also mean the blood supply will be REALLY shortened. They may, at that point do more testing of all blood, but then the cost of blood itself will become MUCH higher. And note, this is not just for people needing trasnfusions, it is also for research.

I should be able to give blood, but I can't. All because I partake in homosexual acts. And I don't have AIDS. I have no chance of contacting AIDS, because my partner doesn't have the disease.

This is a tough one, but the real truth is that no one really knows if their partner is being "true" or not, if your partner might possibly have contracted the disease earlier and just not have enough of the virus now to show up in tests (it can take up to 5 years). Statistically, both of us (me being married) are at some risk, but you are at a far, far greater risk than I.

That is discrimination. I do not have any STI's, I do not have anything wrong with my blood, yet I still cannot donate, even though I would like to. Hell, I would love to donate and save people's lives but I cannot because an organisation is discriminating against a whole sexual orientation of males.

Believe it or not, a lot of homosexuals use condoms (shock, and horror). And those that don't, normally don't have sex with people with the disease. Cause, hey, they don't want to die. Shock and horror, again. Just because they may not use condoms, doesn't mean they'll get AIDS. Hell, there is a portion of the community that doesn't even partake in anal sex. Just like in the heterosexual community. But I guess that doesn't matter when someone's life is on the line, hey?

to take your last points first, condoms are a help, but they don't gaurantee you won't get AIDS, for a LOT of reasons. And, the reference to AIDS is just wrong. A LOT of people have HIV and don't know it. So saying "they use a condom if they know someone has AIDS" is well, ignorant on your part. You use them ALL THE TIME.. or you are putting yourself at risk!

And that is really part of the problem here. There is a portion of the homosexual community that is largley monogamouse, that is probably no more a risk than the heterosexuals. BUT, there is also a large group that do not. In fact, though my first impetetus was to say "if you are sure neither you nor your partner has have had any other partners who have engaged in sex with other males, then go ahead and donate". BUT.... your reference to condoms would make me question your desire to donate at all. If you have sex with someone who might be a risk, with or without a condom, then you are putting yourself at risk.. and would be putting anyone who got your blood at risk as well.

If someone doesn't have AIDS, but is homosexual, they should be able to donate blood, because they are doing the RIGHT thing in saving someone's life.

The amount of blood that the Red Cross would receive every year would increase a f*ck load if they stop discriminating against homosexuals. Just that simple Dave, and I'm sorry you lost someone to whatever idiot decided to donate, but you cannot support something like this. It's cruel.

These two statements are just wrong, sorry, but they are. First, the problem is not knowing you have HIV doesn't mean you are safe. It just means you don't know.

Instead of thinking about what you want, think instead about being an administrator of a volunteer organization with limited funding. What is the most cost effective way for you to ensure the safety of the blood supply? To test every single lot of blood, no matter the cost OR to request that those individuals who are statistically shown to have a much higher risk of AIDS to refrain.

NOW... and this is important. One thing you said above is only partially true. The largest group of people with new HIV/AIDS cases is heterosexual women (with apparently some higher incidence among certain specific subgroups). HOWEVER, that means that the virus is moving into the heterosexual community. There ARE plain and simply more heterosexual women than homosexual males in the population, so the greatest increase in cases is now within heterosexual females. BUT the change of a homosexual male actually getting the virus is still much higher than for a heterosexual female (who is not a drug user, doesn't have hemophilia, etc.).

This will CHANGE in time. But, at that point, the cost of blood will just have to increase, and increase a LOT. Hopefully, cheaper, reliable tests will be found prior to that point.

Per your last comment about homosexuals not donating meaning a lot of blood is not donated. First, you CAN actually donate through some local entities. In many areas, the American Red Cross is not the primary blood supplier. In fact, even though we have drives here, local hospitals do not get blood from the American Red Cross. They get it from local blood suppliers.

Second, no, you are just statistically wrong. Among the reasons for declines in donations, the homosexual issue is pretty far down the list. It just is.

[saxitoxin]

I partake in homosexual acts

I could straighten you out in all of about thirty seconds.



STOP! STOOOPPPP. SKITTLES, STOP. NO. NOOOOOO. SKITTLES, NO. STOP. NOOOOO. DO YOU WANT TO GET SPRAYED AGAIN? STOP.

This works on my Rex, Old Tom II, when he's scratching the furniture and - as a scientist - I am confident it will fix gay, too.

