Should Gay people be allowed to Donate Blood?

[Nomad_X]

In many places Gay men are still discriminated against by being banned from Donating blood.


Should Gay people be allowed to Donate Blood?

[NitoJuanito]

Yeah. If they have been checked to see if they have no STDs of any sort, AIDS/HIV, and they were all negative, then yes. They can, errr, should be able to.

[TapDancer]

In my opinion, the rule prohibiting gay men from donating blood stems from the "Threat of HIV". I disagree, there is no reputable source to suggest that Gay men are at any more risk of contracting HIV than straight men. I believe it has more to do with how promiscuous an individual is - if you are a promiscuous individual, then I believe you should not give blood as you can never be sure of your HIV status - even with constant protection used. I believe Gay men should be able to donate, more lives can be saved that way.

Yeah. If they have been checked to see if they have no STDs of any sort, AIDS/HIV, and they were all negative, then yes. They can, errr, should be able to.

Well, if gay men should be checked, then shouldn't straight men? I agree with the general idea of what you are saying - everyone should be tested. But, for example, a husband and wife should presumably not be tested as they should be "exclusive". I mean, if gay men are in a monogamous relationship,then presumably, they are of no more risk than any straight monogamous male.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[NitoJuanito]

Well, if gay men should be checked, then shouldn't straight men? I agree with the general idea of what you are saying - everyone should be tested. But, for example, a husband and wife should presumably not be tested as they should be "exclusive". I mean, if gay men are in a monogamous relationship,then presumably, they are of no more risk than any straight monogamous male.

What I meant was, before they give blood, before any person at all gives blood, they should check and see if they have any disease. As you mentioned earlier, they have an equal chance at getting HIV/AIDS as any other man.

[Gigablue]

In my opinion, the rule prohibiting gay men from donating blood stems from the "Threat of HIV". I disagree, there is no reputable source to suggest that Gay men are at any more risk of contracting HIV than straight men. I believe it has more to do with how promiscuous an individual is - if you are a promiscuous individual, then I believe you should not give blood as you can never be sure of your HIV status - even with constant protection used. I believe Gay men should be able to donate, more lives can be saved that way.

Statistically, gay men do have a higher rate of HIV. Saying they don't is just wrong. That being said, there are other minotiry groups that have similarly elevated risks, and yet aren't banned. For example, many racial minorities have HIV rated comparable to those of gay men, yet no one would even consider banning an entire racial group from giving blood.

In short, gay men are more likely to have HIV, but the risk isn't significant enough to ban then from giving blood. As long as they have tested negative, they should be able give blood.

[britishboy]

there is no evidence that taking blood from a gay man will make you yourself gay, so as long as it's health blood, why not?

[Nomad_X]

Well, if gay men should be checked, then shouldn't straight men? I agree with the general idea of what you are saying - everyone should be tested. But, for example, a husband and wife should presumably not be tested as they should be "exclusive". I mean, if gay men are in a monogamous relationship,then presumably, they are of no more risk than any straight monogamous male.

What I meant was, before they give blood, before any person at all gives blood, they should check and see if they have any disease. As you mentioned earlier, they have an equal chance at getting HIV/AIDS as any other man.


All donated blood is tested for diseases and disorders. Even a person who frequently donate's blood is tested every time.

So Banning gay men is discrimination.

[Steven1]

Every blood donation (atleast in the UK), is checked for diseases such as STI's and AIDS etc, and if the donator is infected they're not allowed to give blood. As long as they're not infected, then yes, they should be allowed to, their blood doesn't differ from anyone else's and is just as good.

[Jess]

Of course they should, as long as their blood is healthy of course - but that's the case with anyone.

[Rina]

Why would they be banned? The only reason anyone should be banned from giving blood is if they have a disease.

[Cygnus]

Anyone should be able to donate blood if they are healthy and in the condition to do it. Gay people are no different.

[Harry Smith]

there is no evidence that taking blood from a gay man will make you yourself gay, so as long as it's health blood, why not?

I don't think that was ever an issue, it was more to do with the Aids scare in the 1980's.

As many others have said, as long as the proper checks have been done it's fine

[thatcountrykid]

In many places Gay men are still discriminated against by being banned from Donating blood.


Should Gay people be allowed to Donate Blood?

Its not just because theyre gay. Its because of the larger risk of stds and aids because theyre gay.

[britishboy]

I don't think that was ever an issue, it was more to do with the Aids scare in the 1980's.

