You're Gay? You can't help save lives!

[Nyoibo]

There is still a higher incidence of HIV and AIDS in homosexual men than heterosexual men, which is the main reason for the ban being upheld, howeverwith the advances in screening techniques that's not really much of a reason.

[Talon]

It is unfair. Pure and simple.

Not to mention ignorant and stupid.

There are some religous sects that already refuse medical health. Only recently was there a ban on that in some areas, as children are now dying because their parents refuse medical health and only have faith based healing.

Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this. Let them live and die by their own stupidity, except they're also condemning innocent children to utterly needless suffering and death.

[fireheart17]

In regards to the "let's put the ban in because tests take a while to show HIV/AIDS" issue, Australia's managed to skirt around this issue pretty well. This is the full list of what requires a waiting period and what can result in never being able to donate (this has all come off of the Red Cross website for Australia):

NEVER being able to donate:

-Have or had Hep C.
-HIV positive
-Injected yourself with an illicit drug (at ANY time in your life)
-If you were in the UK between 1980-1996 (no test has been done to rule out Mad Cow Disease yet)
-If you have systemic lupus erythematosus
-If you had your spleen removed for non-trauma reasons.
-If you have polycythaemia (rubra) vera (while the Red Cross will allow for the services, the blood doesn't get used for transfusion)
-If you have MS
-If you have or had leukaemia or lymphoma.
-If you EVER had a heart attack.
-If you have or had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.


WAITING PERIOD: (the time in brackets is the waiting period after the last time you did said activity)

-Working, or worked in an abbatoir (while you're working there and up to 12 months after you leave)
-Had acupuncture (single-use needles, plasma portion for 4 months, full blood donation after that, unsure or non-single use needles, 6 months total)
-Had a blood transfusion (12 months, only exception is if the transfusion was your own blood)
-Are breastfeeding (9 months and until bubs is weaned)
-Most forms of cancer (5 years)
-If you've been in prison (12 months after your release)
-Dengue fever (4 weeks after you've fully recovered)
-Hepatitis A or B (12 months after recovery)
-Ear piercing (24 hours if single-use needles were used, 6 months if unsure or they weren't used)
-Body piercing (same as acupuncture)
-Pregnancy loss (6 months if it was in the first or second trimester, if it was in the third, it's 9 months)
-Spleen removal due to trauma/injury (6 months if no blood transfusion was done, 12 months if it was done)
-tattooing of any sort (6 months)
-

[McDreidel09]

There is still a higher incidence of HIV and AIDS in homosexual men than heterosexual men, which is the main reason for the ban being upheld, howeverwith the advances in screening techniques that's not really much of a reason.

While there is still a higher incidence of HIV and AIDS in homosexual men than heterosexual men, there is a group that has a higher incidence than homosexual men. That group is African American women. You can find these statistics on the CDC website. However, we only ban homosexual men.

I tell people not to answer honestly on the homosexual part, as long as they know they are clean.

Hey Lupo, we are blood sisters! O- baby!!

[Hobbs]

If you go to the Korean DMZ (De-Militarized Zone) you can't donate either. Kind of makes me wish I was going to Korea. In the service, they make you donate. I guess it makes sense since the government owns me

[HYHYBT]

-Injected yourself with an illicit drug (at ANY time in your life)

The US has that one too, if I remember rightly, and I cannot really make any more sense of it than of the gay ban. What are they worried about, exactly? If it's the risk of HIV or something like that, then again, either you would test positive after, to be generous, a year or else never; if it's the injected substance itself, that's gone in a far shorter time. What purpose, then, does a *lifetime* ban serve?

[lupo pazzesco]

While there is still a higher incidence of HIV and AIDS in homosexual men than heterosexual men, there is a group that has a higher incidence than homosexual men. That group is African American women. You can find these statistics on the CDC website. However, we only ban homosexual men.

Hey Lupo, we are blood sisters! O- baby!!

and that's what doesn't make sense to me. Because you can surely bet that if African American women were banned, there would be a slew of lawsuits and screams of discrimination, etc, etc. But it's ok to do to it to homosexual men. Because they're gay.

The US has that one too, if I remember rightly, and I cannot really make any more sense of it than of the gay ban. What are they worried about, exactly? If it's the risk of HIV or something like that, then again, either you would test positive after, to be generous, a year or else never; if it's the injected substance itself, that's gone in a far shorter time. What purpose, then, does a *lifetime* ban serve?

I think it's akin to why there is still a ban for homosexual men. Because of the cultural beliefs in regards to drug abuse (and to other extents, homosexuality) it speaks to behavior, and a willingness to apparently engage in risky practices that are detrimental to your health and well being (again, like homosexuality, because, of course, engaging in said practices means you're obviously not normal). Both reasons are BS, to me, because like you mentioned with the drugs, giving a long period of time and then testing is a safety precaution, and the injected substance itself is long gone. But you're perma-banned if you admit to ever doing it because you admitted you're weak and abnormal and willing to engage in said behavior, meaning you're inherently contaminated. (maybe I should tone down on the cynicism and sarcasm a bit, I think this is coming off pretty hateful. Sorry!)

I think this is the underlying, pervading logic behind the bans that exist, even if no one wants to admit it. I freely admit this is my opinion only, and only wish I could find evidence to back it up. But who, in power, is going to admit that they can't come up a valid reason for these bans, aside from "in the interest of public safety"?

Yeah, sorry, I'm a little bitter right now. Haven't eaten in a while so I'm a bit cranky. I should go rectify that. This came off sounding a lot more hateful and cynical than I had planned originally. I didn't think it bothered me that much.