[Woodruff]

First, the problem is not knowing you have HIV doesn't mean you are safe. It just means you don't know.

That is absolutely no different in the heterosexual community. So this is not a reason to differentiate.

[PLAYER57832]

First, the problem is not knowing you have HIV doesn't mean you are safe. It just means you don't know.

That is absolutely no different in the heterosexual community. So this is not a reason to differentiate.

The chances of a homosexual contracting HIV are still many magnitudes more than for a heterosexual, though soon that will not be the case. That does not matter for most things, because it cannot be transmitted casually, but in blood donations it does. HOWEVER, as I noted above, the day is very quickly coming when they will either wind up restricting just about anyone or plain testing ALL blood. That will make blood a lot, lot more expensive, though, which is why they are delaying that.

Basically, I think its a case of leaping from the frying pan into the fire. There just really are no good answers, not really.

Honestly, I see the Red Cross getting out of the blood services, but getting into why would require going into a lot of off-topic stuff and really, its mostly just opinion.

[Neoteny]

I'm not the one who thinks that 'more gay people affected by a policy' = 'gay people being discriminated against'.

Incorrect. Reading comprehension, sir. A policy enacted to restrict an entire sexual orientation from something = discrimination.

Not precisely true. First, it is definitely not discrimination against homosexuality in general, only perhaps homosexual males.

You're kinda mincing words here. The reason they are being discriminated against is because, as homosexuals, they are at higher risk for HIV. Their homosexuality is the primary factor. So it is discriminating against homosexuality, even if it only primarily affects the male population. In practice, it is only against the males, but these males are singled out for their homosexuality. It's a bit like saying black men shouldn't play in professional men's leagues (best example I have). Even if black women can, it's still discriminatory against black people in general, and black men in particular.

Second, the word discrimination is usually used to mean "exclusion without real cause". In this case, the fact is that a specific behavior results in a much higher probability of certain illnesses, (not solely AIDS, though AIDS/HIV is perhaps the most well known). That it is a class of people who meet those criteria is essentially cooincidental. That is, the Red Cross could care less who you are attracted to, etc. They only care that their blood supply is safe.

Then blacks and women, the other populations (other than drug users) that, coincidentally, participate in high-risk sexual activity, should also be refused outright. The risk is not quite as high as MSM, but still pretty high. That argument is utter nonsense. As a public health discussion, you can argue that the discrimination is necessary. I would simply disagree. Saying it isn't discrimination, though, is just deluding yourself to make yourself feel better about it.

Also, the ARC claims to test every unit of blood. So that discussion is moot. The issue is that current testing is ineffective against recent infections.

[Skittles!]

I partake in homosexual acts

I could straighten you out in all of about thirty seconds.



STOP! STOOOPPPP. SKITTLES, STOP. NO. NOOOOOO. SKITTLES, NO. STOP. NOOOOO. DO YOU WANT TO GET SPRAYED AGAIN? STOP.

This works on my Rex, Old Tom II, when he's scratching the furniture and - as a scientist - I am confident it will fix gay, too.

Lol, good one.

Player, sorry, but I'm not fucked replying to all of that, I was just ranting at pimpdave.

But hey, you donate blood, I'm not allowed, I'm guessing you're right. I don't actually know any of the statistics cause I'm not bothered to look them up (something about being young and lazy).

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not the one who thinks that 'more gay people affected by a policy' = 'gay people being discriminated against'.

Incorrect. Reading comprehension, sir. A policy enacted to restrict an entire sexual orientation from something = discrimination.

Not precisely true. First, it is definitely not discrimination against homosexuality in general, only perhaps homosexual males.

You're kinda mincing words here. The reason they are being discriminated against is because, as homosexuals, they are at higher risk for HIV. Their homosexuality is the primary factor. So it is discriminating against homosexuality, even if it only primarily affects the male population. In practice, it is only against the males, but these males are singled out for their homosexuality. It's a bit like saying black men shouldn't play in professional men's leagues (best example I have). Even if black women can, it's still discriminatory against black people in general, and black men in particular.

Except it is the actions, not who they are that is the reason. In the case of blacks, the evidence is the opposite. Folks USED to believe there was real basis for discriminating against blacks. I realize you are trying to claim that the two are similar, that the views on homosexuality and AIDS are wrong, but the data is real. AND, I also said that as the virus moves further into the hetersexual community, then the policy will have to change, but then blood will be much, much more expensive.