As many others have said, as long as the proper checks have been done it's fine

well thats stupid everyone is cheeked, it's probably something that was fair to do when everyone thought gay men had aids but now all that's been disproved they haven't gotten round to changing it back

[Nomad_X]

Its not just because theyre gay. Its because of the larger risk of stds and aids because theyre gay.

All blood is screened after donation, and before use. So why should there be a ban for gays?

[PinkFloyd]

I don't see how sexual orientation has effect on blood donation... Of course they should be able to. Discrimination is wrong.

[Abyssal Echo]

Yeah. If they have been checked to see if they have no STDs of any sort, AIDS/HIV, and they were all negative, then yes. They can, errr, should be able to.

^ this ^ should apply to everyone since STD's, AIDS/HIV isn't just a problem in the gay community.

[KrystalBear98]

yea I don't see the problem with it

[Harry Smith]

well thats stupid everyone is cheeked, it's probably something that was fair to do when everyone thought gay men had aids but now all that's been disproved they haven't gotten round to changing it back

I was saying that your theory was incorrect that people thought homosexuality could be passed through the blood. People never thought that.

What's stupid about my statment? I said as long as they have checks then it's fine. How is that wrong?

[britishboy]

I was saying that your theory was incorrect that people thought homosexuality could be passed through the blood. People never thought that.

What's stupid about my statment? I said as long as they have checks then it's fine. How is that wrong?

I didn't mean what you said, I ment the 'gay men are more likely to get aids' argument

[Harry Smith]

I didn't mean what you said, I ment the 'gay men are more likely to get aids' argument

When did I say gay men are more likely to get aids?

[britishboy]

When did I say gay men are more likely to get aids?

you didn't

[Harry Smith]

you didn't

So you think that gay men are more likely to get aids?

[britishboy]

So you think that gay men are more likely to get aids?

nope, I could get aids tomorrow from anal or vaginal sex with a women or anyway blood could get into my body and im straight

[Harry Smith]

nope, I could get aids tomorrow from anal or vaginal sex with a women or anyway blood could get into my body and im straight

I agree with this completely, it's a massive misconception that gay people are more likely to get it

[britishboy]

I agree with this completely, it's a massive misconception that gay people are more likely to get it

wow! we're in agreement for once!:D

[Gigablue]

I agree with this completely, it's a massive misconception that gay people are more likely to get it

No. Men who have sex with men (MSM) are significantly more likely to have HIV.

From the CDC
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM),1 particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States,4 in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections.2 MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.
Source (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html)

This isn't to say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to give blood, nor is it to say that male to male sexual contact is the only way to spread HIV. However, the data clearly show that MSM are more likely to have HIV.

[Harry Smith]

No. Men who have sex with men (MSM) are significantly more likely to have HIV.

From the CDC



Source (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html)

This isn't to say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to give blood, nor is it to say that male to male sexual contact is the only way to spread HIV. However, the data clearly show that MSM are more likely to have HIV.

I agree that MSM are more likely to get it, I just disagree when people say that it's more likely in 'gay' people because not all gay's engage in sex, just as how some straight people have slept with men

[Gigablue]

I agree that MSM are more likely to get it, I just disagree when people say that it's more likely in 'gay' people because not all gay's engage in sex, just as how some straight people have slept with men

That's true, but the majority of MSM are either gay or bisexual. Furthermore, I know the ban here in Canada and in many other countries is based on activities, not orientation. There used to be an indefinite deferral for any man who had had sex with another man since 1977, though they recently changed it to include only the last five years. Donors are never asked about sexual orientation, just sexual activity.

[Nomad_X]

Donors are never asked about sexual orientation, just sexual activity.

Thats kind of a Catch 22. When you are asked about what kinds of sexual activities, IE: MSM... that could and does pretty much give it up that you're gay.

[britishboy]

Thats kind of a Catch 22. When you are asked about what kinds of sexual activities, IE: MSM... that could and does pretty much give it up that you're gay.

by MSN, do you mean anal? because many straight men do anal with women

[CosmicNoodle]

Of cores gay men should be able to give blood, just so long as they have been checked for and diseases just like any other person would be

[Gigablue]

by MSN, do you mean anal? because many straight men do anal with women

No. It means exactly what the name suggests, men who have sex with other men.

Thats kind of a Catch 22. When you are asked about what kinds of sexual activities, IE: MSM... that could and does pretty much give it up that you're gay.

