Yes, no homosexual would ever lie about their relationships.
Another forehead palm moment...
Another way of putting it is: The people of the US should let HIV carriers give blood, and pollute the country’s blood supply. It sounds like a perfectly normal request coming from radical Democrats.
OH HELL NO.....
I lost two friends to “The Great Hemopheliac Die-Off” from Aids-tainted blood.
20,000 Americans died from bad blood in those years, but you DO NOT DARE to mention it, in fear of being considered “Homophobic”.
I have no problem with “gay” blood donors...let them give it to other gays but the should still be banned for the rest of supply.
I wasn’t planning on posting again until after the holidays, but I can’t let this idiot’s rationale pass:
“They would still be perpetuating the offensive notion that the nation’s blood supply must somehow be protected from gays.”
BZZZT!!! It has never been a “Gay Ban”. Lesbians have never been subject to a ban. That is because they are low risk for HIV and other STD’s. It has always been a “high risk” ban. And, the CDC’s own numbers have show again and again that men who have sex with other men are the overwhelming source of new cases. Gay and bi men under 25 account for nearly 70% of new HIV infections. If we accept the “10% of the population” number the entire gay community puts forth, we’re still only talking about 2% of the pop being 70% of the infections.
“Think about it this way. The one-year deferral ruling would put gay and bisexual men on the same footing as these two groups of people: heterosexuals who have had sex with someone who is HIV positive, and heterosexuals who have had sex with a sex worker.”
As they should.
“Those people are judged entirely based on their risky choices rather than their identity. To lump gay men in with them is to suggest that all gay sex is just as risky, which is not borne out by fact”
Unless, once again, you take into account that 70% of the new HIV cases (and nearly as many new syphilis cases) each year are by gay and bi men - and that’s just those under 25. It’s probably a bit higher when you add the older generations in.
-
This decision is utter madness. No blood test is foolproof, so why invite such a high risk group? And if we allow this high risk group, why not straight guys who have sex with prostitutes? We can test their blood too, right? Or how about needle-sharers? We’ll just have them sign a form saying they didn’t shoot up in the past 12 months. I’m sure they will be just as truthful as the gay men who sign off...
Will the blood be labeled “donated by a gay man or women”? I think not because they have rights you know so the blood you may recieve is SECRET and your rights and health do not count!!!!!!! We may not discriminate against gay blood donors because they have rights!
I pity those at the front of the blood collection line that, while testing it cut themselves on one of the delivery bag needles and contracts it - all in the name of “we’re not homophobes!”
I'm sorry, but she's lying.
This is not discrimination. The left is insane. There is no longer any doubt.
And while we’re at it end the discrimination of HIV infected drug users, Hepatitis infected, and Ebola carriers.
Just because you’re a known disease vector doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to give blood. And, damnit, we’re going to make sure you are forced to take that blood should you ever need it because it’s only fair.
-Gaystapo
Let me guess. The privileged elite (democrat members of congress and the administration) will have a separate pool of blood - blood that is from normal people only.
This shows how much the left hates normal people.
So who cares about disease, as long as nobody is offended?
Well I’ve got some news here...I’M OFFENDED at the fact peoples health and well-being is tossed aside for someone’s feelings.
keeping the blood supply safe is not discrimination
There is no “right” to donate blood. They must discriminate against high risk lifestyles for the sake of the people receiving the blood or WHAT IS THE POINT of getting it?
It is irrational to even attempt to debate or argue with them. A "no" will be much better understood by them if it is accompanied by a good beating, and it should probably include the warning that they'll get another, and more severe if they dare suggest such a thing again.
But alas I think we have become a nation of pansies who will not object strenuously enough to any suggestion, no matter how destructive or insane.
1 in 5 Gay me. Have HIV and half don’t know it.
What could go wrong?
http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-men-have-hiv-nearly-half-dont-know
Let’s see if I have this right.
It is a woman’s right to do as she wishes with her own body when it comes to abortion.
It is a drug addicts right to put whatever they choose in their bodies.
It is everybody’s right to know what ingredients are in any food we consume and put in our bodies.
It is our right to refuse vaccinations being put into our bodies.
But, we have no right to know where blood being put into our bodies in a hospital came from??
I'd have to be practically dead before I'm taking any faggot blood into my body. AIDS isn't half the story - hep C and other kinds of nastiness that are blood borne.
Also, it is possible to bank your own blood. Ask the red cross for info.
I don’t want their diseases, thank you, but NO!