Second, the word discrimination is usually used to mean "exclusion without real cause". In this case, the fact is that a specific behavior results in a much higher probability of certain illnesses, (not solely AIDS, though AIDS/HIV is perhaps the most well known). That it is a class of people who meet those criteria is essentially cooincidental. That is, the Red Cross could care less who you are attracted to, etc. They only care that their blood supply is safe.

Then blacks and women, the other populations (other than drug users) that, coincidentally, participate in high-risk sexual activity, should also be refused outright. The risk is not quite as high as MSM, but still pretty high. That argument is utter nonsense. As a public health discussion, you can argue that the discrimination is necessary. I would simply disagree. Saying it isn't discrimination, though, is just deluding yourself to make yourself feel better about it.[/quote] the risk is not quite as high.. and that is the key.

It is the virus, not the blood services that is "discriminating". Sometimes NOT pushing something for fear of offending people is a far greater harm.

Also, the ARC claims to test every unit of blood. So that discussion is moot. The issue is that current testing is ineffective against recent infections.

Excactly, there isn't effective testing now. Also, as I noted above, its not all instant testing.

The bottom line is that soon all blood will have to be tested, but that will drive up costs significantly, right when there is such a push to cut all medical costs.

[Neoteny]

I'm not the one who thinks that 'more gay people affected by a policy' = 'gay people being discriminated against'.

Incorrect. Reading comprehension, sir. A policy enacted to restrict an entire sexual orientation from something = discrimination.

Not precisely true. First, it is definitely not discrimination against homosexuality in general, only perhaps homosexual males.

You're kinda mincing words here. The reason they are being discriminated against is because, as homosexuals, they are at higher risk for HIV. Their homosexuality is the primary factor. So it is discriminating against homosexuality, even if it only primarily affects the male population. In practice, it is only against the males, but these males are singled out for their homosexuality. It's a bit like saying black men shouldn't play in professional men's leagues (best example I have). Even if black women can, it's still discriminatory against black people in general, and black men in particular.

Except it is the actions, not who they are that is the reason. In the case of blacks, the evidence is the opposite. Folks USED to believe there was real basis for discriminating against blacks. I realize you are trying to claim that the two are similar, that the views on homosexuality and AIDS are wrong, but the data is real. AND, I also said that as the virus moves further into the hetersexual community, then the policy will have to change, but then blood will be much, much more expensive.

You keep saying "real" like it's a useful descriptor. And at what point have I contradicted the the data? I would like for you, just once, to actually restate the main idea of one of my posts. A third grader could do it. To make it easier, I'll actually tell you the main idea. The actions are an inherent part of homosexuality. Non-celibate gay men tend to have gay sex. It's sorta how that works. Restricting their individual contributions to blood donation due to the statistics of the overall population is discriminatory. Again, perhaps it's a "real" reason to discriminate. But it is, still and again, discriminatory. This concludes the main idea of this paragraph.

Second, the word discrimination is usually used to mean "exclusion without real cause". In this case, the fact is that a specific behavior results in a much higher probability of certain illnesses, (not solely AIDS, though AIDS/HIV is perhaps the most well known). That it is a class of people who meet those criteria is essentially cooincidental. That is, the Red Cross could care less who you are attracted to, etc. They only care that their blood supply is safe.

Then blacks and women, the other populations (other than drug users) that, coincidentally, participate in high-risk sexual activity, should also be refused outright. The risk is not quite as high as MSM, but still pretty high. That argument is utter nonsense. As a public health discussion, you can argue that the discrimination is necessary. I would simply disagree. Saying it isn't discrimination, though, is just deluding yourself to make yourself feel better about it.

the risk is not quite as high.. and that is the key.

Is this key an arbitrary one, or based on anything in particular? At what risk value is it necessary to start discriminating?

It is the virus, not the blood services that is "discriminating". Sometimes NOT pushing something for fear of offending people is a far greater harm.

The last part may very well be true. But the blood services are discriminating against non-infected individuals because of the population statistics. For the umpteenth time, you can argue that it's necessary. You cannot reasonably argue that it isn't discriminatory.

Also, the ARC claims to test every unit of blood. So that discussion is moot. The issue is that current testing is ineffective against recent infections.

Excactly, there isn't effective testing now. Also, as I noted above, its not all instant testing.