True. However, donors aren't discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. They would defer a heterosexual man who had had sex with another man, but they would permit a celibate homosexual man.

Just to make my position clear, I don't think the ban is reasonable. The benefits of having more blood donors would outweigh the increased risk of HIV. I think a more reasonable approach would be to have a six month deferral (the maximum incubation period for HIV) after unprotected sex. This would be for everyone, not just MSM. Having a one year, five year of indefinite deferral for MSM, as is the case in many countries, is not supported by any good evidence.

[tovaris]

they are and will always be considerd a grup of helth rish du to stds. They should be aooved to donate but under strict testing of sampels and other tings that arerequierd from regursl doners but amplified to mantain helts and prevent infected blod from coming into the sistem.

[Nomad_X]

No. It means exactly what the name suggests, men who have sex with other men.



True. However, donors aren't discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. They would defer a heterosexual man who had had sex with another man, but they would permit a celibate homosexual man.

Just to make my position clear, I don't think the ban is reasonable. The benefits of having more blood donors would outweigh the increased risk of HIV. I think a more reasonable approach would be to have a six month deferral (the maximum incubation period for HIV) after unprotected sex. This would be for everyone, not just MSM. Having a one year, five year of indefinite deferral for MSM, as is the case in many countries, is not supported by any good evidence.

You missed the point here. ANY man who has had sex with a man from 1977 onwards is banned for life. Even if the man is now celebate. Just the one time. Even softcore touching is considered sex with a man when it come to regulations for donation.

[Gigablue]

You missed the point here. ANY man who has had sex with a man from 1977 onwards is banned for life. Even if the man is now celebate. Just the one time. Even softcore touching is considered sex with a man when it come to regulations for donation.

Where do you live? Here in Canada, there is only a five year deferral.

Even then, I think five years is absurd. I think everyone should have a brief deferral after unprotected sex, but there shouldn't be any deferral for safe sex activities. The discrimination based on sexual activity is unjustifiable. It doesn't make the public any safer.

[teen.jpg]

Why can't they?

[Jevon]

I don't see why they should

[Jenny jr]

Yeah of course

[teen.jpg]

I don't see why they should

What do you mean ...

[Trace]

I don't see why they should

That's like saying "I don't see why they need the blood."
There's this thing... called kindness, and we use it to help save peoples' lives.

[blue.lips]

no because gay people don't even have blood. its all just rainbows and glitter.

[Trace]

no because gay people don't even have blood. its all just rainbows and glitter.

Oh gurl, you already know.

[Professional Russian]

What the fuck is the reasoning behind gays not being allowed to give blood? What are people thinking "If we give someone gay blood they're gonna catch the gay" Jesus Christ people

[Jevon]

Ohh oops I meant shouldn't be

[Gigablue]

What the fuck is the reasoning behind gays not being allowed to give blood? What are people thinking "If we give someone gay blood they're gonna catch the gay" Jesus Christ people

The reasoning is that gay men have a higher rate of HIV. They are banned in order to prevent its spread through blood transfusions, which was common in the beginning of the HIV epidemic. HIV is also the reason certain other groups (such as IV drug users, people from certain parts of Africa, etc.) are banned from donating.

[Professional Russian]

The reasoning is that gay men have a higher rate of HIV. They are banned in order to prevent its spread through blood transfusions, which was common in the beginning of the HIV epidemic. HIV is also the reason certain other groups (such as IV drug users, people from certain parts of Africa, etc.) are banned from donating.

You could just test them first though ;)

[Trenton_]

just use blood from gays on gays they probably do that when they can anyway.

[CharlieHorse]

Why shouldn't they be?
Really? How is this a legitimate question?

[Nomad_X]

You could just test them first though ;)

Thats the point most people are baffled by. Every blood donation is tested for disease etc, no matter who it is from. Singling out Gays and banning them before the donation can even be made is wrong.


Also, In Canada. If you are Gay and an organ donor, Your organs will not be used if you die. Same reasoning. Despite testing for disease/defect etc, No Organ donation. (Gays can receive a new heart or kidney for example, just can't give one.

[Yugen]

There's just as much risk for a straight person to have an STD as a gay person with what people are doing now. I say they should be allowed, but everyone should need special checks first.

[chrisf55]

I've never heard of Homosexuals not being allowed to donate blood, but yes, they should be able too. It seems very immature not to let them donate blood, as if you think they will make the receiver gay.

