<p>So, as a gay male.. I obviously am not allowed to donate blood. Well, since I've had at least one relation with another male in any way since 1977.</p>
<p>Anyways, I've been talking with a couple people tonight about it, and I haven't found many people to support my position.</p>
<p>I feel that it's a good thing. Stereotypes are nothing to base the laws of society on, but public health is a larger concern. Think about it, the minute the ban gets lifted, someone is going to be suing the Red Cross for a lottttt of money for being infected with god knows what disease. Whether they win or not, who knows.</p>
<p>Sure, diseases can be traced in blood. But it's not perfect, and alot of them can go un-noticed. So, I think, it's just protecting the health. Discriminating is what it's doing but that's what's best for society. Does anyone agree with me?</p>
<p>My blood type is A+ so it's not a huge deal that I don't give blood.</p>
<p>Anyway, it's an interesting topic.
Discuss!</p>
<p>Several figures show that over 67% of HIV transmission is from male-male contact.</p>
<p>Here’s another scary statistic:
“More than 17 percent of gay men in Chicago have HIV, and 39 percent went untested in the last 12 months because of fear of the results”</p>
<p>“In the United States, the group with the highest rate of HIV infection is men who have sex with men (CDC, 2005). This group has the highest rates of unprotected anal sex, which is a behavioral risk factor for HIV transmission. In most regions of the world, however, the group with the highest rates of HIV is people who have heterosexual intercourse.”</p>
<p>If we’re going to argue the % of diseases, everyone KNOWS that gay men and HIV is not a myth or a rumor.</p>
<p>I thought it was just if you were gay + sexually active. My sister’s gay friend lied about his sexual activity and donated. </p>
<p>I think it’s sort of ridiculous. If we really want to come the closest we can to absolute safety, we should only let lesbians give blood, since they’re at the lowest risk.</p>
<p>There are good reasons to ban people from giving blood. My father had malaria. He can never give blood. But homosexuality? I don’t think so. I don’t know any solid stats for the percentage of gay males with this or that infection, so maybe you shouldn’t listen to me. If I could see them, and the numbers were significantly higher, that might change my mind.</p>
<p>Millancad… The statistics are there. Do you honestly think that there would be a ban on gay men if they weren’t proven to have higher statistics of HIV infection, and other various STD’s? It’s sad but true.</p>
<p>I’m not allowed to give blood because I spent more than 3 months in the UK between 1983 and 1996. Or something like that - not sure about the exact dates.</p>
<p>Your point is interesting. The fact stands that HIV transmission is STILL way to high for men who have sex with men. It’s 2/3 or a little over. If 1/10 people in the world is gay (roughly) then you do the math…</p>
<p>But, it’s not significant enough. Black people may be at risk more than white people, but then you have to take that portion of GAY MEN as well. African Americans and Latinos rule the percentage of GAY Men with HIV. Therefore, there numbers are even more inflated. So, to tell you, the statistics aren’t high enough for a straight white male vs. a straight black male to say that race plays such an important factor.</p>
<p>It’s scary as a gay male, trust me. I know the risks. It’s not a stereotype, it’s an epidemic. I don’t think the U.S. is doing enough to stop it either. We’re the only county with the highest rate of infection is Homosexual intercourse. Maybe something should be done?</p>
<p>I understand discrimination. Probably encounter it everyday in life. Nothing is perfect, tons of things aren’t right. But what’s more right? Letting 100 homosexuals donate, and say 5 give someone a disease. Health wise, I understand it. And that’s where I stand.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you. In this particular case, I don’t think it’s a matter of discrimination. The stats are there, homosexual, sexually-active men are more prone to have diseases like STD. And it’s not just by a little bit, it’s by a quite significant amount-- enough to make a difference. I think that’s the main reason that it’s justified.</p>
<p>The number of black females with HIV is increasing dramatically. If current trends continue, they will become the largest infected group.</p>
<p>
Use condoms. Most casual gay sex takes takes place without a condom. This is freaking insane.</p>
<p>If you are using a condom, it breaks, and the other person tells you they have AIDS, go to the hospital. There is emergency treatment that can keep you from getting the disease. I don’t think most people are aware of this, they panic and wait out the 1% chance that they become infected.</p>
<p>
You have to understand that the numbers aren’t like this. Every single unit of blood is tested. The risk is that during a short window after infection takes place, it is possible that the disease would not be detected. The FDA estimated that if all gay men were allowed to donate, about 10 people total would be infected from millions of units donated. What if they instead asked, “have you had sex with a male in the last year?”, or “are you monogamous?”</p>
<p>Right now, gay men are not allowed to donate, even if they have a rare blood type for a family member. I wonder if ten people have died as a result of this policy. I see the “We have a shortage of these blood types: O-” and sigh.</p>
<p>Shoot, I’ve been waiting forever& increasing my weight so I can give blood. But i had malaria when I was two- does that mean I can’t give blood? HLP !</p>
<p>It is stupid. Yes, statistically gay males have the highest rates of AIDS, but not all do. Statistically, African-Americans have the highest rates of AIDS, so should we stop them too? </p>
<p>Look, no one should donate if they have aids (obviously) but keeping you from giving blood because of your sexual orientation is just plain stupid. If you are at risk, go get tested before giving blood, simple as that. </p>
<p>Blood shortage is at a crisis as it is, and keeping an entire segment of the population from giving blood is just plain wrong.</p>