The bottom line is that soon all blood will have to be tested, but that will drive up costs significantly, right when there is such a push to cut all medical costs.

The bottom line is that all blood is already tested, so costs will not go up until a better test is found, and even then costs may not go up. I swear you don't read the things to which you're replying.

[PLAYER57832]

You're kinda mincing words here. The reason they are being discriminated against is because, as homosexuals, they are at higher risk for HIV. Their homosexuality is the primary factor. So it is discriminating against homosexuality, even if it only primarily affects the male population. In practice, it is only against the males, but these males are singled out for their homosexuality. It's a bit like saying black men shouldn't play in professional men's leagues (best example I have). Even if black women can, it's still discriminatory against black people in general, and black men in particular.

Except it is the actions, not who they are that is the reason. In the case of blacks, the evidence is the opposite. Folks USED to believe there was real basis for discriminating against blacks. I realize you are trying to claim that the two are similar, that the views on homosexuality and AIDS are wrong, but the data is real. AND, I also said that as the virus moves further into the hetersexual community, then the policy will have to change, but then blood will be much, much more expensive.

You keep saying "real" like it's a useful descriptor. And at what point have I contradicted the the data? I would like for you, just once, to actually restate the main idea of one of my posts. A third grader could do it. To make it easier, I'll actually tell you the main idea. The actions are an inherent part of homosexuality. Non-celibate gay men tend to have gay sex. It's sorta how that works. Restricting their individual contributions to blood donation due to the statistics of the overall population is discriminatory. Again, perhaps it's a "real" reason to discriminate. But it is, still and again, discriminatory. This concludes the main idea of this paragraph.

Not when the premise is that its OK to endanger the blood supply because a few people will be offended. And that, truly is what this is about. That is what the DATA says. As for the reference to drug users, etc. Truth is, most of them don't donate except at for pay centers, which are an entirely different story. Per the black women. The rates are still low. They are growing, as they are for the heterosexual population in general, but there is a BIG difference, of which I surely hope you are aware (given your field) between increasing rate of growth and a numerical increase.

Second, the word discrimination is usually used to mean "exclusion without real cause". In this case, the fact is that a specific behavior results in a much higher probability of certain illnesses, (not solely AIDS, though AIDS/HIV is perhaps the most well known). That it is a class of people who meet those criteria is essentially cooincidental. That is, the Red Cross could care less who you are attracted to, etc. They only care that their blood supply is safe.

Then blacks and women, the other populations (other than drug users) that, coincidentally, participate in high-risk sexual activity, should also be refused outright. The risk is not quite as high as MSM, but still pretty high. That argument is utter nonsense. As a public health discussion, you can argue that the discrimination is necessary. I would simply disagree. Saying it isn't discrimination, though, is just deluding yourself to make yourself feel better about it.

the risk is not quite as high.. and that is the key.

Is this key an arbitrary one, or based on anything in particular? At what risk value is it necessary to start discriminating?

At what point?
That is the billion dollar question of ANY biological question. There is, of course, no set answer. I have already said that the equation IS changing. But, it is not changing in any good way. MORE people are being excluded for various reasons, not fewer. And yes, the issue of monogamous homosexuals IS being evaluated, despite claims here to the contrary. In some areas the questions ARE different.

Look, this whole thing started with pimpdave insisting there is some huge homosexual conspiracy that is endangering the blood supply. That is just false. On the other hand, the position of others that this is arbitrary and unwarranted discrimination is just wrong.

It is the virus, not the blood services that is "discriminating". Sometimes NOT pushing something for fear of offending people is a far greater harm.

The last part may very well be true. But the blood services are discriminating against non-infected individuals because of the population statistics. For the umpteenth time, you can argue that it's necessary. You cannot reasonably argue that it isn't discriminatory.

You are trying to change the context of the debate. The bottom line is that this action is taken because of biology, not some inherent idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality. Note.. some people within the system no doubt do feel that homosexuality is wrong and probably point to the data as why.

AND... read the above arguments where I was told "its OK... we use condoms if [we know] someone has AIDs. TH AT is the real problem, not the American Red Cross position here!

Also, the ARC claims to test every unit of blood. So that discussion is moot. The issue is that current testing is ineffective against recent infections.

Excactly, there isn't effective testing now. Also, as I noted above, its not all instant testing.

The bottom line is that soon all blood will have to be tested, but that will drive up costs significantly, right when there is such a push to cut all medical costs.