[Trace]

I've never heard of Homosexuals not being allowed to donate blood, but yes, they should be able too. It seems very immature not to let them donate blood, as if you think they will make the receiver gay.

Lord forbid anyone try and find out. I could see some fucking moron finding out that the person that donated blood was gay and he'd be like "Suing you because I'm gay now."

[jayyy-lmao]

Why is this a question? You can't infect people with gay blood. As long as they're checked for diseases like everyone else, it should be allowed.

[Yolo98]

The blood would be tested for HIV/AIDs anyways so it doesnt make any difference.

[TapDancer]

Statistically, gay men do have a higher rate of HIV. Saying they don't is just wrong. That being said, there are other minotiry groups that have similarly elevated risks, and yet aren't banned. For example, many racial minorities have HIV rated comparable to those of gay men, yet no one would even consider banning an entire racial group from giving blood.

In short, gay men are more likely to have HIV, but the risk isn't significant enough to ban then from giving blood. As long as they have tested negative, they should be able give blood.

I agree with this, having said that, gay people, as you say, are a minority. It makes sense to me that there is more chance to contract HIV from a straight individual, simply because there are more of them. But that is irrelevant, but, as much as I don't like it, yeah, I have to agree with you.

All donated blood is tested for diseases and disorders. Even a person who frequently donate's blood is tested every time.

So Banning gay men is discrimination.

I did not know that. But, if what you say is true, then yes, that is discrimination.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Anton's Key]

It should be allowed as long as all of the proper tests are done

[Luminous]

Yes they absolutely should. And yes they should get tested for STDs but I believe everyone should. It's silly discrimination, if someone needs this blood they aren't to care if it came from a straight or gay guy.

[DerBear]

As long as it goes through the same testing procedures as everyone else's blood then I have zero issues with gays giving blood. After all they are human and we can get the same diseases as gays :D Because we are all human :D

[Moondust]

Unless there's something wrong with their blood, then no.
Sexuality has nothing to do with blood and not letting a person donate blood just because of their own homophobia is stupid.

[Tze-]

just use blood from gays on gays they probably do that when they can anyway.

Oh, you're soo clever.

I wish being a bigot was a bannable offense. >>

[EliShaun]

They should be allowed. Since really EVERYONE. Not just men, women can get STD's too.

[Trenton_]

Oh, you're soo clever.

I wish being a bigot was a bannable offense. >>

thats a valid suggestion! whats the big deal they should embrace their gayness. who knows maybe it makes for super blood. typical judgmental comment from people that society has to tip toe around

youre either proud of your community and trust it or you do not

[Lono]

Gay men cannot donate plasma. I don't know about blood. Really though, sexual preference does not indicate disease status. A professional sports player could sleep with over 350 different people and can donate plasma if they are straight; yet, they are most likely to be infected by one of 350 other people. That is insane. I know if a person were in a hostile situation and their child/spouse/SO needed a rare blood type and only all the gay men had that blood type, the one seeking healthcare for one they loved would plead literally to have blood donated by a gay man. Without it, the loved one dies.

[StoppingTime]

thats a valid suggestion! whats the big deal they should embrace their gayness. who knows maybe it makes for super blood. typical judgmental comment from people that society has to tip toe around

youre either proud of your community and trust it or you do not

No, see this is bigoted and senseless. You back up nothing, and are basically just spouting nonsense because for some reason or another you're against LGBT everything, it seems. Also, "gay" isn't a community; it's an orientation in the same way straight, bi, or whatever is.


OT: I don't know too much about the statistics of STIs being transmitted in gay relationships (or really any relationship not considered "straight") but it shouldn't matter as long as the tests come back with no signs.

[Gigablue]

OT: I don't know too much about the statistics of STIs being transmitted in gay relationships (or really any relationship not considered "straight") but it shouldn't matter as long as the tests come back with no signs.

According to the CDC, men who have sex with men (MSM) represent about 4% of the population, but 78% of HIV diagnoses.

The current rationalization for the ban is because the HIV tests aren't perfect. They are very good, but most have a false negative rate of about 0.1-0.5%. This means that a small percentage of those with HIV will test negative. I the highest risk groups are banned, the risk can be reduced.

Personally, I think this justification makes little sense. Firstly, if people practice safe sex, the risk of HIV is low, regardless of sexual orientation. Secondly, if blood is tested multiple times, the risk of a false negative is practically zero.

I think part of the reason for the ban, at least here in Canada, is as a reaction to the tainted blood scandal of the 1980s. Several thousands of people were infected with HIV, and tens of thousands with Hepatitis C. Since something had to be done to avoid seeming complacent, the ban was instituted.

In short, MSM have a higher rate of HIV, and HIV tests aren't perfect, but the risk of MSM donating blood is far less than the benefit.

[Tze-]

thats a valid suggestion! whats the big deal they should embrace their gayness. who knows maybe it makes for super blood. typical judgmental comment from people that society has to tip toe around

youre either proud of your community and trust it or you do not

I called you a bigot and that I want you banned and you say great suggestion?

For once, I agree with you.

[TheBigUnit]

According to the CDC, men who have sex with men (MSM) represent about 4% of the population, but 78% of HIV diagnoses.

The current rationalization for the ban is because the HIV tests aren't perfect. They are very good, but most have a false negative rate of about 0.1-0.5%. This means that a small percentage of those with HIV will test negative. I the highest risk groups are banned, the risk can be reduced.

Personally, I think this justification makes little sense. Firstly, if people practice safe sex, the risk of HIV is low, regardless of sexual orientation. Secondly, if blood is tested multiple times, the risk of a false negative is practically zero.

I think part of the reason for the ban, at least here in Canada, is as a reaction to the tainted blood scandal of the 1980s. Several thousands of people were infected with HIV, and tens of thousands with Hepatitis C. Since something had to be done to avoid seeming complacent, the ban was instituted.

In short, MSM have a higher rate of HIV, and HIV tests aren't perfect, but the risk of MSM donating blood is far less than the benefit.

correct the same reason why you cant donate blood if you were in the uk for a while or other places around the world, obviously the reason why people coming from the uk cant give blood is because we hate the brits and discriminate them as much as possible.....the reason why gay get discriminated is because back in the day there were high incidences of hiv in gay people and like giga says hiv tests arent always perfect and take forever to fully complete

[purrincess]

Of course, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that people can't donate blood simply because of their sexual orientation. That blood could potentially save lives and they're willing to just turn down perfectly healthy blood for something as petty as the fact that they're gay. What a world.

[Fanta_Lover44]

I think that as long as they get checked, there is nothing wrong with gays donating blood.

[Soulphur]

I don't see why not
As long as they're healthy
Your plasma isn't affected by your gender :I

[QuantumPhysics]

Everyone is equal. As long as it is not contaminated< all blood is healthy! I cannot believe men of science believe this codswallop!

[Tree96]

Why don't we just ban the blacks and the women from donating?

I have a great idea, let's just give straight, white, Christian men the most rights out of every one. Wait, what's that? It's 2013? People have rights now? What!? That's crazy! Why should everyone be treated equally?!?

[ovoxo23]

In many places Gay men are still discriminated against by being banned from Donating blood.


Should Gay people be allowed to Donate Blood?

Why shouldn't they be?

[AlexanderTheGreat]

Of course! They're gay. That doesn't mean their blood has been infected! It's completely ridiculous! Physically they are no different to you or me.

[TheBigUnit]

Why don't we just ban the blacks and the women from donating?

I have a great idea, let's just give straight, white, Christian men the most rights out of every one. Wait, what's that? It's 2013? People have rights now? What!? That's crazy! Why should everyone be treated equally?!?

Of course! They're gay. That doesn't mean their blood has been infected! It's completely ridiculous! Physically they are no different to you or me.

youre all missing the point gays arent discriminated against because they are gay......in fact the red cross and other facilities would be more than happy to take anyones blood as long as theyre not infected nor have the potential of being infected

[Tree96]

youre all missing the point gays arent discriminated against because they are gay......in fact the red cross and other facilities would be more than happy to take anyones blood as long as theyre not infected nor have the potential of being infected

They ARE discriminated against for being gay because a bunch of nut jobs associate gay men with AIDS & HIV.

[TheBigUnit]

They ARE discriminated against for being gay because a bunch of nut jobs associate gay men with AIDS & HIV.

They are as discriminated against as british people who want to give blood....necessary protocols that must happen

[Sir Suomi]

Why is this even a debate? Of coarse they should. There is absolutely no reason for them not to be. All blood donations are screened anyways, regardless of who donated. Hell, with the exception of the Blood type, all other personal information of the donor should remain anonymous.

[Gen-Kun]

Why should people care if someone's gay to donate blood? If you want to donate blood, then donate it.
It's like gays are unholy to a lot of people... wait....