The bottom line is that all blood is already tested, so costs will not go up until a better test is found, and even then costs may not go up. I swear you don't read the things to which you're replying.

No, we are talking about a different level of testing.. AND the fact that its unlikely any testing system will ever be 100%.
This question is constantly being re-evaluated. As I said above, the day is coming when the percentage of AIDs in the heterosexual and homosexual populations may be similar. At that point, things will have to change a lot. But, the change might just be that only a few people get to donate.. for example, you might have to show yourself free of disease first or some such and that likley will happen through a for-profit company (or at least with some compensation given to the donors).

As I ALSO said, I do think this is a better alternative, but that is only because the options are worse, not because I think it is a wonderful policy.

[pimpdave]

I was just ranting at pimpdave.

And all I can say is that's too bad you're disappointed. Lots of potential donors get turned away, not just homosexuals. The problem is that homosexuals are actively discouraging large numbers of well qualified donors from giving in some sort of hissy fit, that proves nothing other than they're fond of bullying people.

I'm just repeating myself. This isn't a matter at all like marriage or DADT. Those are things I and many others are glad to see you guys make progress on. But you're such a small percentage of the population, it's really not a big deal to be turned away from donor centers. It is a big deal that you guys are trying to convince other people to not save lives. I mean, seriously, the message being sent is that you WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO DIE just because you're not a qualified donor. This isn't impugning your rights! At all! It just means you can't volunteer in a particular way. There's plenty of other things you can do.

[saxitoxin]

You're kinda mincing words here. The reason they are being discriminated against is because, as homosexuals, they are at higher risk for HIV. Their homosexuality is the primary factor. So it is discriminating against homosexuality, even if it only primarily affects the male population. In practice, it is only against the males, but these males are singled out for their homosexuality. It's a bit like saying black men shouldn't play in professional men's leagues (best example I have). Even if black women can, it's still discriminatory against black people in general, and black men in particular.

Except it is the actions, not who they are that is the reason. In the case of blacks, the evidence is the opposite. Folks USED to believe there was real basis for discriminating against blacks. I realize you are trying to claim that the two are similar, that the views on homosexuality and AIDS are wrong, but the data is real. AND, I also said that as the virus moves further into the hetersexual community, then the policy will have to change, but then blood will be much, much more expensive.

You keep saying "real" like it's a useful descriptor. And at what point have I contradicted the the data? I would like for you, just once, to actually restate the main idea of one of my posts. A third grader could do it. To make it easier, I'll actually tell you the main idea. The actions are an inherent part of homosexuality. Non-celibate gay men tend to have gay sex. It's sorta how that works. Restricting their individual contributions to blood donation due to the statistics of the overall population is discriminatory. Again, perhaps it's a "real" reason to discriminate. But it is, still and again, discriminatory. This concludes the main idea of this paragraph.

Not when the premise is that its OK to endanger the blood supply because a few people will be offended. And that, truly is what this is about. That is what the DATA says. As for the reference to drug users, etc. Truth is, most of them don't donate except at for pay centers, which are an entirely different story. Per the black women. The rates are still low. They are growing, as they are for the heterosexual population in general, but there is a BIG difference, of which I surely hope you are aware (given your field) between increasing rate of growth and a numerical increase.

Second, the word discrimination is usually used to mean "exclusion without real cause". In this case, the fact is that a specific behavior results in a much higher probability of certain illnesses, (not solely AIDS, though AIDS/HIV is perhaps the most well known). That it is a class of people who meet those criteria is essentially cooincidental. That is, the Red Cross could care less who you are attracted to, etc. They only care that their blood supply is safe.

Then blacks and women, the other populations (other than drug users) that, coincidentally, participate in high-risk sexual activity, should also be refused outright. The risk is not quite as high as MSM, but still pretty high. That argument is utter nonsense. As a public health discussion, you can argue that the discrimination is necessary. I would simply disagree. Saying it isn't discrimination, though, is just deluding yourself to make yourself feel better about it.

the risk is not quite as high.. and that is the key.

Is this key an arbitrary one, or based on anything in particular? At what risk value is it necessary to start discriminating?

At what point?
That is the billion dollar question of ANY biological question. There is, of course, no set answer. I have already said that the equation IS changing. But, it is not changing in any good way. MORE people are being excluded for various reasons, not fewer. And yes, the issue of monogamous homosexuals IS being evaluated, despite claims here to the contrary. In some areas the questions ARE different.