[Trenton_]

If someone is donating something that isn't wanted, I don't see what the big deal is for refusing it. If places don't want gay blood, so be it. Go donate somewhere else or don't donate. Gays are but a tiny portion of the population, so it's not that much blood anyway.

Someday they'll find the part of the DNA where there is a genetic marker for gayness and parents could choose whether they want a gay kid or not and if they don't they'll alter the gene before development takes off. Gays say they are born that way and it's already possible to choose eye color, height etc and the options for parents will expand, then if there is a gay kid who doens't want to be gay, he can blame his parents, but by the time that happens, they'll figure out who is gay and who isn't, take their blood and then decide what to do with it. The problem will resolve itself through technology.

[Mirage]

Blood from a gay person is EXACTLY the same as blood from a straight person. I think blood centers that refuse "gay" blood are a disgrace because the whole purpose of a blood center is to give blood to sick people. If a cancer patient needs a blood transfusion and there was a gay person willing to be a donor and was turned down? That's just sick.

[Abyssal Echo]

Blood from a gay person is EXACTLY the same as blood from a straight person. I think blood centers that refuse "gay" blood are a disgrace because the whole purpose of a blood center is to give blood to sick people. If a cancer patient needs a blood transfusion and there was a gay person willing to be a donor and was turned down? That's just sick.

^ This ^ I couldn't say it any better

[TheBigUnit]

Blood from a gay person is EXACTLY the same as blood from a straight person. I think blood centers that refuse "gay" blood are a disgrace because the whole purpose of a blood center is to give blood to sick people. If a cancer patient needs a blood transfusion and there was a gay person willing to be a donor and was turned down? That's just sick.

I feel like im beating an empty drum here, blood centers take many precautions when taking blood,

back in the 90s there was a really high rate of HIV and AIDs there was even an academy award winning movie that focued on the high rate of HIV amongst homosexuals,

heck even ANY ordinary british citizen cant donate blood what so ever, so our friends and forums users like Harry Smith and Bacon cant save us even if everything matched

why do they do this? Its so that you wont run into any risks of getting any unwanted diseases, if you need blood that usually means your pretty weak enough why do you want to run the risk of getting hepatitis or aids? Its kinda like being stranded in the ocean and out of desperation you drink the water youll be satisfied at first but then youll end up even worse after... anyway expect the ruling on this to be revised within like the next ten years,

[Mirage]

I feel like im beating an empty drum here, blood centers take many precautions when taking blood,

back in the 90s there was a really high rate of HIV and AIDs there was even an academy award winning movie that focued on the high rate of HIV amongst homosexuals,

heck even ANY ordinary british citizen cant donate blood what so ever, so our friends and forums users like Harry Smith and Bacon cant save us even if everything matched

why do they do this? Its so that you wont run into any risks of getting any unwanted diseases, if you need blood that usually means your pretty weak enough why do you want to run the risk of getting hepatitis or aids? Its kinda like being stranded in the ocean and out of desperation you drink the water youll be satisfied at first but then youll end up even worse after... anyway expect the ruling on this to be revised within like the next ten years,

True, but gay =/= STDs. If they accepted "gay" blood then I assume it'd be screened just as rigorously as the "straight" blood.

[Ethan15]

Of course they are the same as anyone else, if they have no issues with their blood then why shouldn't they.

[Gigablue]

If someone is donating something that isn't wanted, I don't see what the big deal is for refusing it. If places don't want gay blood, so be it. Go donate somewhere else or don't donate. Gays are but a tiny portion of the population, so it's not that much blood anyway.

Do you even know why gay people can't donate blood? It's not because they're gay, but because they have a statistically higher prevalence of HIV.

Secondly, in many countries, you can't go elsewhere. Here, all blood donation is run by Canadian blood services (or hemaquebec in Quebec). You can't go elsewhere.

Lastly, we don't have enough blood, even if gays aren't a large percent of the population, we need all the blood we can get.

True, but gay =/= STDs. If they accepted "gay" blood then I assume it'd be screened just as rigorously as the "straight" blood.

The problem is that screening isnt perfect. There will be false negatives. The thinking is that by banning the highest risk groups, the risk of a false negative is decreased.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Tze-]

If someone is donating something that isn't wanted, I don't see what the big deal is for refusing it. If places don't want gay blood, so be it. Go donate somewhere else or don't donate. Gays are but a tiny portion of the population, so it's not that much blood anyway.

Someday they'll find the part of the DNA where there is a genetic marker for gayness and parents could choose whether they want a gay kid or not and if they don't they'll alter the gene before development takes off. Gays say they are born that way and it's already possible to choose eye color, height etc and the options for parents will expand, then if there is a gay kid who doens't want to be gay, he can blame his parents, but by the time that happens, they'll figure out who is gay and who isn't, take their blood and then decide what to do with it. The problem will resolve itself through technology.

Not wanted? More blood is ALWAYS wanted.

There is no gay gene, so there is nothing to alter. The strongest evidence there is towards homosexuality being determined in the womb are epigenetics, which cannot be altered.

Also, you can't alter genes yet anyway. I personally believe that when and if that is possible, it shouldn't be done. But that is another thread for another time

[TheBigUnit]

True, but gay =/= STDs. If they accepted "gay" blood then I assume it'd be screened just as rigorously as the "straight" blood.

It takes like 5 "days" to fully screen blood for HIV...

Its not homophobia its just like how gigablue states it, the highest risk group

[whatsgoinon53]

In many places Gay men are still discriminated against by being banned from Donating blood.


Should Gay people be allowed to Donate Blood?

That's messed up. It doesn't matter what colour, race, religion, sex, sexuality you are, donating blood is helping. Just because someone's homosexual doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to help other people by donating blood.

[kylem1229]

Let them donate after the blood is checked for diseases. Its perfectly good blood, really no difference that anyone elses blood (beside the blood types a, b..etc)

[Matt_97]

I think its just generally down to the risk of HIV/AIDs that they don't allow gay people to donate blood. I feel that if the correct tests were taken and a very confident all clear came back then i don't see why they shouldn't be aloud to

[TheBigUnit]

That's messed up. It doesn't matter what colour, race, religion, sex, sexuality you are, donating blood is helping. Just because someone's homosexual doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to help other people by donating blood.

You say you think logically but you didnt even read the last post and you really didn't question why blood centers would do that, just assumed its homophobia

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Why are you even asking this? The answer is YES, (don't need to explain)

[Drewtsit]

The reason they don't accept "gay" blood is because people who have performed same sex sexual activity are more at risk of having disease. Unless blood donation centers have the money to check for STDs or HIVs they rather not risk it. Although it seems unfair to some same sex activities weren't considered harmful until recent and even now, many people are still doing research on it.

[teen.jpg]

The reason they don't accept "gay" blood is because people who have performed same sex sexual activity are more at risk of having disease. Unless blood donation centers have the money to check for STDs or HIVs they rather not risk it. Although it seems unfair to some same sex activities weren't considered harmful until recent and even now, many people are still doing research on it.

That's really dumb. Obviously they would only allow people who are HIV-free, gay or not. That point is irrelevant.

[Kasp]

This shouldn't even be a debate. Straight or Gay shouldn't make a difference.

[Lizzyskittey]

Smh, these are just one of the many things that irritate me about society. Why would gay men or even gay women get banned from donating blood? What is it? Does it scare you that their oh so scary gay blood cells will spread and take over the world with their gayness? Oh no, everyone will become homo! Smh smh SHAKE MY FUCKING HEAD. Wake up, people! The only reason anyone should be banned from donating blood is if their blood is somehow harmful to others, for example, if they carry a disease of some sort. But, banning people from donating blood because of their sexuality? That's just fucking stupid.

[blue666]

The main reason for this is the misconception that gay people all have AIDS. Gay people are more likely to have AIDS, but the HIV antibodies show up after six months, so why not just do more extensive screening on blood given by homosexuals. Gay people should be able to donate blood and give back to their community if they want. The blood gets tested anyway. It shouldn't be a big deal.

[Human]

I don't see a problem with it as long as they are checked like other people I assume.

[justin 13]

OMG y not?

[SawyerSauce]

Yes, as long as they are free of any diseases, disorders, or drugs that could cause harm to the blood receiver. That goes for everyone though, not just people who are not heterosexual.

Blood is blood. That dying girl in the hospital is not going to care what sexuality you have.

[Nomad_X]

it takes like 5 months to fully screen blood for hiv...


false

Do you even know why gay people can't donate blood? It's not because they're gay, but because they have a statistically higher prevalence of HIV.

Secondly, in many countries, you can't go elsewhere. Here, all blood donation is run by Canadian blood services (or hemaquebec in Quebec). You can't go elsewhere.

Lastly, we don't have enough blood, even if gays aren't a large percent of the population, we need all the blood we can get.