Look, this whole thing started with pimpdave insisting there is some huge homosexual conspiracy that is endangering the blood supply. That is just false. On the other hand, the position of others that this is arbitrary and unwarranted discrimination is just wrong.

It is the virus, not the blood services that is "discriminating". Sometimes NOT pushing something for fear of offending people is a far greater harm.

The last part may very well be true. But the blood services are discriminating against non-infected individuals because of the population statistics. For the umpteenth time, you can argue that it's necessary. You cannot reasonably argue that it isn't discriminatory.

You are trying to change the context of the debate. The bottom line is that this action is taken because of biology, not some inherent idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality. Note.. some people within the system no doubt do feel that homosexuality is wrong and probably point to the data as why.

AND... read the above arguments where I was told "its OK... we use condoms if [we know] someone has AIDs. TH AT is the real problem, not the American Red Cross position here!

Also, the ARC claims to test every unit of blood. So that discussion is moot. The issue is that current testing is ineffective against recent infections.

Excactly, there isn't effective testing now. Also, as I noted above, its not all instant testing.

The bottom line is that soon all blood will have to be tested, but that will drive up costs significantly, right when there is such a push to cut all medical costs.

The bottom line is that all blood is already tested, so costs will not go up until a better test is found, and even then costs may not go up. I swear you don't read the things to which you're replying.

No, we are talking about a different level of testing.. AND the fact that its unlikely any testing system will ever be 100%.
This question is constantly being re-evaluated. As I said above, the day is coming when the percentage of AIDs in the heterosexual and homosexual populations may be similar. At that point, things will have to change a lot. But, the change might just be that only a few people get to donate.. for example, you might have to show yourself free of disease first or some such and that likley will happen through a for-profit company (or at least with some compensation given to the donors).

As I ALSO said, I do think this is a better alternative, but that is only because the options are worse, not because I think it is a wonderful policy.

Dear Consumer:

We are temporarily experiencing a bandwidth shortage on this site. For the time being we ask you limit your posts to 144 characters or less.

Thank you for your patience. We value you patronage!

- Saxi T.
Global Customer Service Technician III

[PLAYER57832]

I was just ranting at pimpdave.

And all I can say is that's too bad you're disappointed. Lots of potential donors get turned away, not just homosexuals. The problem is that homosexuals are actively discouraging large numbers of well qualified donors from giving in some sort of hissy fit, that proves nothing other than they're fond of bullying people.

Change "homoosexuals" to " a few homosexuals in my area and occasionally in scattered other areas on an infrequent basis" and you are correct.

As it stands above, you are judging a lot of people based on the actions of a few idiots. As in I have no idea of your politics, but a comparison would be that knowing several of the local Democrats are Tea Party afficianados does not mean that all Democrats can be said to have those views.

AND, equally, yes they are jerks/idiots, whatever. Its only wrong when you try to present this as some kind of mass homosexual action.

AND... it is not having that huge an impact on the Red Cross nation-wide. It just isn't. Losses on that front are from many other causes, too many to get into (and well off topic).

[Neoteny]

Christ.

You keep saying "real" like it's a useful descriptor. And at what point have I contradicted the the data? I would like for you, just once, to actually restate the main idea of one of my posts. A third grader could do it. To make it easier, I'll actually tell you the main idea. The actions are an inherent part of homosexuality. Non-celibate gay men tend to have gay sex. It's sorta how that works. Restricting their individual contributions to blood donation due to the statistics of the overall population is discriminatory. Again, perhaps it's a "real" reason to discriminate. But it is, still and again, discriminatory. This concludes the main idea of this paragraph.

Not when the premise is that its OK to endanger the blood supply because a few people will be offended. And that, truly is what this is about. That is what the DATA says. As for the reference to drug users, etc. Truth is, most of them don't donate except at for pay centers, which are an entirely different story. Per the black women. The rates are still low. They are growing, as they are for the heterosexual population in general, but there is a BIG difference, of which I surely hope you are aware (given your field) between increasing rate of growth and a numerical increase.

I am not trying to support any premise other than the fact that the policy is discriminatory, which is what justifies concern from the homosexual community. I have, repeatedly, typed this at you over my last several posts, and it has bounced off your comprehension like a quarter off the firm buttocks of a nearly nude gay pride protester. So, no, "that" truly is not what "this" is about. If we were talking about whether this discrimination is justified by perceived safety, then you are correct. But we are not. So you are not. If women were at the highest risk, and they were ruled out, it would be discriminatory. If politicians were the highest risk, and they were ruled out, that would be discriminatory. If the rich were... do you get it yet? I don't give a shit about whether you think that discrimination is justified. I'm trying to clarify that my original point is that it is extremely obviously discriminatory. I guess you just don't want to consider yourself as a discriminating individual. Not my problem. But it is what it is.

Is this key an arbitrary one, or based on anything in particular? At what risk value is it necessary to start discriminating?

At what point?
That is the billion dollar question of ANY biological question. There is, of course, no set answer. I have already said that the equation IS changing. But, it is not changing in any good way. MORE people are being excluded for various reasons, not fewer. And yes, the issue of monogamous homosexuals IS being evaluated, despite claims here to the contrary. In some areas the questions ARE different.

This is all fair enough. I phrased my question that way for exactly that reason. Weighing equality against public health is a necessary discussion. It helps if you recognize the disparity as an issue.

Look, this whole thing started with pimpdave insisting there is some huge homosexual conspiracy that is endangering the blood supply. That is just false. On the other hand, the position of others that this is arbitrary and unwarranted discrimination is just wrong.

It is not arbitrary, and I think it's warranted, but I don't expect to convince you of that. If you want to discuss that, then you picked a fight with the wrong person.

The last part may very well be true. But the blood services are discriminating against non-infected individuals because of the population statistics. For the umpteenth time, you can argue that it's necessary. You cannot reasonably argue that it isn't discriminatory.

You are trying to change the context of the debate. The bottom line is that this action is taken because of biology, not some inherent idea that there is something wrong with homosexuality. Note.. some people within the system no doubt do feel that homosexuality is wrong and probably point to the data as why.

I am changing no context. I have consistently argued the same point: that the policy is discriminatory, regardless of it's biological origin, and that homosexuals are justified in feeling cheated. There should be no value judgment based on the prevalence of AIDS. Discrimination does not only occur where there are moral judgments. In this case, it's discrimination based, essentially, on population modeling.

AND... read the above arguments where I was told "its OK... we use condoms if [we know] someone has AIDs. TH AT is the real problem, not the American Red Cross position here!

I have no issue with education. It is ok to have sex with a condom with someone that has AIDS. Much better than without. It's best to know it's not perfect, sure, but taking one issue out of a myriad, and labeling it as THE ONLY REAL ISSUE is misleading, distracting, and completely false. There are so many issues; it's definitely unfair to promote only one at the expense of all the others. It's important, sure, but don't trivialize other issues just because one particular problem is a big deal. They all are, and, here on this forum, we obviously have plenty of time to talk about a lot of issues. If you're only interested in that one, then you were mistaken about accosting me over discrimination.

Also, the ARC claims to test every unit of blood. So that discussion is moot. The issue is that current testing is ineffective against recent infections.

Excactly, there isn't effective testing now. Also, as I noted above, its not all instant testing.

The bottom line is that soon all blood will have to be tested, but that will drive up costs significantly, right when there is such a push to cut all medical costs.

The bottom line is that all blood is already tested, so costs will not go up until a better test is found, and even then costs may not go up. I swear you don't read the things to which you're replying.

No, we are talking about a different level of testing.. AND the fact that its unlikely any testing system will ever be 100%.

What?! We are talking about neither of those things. You said not all blood is tested. I said it is. You said not all blood is tested (again), and I scratched my head and noted that all blood is tested and the tests are not perfect. Where you got levels of testing from is beyond me, and then you essentially repeated my note. My point was that increased cost is not a factor in this discrimination against homosexuals. Statistics still play a role, but not as big as you've been implying. Because all the blood is tested.

This question is constantly being re-evaluated. As I said above, the day is coming when the percentage of AIDs in the heterosexual and homosexual populations may be similar. At that point, things will have to change a lot. But, the change might just be that only a few people get to donate.. for example, you might have to show yourself free of disease first or some such and that likley will happen through a for-profit company (or at least with some compensation given to the donors).

As I ALSO said, I do think this is a better alternative, but that is only because the options are worse, not because I think it is a wonderful policy.

Fair enough. I disagree. I'll leave it at that, since these statements have no bearing on what I'm trying to argue.