The problem is that screening isnt perfect. There will be false negatives. The thinking is that by banning the highest risk groups, the risk of a false negative is decreased.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream


I think you've made the most sense in explaing it out to people here. The rationale of Canadian Blood services and HemaQuebec.

Even if using the notion of a statistically higher rate of HIV, Gays are still prohibited even if they and are in a commited relationship for decades and have tested negative for HIV many times over, they are still prohibited from donating.

In the end the logic is still failed. Even the losened rules of five year ban from the last time a msm sexual action occurs is still not wound for the reasons i mentioned above also.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Gigablue]

I think you've made the most sense in explaing it out to people here. The rationale of Canadian Blood services and HemaQuebec.

Even if using the notion of a statistically higher rate of HIV, Gays are still prohibited even if they and are in a commited relationship for decades and have tested negative for HIV many times over, they are still prohibited from donating.

In the end the logic is still failed. Even the losened rules of five year ban from the last time a msm sexual action occurs is still not wound for the reasons i mentioned above also.

I couldn't agree more.

I think there may have been a time when the ban made sense, back in the early years of the HIV epidemic, before we could test for HIV. Even then, the ban could be called extreme, but at least the logic made some sense, especially in light of the tainted blood scandal where thousands were infected with HIV and hepatitis C.

Now, however, the situation is very different. We have very good HIV tests. People are much more educated about how to prevent the spread of HIV. We really don't need a ban. While a five year ban is better than an indefinite one, it is still much too long.

[Spook]

Gay people definitely should be able to donate blood.

AIN'T NOBODY EVER SAID HETEROS DIDN'T GET A LITTLE GROOVY IN THE BOOTY.

Gay people, straight people; we do it. What's to say heteros don't have AIDS?
Plus, if they test everyone anyways; what's the problem??
If a gay guy doesn't have any freaky stuff in his bloodstream, let him be a generous donor of his life juice!

But seriously, when you go to donate blood is the guy with the needle really going to ask,
"So. Do you like Penis?"

[TheBigUnit]

false




I think you've made the most sense in explaing it out to people here. The rationale of Canadian Blood services and HemaQuebec.

Even if using the notion of a statistically higher rate of HIV, Gays are still prohibited even if they and are in a commited relationship for decades and have tested negative for HIV many times over, they are still prohibited from donating.

In the end the logic is still failed. Even the losened rules of five year ban from the last time a msm sexual action occurs is still not wound for the reasons i mentioned above also.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

5 days i meant, i ll fix that, but i agree with you though they should fix the books and all but there was a time when the bans made sense but that was the 80s and 90s when we didnt really understand what hiv really is, the reason why brits are banned from giving blood in the usa is because of the prions found in mad cow disease

[DreamCatcher]

If giving blood saves lives; I'd rather be gay than dead. Anyway, who says that receiving blood from a gay person make a you gay?

[sqishy]

I believe everyone should be scanned for HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases, no matter what their sexual orientation is. Yes, gays do statistically have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS infections, but that doesn't mean you don't allow the uninfected to help other people's lives.

[StrawberryCyanide]

Everyone who wants to give blood must be tested for various diseases every time, blood is the same whoever you are so not allowing gay men to donate blood is disgusting.

[Nomad_X]

Everyone who wants to give blood must be tested for various diseases every time, blood is the same whoever you are so not allowing gay men to donate blood is disgusting.

All blood from all donors is tested everytime, no matter how many times that person has donated before.


Also, Gays who die and want to donate thier organs, the organs are refused also. The same rationale appies, gay organs could have more chances of disease...

[Slippers]

I don't see why sexuality should be important. Providing a person (hetrosexual or homosexual) has clean blood that has been analysed and cleared from containing disease then yes of course!

[Brazilianboy]

A gay with a disease is a person with a disease.
A healthy gay is a healthy person.
A gay able to donate blood is a person able to donate blood.
So I see no reason why a healthy gay can not donate blood if other healthy people can.

[TimCox]

Why not? I don't really see a problem here.

[Lovelife090994]

If the donor is healthy, honest, and has not had hepatitus, has AIDS, or another blood-transmitted disease and their weight allows then I say let them donate blood, however most aren't so open to that. May be ambivalent but I say let them.

[green white]

Why not?
In my place. If gay donate their blood is legal and allowed

[Elysium]

Why not?
In my place. If gay donate their blood is legal and allowed
Please don't post in threads that have been inactive for two months or more. :locked: