Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comPanel admits flaws, but restrictions likely to remain
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
UN says Fukushima radiation doses below norms"Pre-diabetes," diabetes rising among U.S. teensScientists turn skin cells into beating heart muscle1 in 3 developmentally delayed babies untreatedFake drugs impede progress made in war on malariaAbstinence-only sex ed defies common senseSigmoidoscopy an option for colon cancer screeningDunkin Donuts going zero grams trans fat Bagged lettuce recall expands across nationBorn to run barefoot? Some end up getting injured
Leave a Comment:
All blood donated is currently screened for HIV/AIDS. All unprotected sex can lead to HIV/AIDS. This is medically unfounded. I can have be a virgin, have sex with my new husband on my wedding night, and if he previously had sex with a woman who had sex with an intravenous drug user, I'm can be infected. Stupid policy.
This policy is not stupid. Because Homosexuality is deviant behavior and is scientifically unnatural by misusing the human body in a way it is not designed to be used, although an expression of the individuals free will, it is not medically prudent.
Actually homosexuality exists throughout nature, so it's perfectly natural. What's deviant and scientifically unnatural is bigotry. Not sure what you mean by "misusing the human body." Do you mean heterosexuals engaging in different sex acts?
not so stupid when yor take into account the very high percentage of all aids cases are caused by 1) iv drug use, and 2) homosexual activity. do you want to risk your child or grandchild becoming a statistic simply to be politically correct. and those screens are not 100% reliable. people sometimes even get the wrong type of blood.
First buffalo, do you realize that not all homosexuals engage in the activities you think are universal and are actually safer than heterosexuals?
Second to Twin, I'll just repost something I said earlier.
I do believe that there are several studies that show homosexuality is not unique to humans and quite natural, however I don't need to argue that point.
You are taking a very selective stance and your implied argument is a lie. Show me how living past 40 is natural, or flying from California to New York is natural. Show me how not being infested with parasites and disease is natural. How is IVF natural? If you want natural, then get rid of every electronic you have go find some deserted mountain or island, strip naked and live off the land. Oh kill with your hands or eat berries, because spears and knives aren't natural either. Complaining it's not natural (even though there is a lot of evidence it is, and in fact plays a vital part in our society structure) is a bad and disingenuous argument.
the TLDR version is
You're a liar and a hypocrite.
That is quite ridiculous. I can't imagine the risk of a gay man donating HIV infected blood today is any greater, statistically, than a heterosexual considering the percentages from each group.
Not to mention they could just lie...I'm fairly certain a lot of gay men have donated blood in the last 25 years. When was the last time someone got AIDS from a transfusion?
Stally, there are more study's that prove you're wrong and animials that have shown homosexuality in the wild have also shown other signs of mental illness. See if you can find the report written in the mid 80's by Scientific America and that will explain why homosexuality exist. Unfortunatly our political correctness will sooner than later become the death of all of us, kind of how it almost killed Scientific America for that very same report.
using a report about homosexuality from the 80's to porve your point is a little stupid dont you think?
Like I said I don't need to argue the point that it is natural. The moment you get in a car, put on cloths, get food out of your refrigerator you are engaging in an unnatural activity. When you cease all unnatural activity yourself then you can whine about it being unnatural, otherwise your arguments are simply based on bigotry not facts or logic.
Twenty eight years ago I took a vow of celibacy and have not broken that vow. Also during this 28 years I have been tested no less than 4 times for any presence of the HIV virus. I am (was) bi-sexual. 28 years is a long time and many times I have wanted to denote blood, once when my father needed a transfusion. I think that if I were carrying the virus some trace of it would have been detected by now. Lift the ban and let people, all people, do the humane thing to do--donate blood. If there is a waiting period of 1 year so be it. Just don't turn away people who wish to give blood that could save another human's life. It is like the lady said above: if she has sex with a man who has had intercourse with an infected woman or a prostitute who does not know her status, she is considerably at a higher possibilty of infection.
Link it up then.
I have seen animals, like dogs for example, basically have sex with anything (your leg for instance) so they can have a release. I don't think animals go "out of their way" to establish a gay relationship, the infamous penguins were supposed to be "gay" until a female penguin was introduced into the environment and all of a sudden... gay relationship over.
Ok, first off, just because the behavior occurs in nature, does not mean that it should be acceptable behavior for humans. Canabalism occurs in nature, but doesn't make it right for humans. Some spiders kill their mate after intercourse, but doesn't make it right for humans. There is alot of behavior that animals do, that is not right for humans.
Also, in the sense of "natural", the fact remains is gay and lesbian couple will NEVER be able to produce offspring that is both of their's, in a biological sense. Now im not arguing any other point. I know there are other options if a gay and lesbian couple want to have children. However, it will not be both of their's blood related child.
I think that is the main point of it being "natural".
So now we have to put the nations blood supply at risk because perverts don't like being made to feel guilty by the thought that their lifestyle choice is known health risk? While were at it why don't we do away with laws against drunk driving and intervenes drug use?
Pathetic.
Homosexuality is perfectly natural. There have been gay people as long as there have been people, and there's nothing wrong with it. Unless you believe an ancient book where the Sky Fairy told his followers to discriminate against gays.
That said, if there is a strong proven statistical link between ANY behavior and a disease, then that behavior should be restricted from donating blood.
They ask you if you've lived in England for more than 3 months when you donate blood. If you did, you don't get to donate. Where is the outrage from people in that group?
If traveling to England, traveling to Korea, traveling to Africa, using needle drugs, having gay sex, take certain prescription meds, or any behavior, which may be perfectly natural and normal, also has a statistical correlation to a transmittable disease, then that behavior should be screened for.
It's not that blood centers want to discriminate or don't like people who travel to England, are gay, and take certain prescription meds. It's just that we have to approach blood donation from a fact-based scientific perspective.
Denying somebody a job opportunity or benefits because of their sexual orientation is wrong and should be illegal.
Denying somebody an opportunity to donate blood because of a proven link between a particular activity--whatever it is--is protecting the blood supply, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Schaine
Neither will infertile heterosexual couples...so does that make them less of a couple or less of a human or less of anything or "unnatural"? Should we force anyone unable to have children to get divorced? Or have them tested before marriage and prevent them from getting together?
That is such a stupid argument!
All of a sudden people want to be naturalist. I bet you don't think twice about all the other "unnatural" stuff that you do in your life - probably don't think twice about contraception or medication or a myriad of other things but for some reason 1 thing, homosexuality is an issue. That just makes you a hypocritical bigot, nothing more.
Randy K.
Stupidity is the biggest health risk there is. Let's instead test for stupid since there seems to be plenty of that to go around.
Um... what act do they perform that heterosexual couples don't? Anal sex? Please... Oral sex? Please again...
Hum, we could go back and forth on this one 15 million times, but let me get back to what I was saying. Also, just because I try to argue a point doesn't make me a "hypocritical bigot". Although, I know name calling is pretty much how you try to win your arguments, please refrain. I don't call you names for your arguments or point of view, please don't call me names as well.
What I am saying is the glbt community needs to come up with a better argument for their behavior being "natural" than: Well animals have shown homosexual behavior, so it is natural. Animals show incest behavior as well, Does that mean incest is "normal"? Dogs start breeding as soon as the female goes into heat, Does that mean 13 year old girls that start their period should start having sex?
My main argument is you can NOT compare human behavior to animal behavior as a means to justify something as being "natural" for humans.
But way to try to take the argument in a different direction, and get it off the facts.
Do heterosexual men and women ever engage in anal sex? Oral sex? Are these natural, since obviously these behaviors can't lead to pregnancy, or are they only doing something that they enjoy? Drop the whole "homosexuality isn't natural" garbage, millions of heteros do things together every day that are just as "unnatural."
I've never seen gay blood. Is it like True Blood? (cant' wait for Sunday!)
Most heterosexual couples are able to reproduce. There are exceptions, but most are able to have children together as a couple. Let's just go with a low percentage, and say 75% of heterosexual couples are able to reproduce. That couple, will have a child, that is biologically theirs.
Now lets look at a gay or lesbian couple. What is there odds of being able to reproduce? To have a child that is both theirs, biologically? Oh, did I hear you say zero, ziltch, nada?
This is what is being talked about when people say "natural". Stop trying to take it in a different directions.
Incidences of HIV among black men is incredibly high, too, compared to other demographics, yet they don't ban black men from donating blood. So, unless they're going to ban black men from donating blood, their insistence on banning gay men is left meaning only one thing. They're not doing it out of concerns for safety. They're doing it only out of gay-bashing.
And yet, scientists say that homosexuality -- just like heterosexuality -- is a perfectly natural expression of one's sexual orientation; thus, it is not "unnatural".
What "lifestyle choice," Randy? Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. And did you mean "intravenous" when you said "intervenes"? YOU might want to make the "lifestyle choice" to learn English.
What does that have to do with being able to give blood? The ability to reproduce is not a prerequisite to getting married, you know. And the comparison between the four-legged animals and humans IS a fair one in this case, since we are discussing a natural, inborn behavior/tendency rather than a learned one. As I said before, scientists and medical professionals have said that homosexuality is a perfectly natural expression of one's sexual orientation.
Oh, and BTW, gay and lesbian couples can still reproduce -- not with each other, but that does not mean that they cannot have biological children of their own.
Homosexuality is perfectly natural???? How much more stupid can stupid get!? No, it is not natural.If it was, they could procreate, but they cannot. If it was Sodom and Gomorrah wouldn't have been turned to toast. If it was, aids/hiv woulnd't have come into play. It's a sickness. And no God did not create people as homosexuals. They are a byproduct of sin.
Nature doesn't create sexual diseases to kill humans. Humans do what they weren't created to do that creates them.
Medically it is sensible.
Approximately 40% of gay men are HIV positive. Gay men are the reservoir of HIV. The contribution of IV drug users is very small. The contribution of women is next to nothing.
Approximately 10% of all those who are HIV+ know it.
Yes, blood is tested, but there is a small fraction of false negative tests.
So having gay men able to donate is a bad idea. Raising the intake of probable HIV+ blood into the supply endangers everyone else. If we were talking about a drug the FDA would never allow it. Knuckling under to some pressure group is pure politics.
This has nothing to do with all the drivel about "unnatural" or "sin against god" or any of the rest. This is just the facts.
Schaine, you're missing my point. Heteros do things just as "unnatural" as homosexuals do, so should they be banned from donating blood? Whether you agree with the homosexual lifestyle or not, don't try to pretend that 100% of hetero people have never engaged in sexual behavior that isn't "natural." So it's stupid and illogical to ban a segment of the population from donating simply because they can't reproduce. This policy was put in place at a time when very little was understood about the HIV virus, and by an administration that was extremely homophobic to begin with.
I always love the straw man arguments that get trotted out to try and excuse the deviants among us. Homosexuality exists all over nature. Ok so go live in Africa with the bonobos and let them pound your ass to calm you down.
Murder also has existed in humanity since time immemorial. Let's normalize that practice as well. And while we're at it, we should bring back slavery, seeing as how it existed in the world in one form or another until, well now in some places. Must be NATURAL right?
Pointing to other behavior to justify your behavior is an infantile argument. You should debate your issue up or down on its own merit, and studies have shown time and time again (until they get suppressed by the gay apologists of course) that HIV is something you are almost 100% guaranteed NOT to get if you don't practice anal sex or inject drugs intravenously.
And all this "well we'd get a bazillion more pints of blood" is nonsense. There's no way they can quantify that.
On the other hand though, all you have to do is say "no I'm not gay" or "no I've never done the butt sex." It's not like there's a National Anal Sex Registry or something that keeps track of these things.
If you really want to do it bad enough, lie. Just don't cry when you get caught.
What if people choose not to reproduce? Would you say they are unnatural?
Is it unnatural for a 50+ year old woman to desire a romantic relationship? She can't reproduce, so it must be unnatural, according to your worldview.
What about a teenage boyfriend/girlfriend choosing not to have sex--this is certainly unnatural, as our early human ancestors would engage in their sexual nature as soon as they were biologically able.
This whole "gays can't reproduce, so it's an immoral/unnatural/bad/whatever sexual orientation" is b.s.
Whatever it takes to defend your bigotry, I suppose.
This is NOT about sex. Not about homosexuality. People do not "have the ""right"" to give blood". It is an act of charity and a responsibility.
This IS about a population of people who are 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to have AIDS... that is all, period the end.
The ban is good policy.
So what you've just said supported is the statement that whether or not it is natural is irrelevant. But what you attempted is a logical fallacy by saying a implies b means b implies c. You have shown no logical connection between a and c. IE cannibalism and homosexuality. You rely on the reader’s gullibility to make a link you have failed to show. This is deceptive.
What you have established that some natural acts are unacceptable and combine that with my argument that shows that some unnatural acts, like going to the supermarket market, are. What this establishes is that whether an act is natural or unnatural has no bearing on whether or not is good or bad.
However, simple logic states a implies b does not mean b implies a. That's what you are trying to do with our argument.
Hate to burst your bubble, but there are many couples where one or both are homosexual and DO have their own biological kids!
You do realize there is currently no test given that says you are gay. If someone engages in unsafe activity and decides to give blood, there is little that can be done except test the blood. You are asking people to be on the honor system. They can lie about being gay, just as easily as lie about the last time they have had sex. You're asking for a false sense of security.
Stally-
You said:
The moment you get in a car, put on cloths, get food out of your refrigerator you are engaging in an unnatural activity.
Then you said:
But what you attempted is a logical fallacy by saying a implies b means b implies c. You have shown no logical connection between a and c.
So which is it? I'm having a hard time keeping track.
So I guess heterosexuals who cannot have children are unnatural? Homosexuals can procreate, but not with each other -- however, they have been known to use surrogates or IVF in order to have children.
And no, "god" did not create any of us -- our parents did. And homosexuality is inborn and immutable. Really -- get yourself some information instead of talking out of your ass.
People's Republic, homosexuality has existed since humans have existed -- gay marriage was even legal for a time in ancient China and Rome. And since people a lot smarter than you -- namely scientists and doctors -- have said that homosexuality is a natural expression of sexual orientation, just as heterosexuality is, I guess you'll have to disprove their findings in order to make yourself believable. But don't expect miracles -- it's hard for us to take your seriously when your perspective is from the inside of your ass.
Hate to burst your bubble, gay couples don't have biological kids AS A COUPLE. A child can't have 2 biological moms, or 2 biological dads.
Scientists and doctors "a lot smarter than me" also tried to tell us we were ruining the climate. Then we found out they were cherry-picking the data to drive their agenda, you know, because they depend on federal money to put food on the table.
"Scientists" also used to believe in eugenics. A number of leftist scientists actually, which in the days after Hitler they'd prefer to sweep under the rug.
So forgive me if I don't blindly follow the denizens of the ivory towers off of a cliff like you seem to be willing to do. Appeal to authority, there's another debate fallacy for you.
Look at what happened to Jonathan Katz if you want to see what happens to scientists who dissent from the accepted narrative. It's no wonder they come up with garbage like this. They want to remain employed.
And like I said Erin, I can argue that slavery has been known in humanity throughout history as well, and was legal for longer than "a time" in more than 2 countries.
Do you suggest we bring that back as well? Since your litmus test seems to be solely whether or not it's existed before?
And no, "god" did not create any of us -- our parents did. ---
You are so lost here....your parents commited an act, life ONLY begins under God's Will...You're here because He Willed you here as one of His Children, using your parents in the process.
homosexuality is inborn and immutable - - Toooo Funny! God also gave you 'free will'.
You want to kill someone, you act on that emotion and you commit murder. You desire sex with same-sex partner, you act on that and thus your new lifestyle is born, chosen by such act. CHOICES, CHOICES!
enough of this, I'm outta here...cuz the topic issue is the safety of donated blood.
John Toradze,
"This is just the facts," eh? 40% of gay men are HIV positive? Where in the hell did you get that figure? Don't make up numbers, then claim they're fact when, in fact, they absolutely are not. Cite your sources. Tell us where this "factual" 40% figure comes from.
Then, when you're finished posting what I'm sure will be links to conservative Christian websites where they also claim as fact that gay men have tails, horns and leathery wings, I'll give you links to the CDC, FDA and National Institute of Health websites where you can see the real facts about the numbers of HIV cases among gay men, even broken down by areas of the country, where the absolute highest percentage is 25% (San Francisco, btw)--even lower than the prevalence of HIV cases among black men (encompassing all orientations) in certain areas of the country, such as D.C.
So, c'mon, sweet cheeks. I'm waiting to see where you came up with your numbers, other than having pulled them out of your ass, where, according to you, a man oughtn't be keeping things in the first place. And, by the way. The next time you want to pull stuff from there, dig out a bit of grammar, too. "This" and "is" are singular. "Facts" is plural. Of course, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't know that, given the rest of that post.
conservative Christian websites where they also claim as fact that gay men have tails, horns and leathery wings
Ok wise guy let's see the link. Don't cast stones in glass houses pal.
Thanks for posting those government sites. NO WAY they'd ever lie about anything like those damnable Christians.......
Uh, no, I'm not the one who's lost -- I can find my way through life without some book of fairy tales to "guide" me. If you want to believe that, that's YOUR right, but your right ends where my rights begin -- so keep your fairy tales to yourself.
People's Republic of Sh*ttle, I don't agree that slavery should be reinstated; quite the contrary. Rights are not something that should be voted on anywhere, because the majority will always vote away the rights of the minority. And I have read quite a lot of information on both sides of the issue and believe that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality (and I'm heterosexual, BTW). Sexual orientation is not something over which we have any control, and it would be unnatural for one to live contrary to one's orientation. As long as it's not affecting you, why can't you (and your bigoted cohorts) STFU? You can't even say definitively that gays giving blood will harm you, because with the technologies available for testing blood, any tainted blood will most likely never be used -- I say "most likely" because, even now, there are people who manage to get blood-borne diseases despite the precautions. But I'm sure that if they are willing to allow gays to start giving blood, the Red Cross and blood banks will use more stringent criteria for testing and using ANY blood that is donated.
I'm surprised that no one has looked at this from this viewpoint. Let Gays donate, but mark it as being from a gay source and give the patient or the patients family the choice whether or not they wish blood from a gay source. We all know the blood is tested, so the patient decides how much risk they wish to take. Others shouldn't be telling how much risk the patient should take with THEIR life.
I agree with you about the rights question, but that's not why I put forward that comparison. It was to show you how weak your "well these people used to do it" argument is.
My brother in law is gay and my sister in law is a lesbian. I don't care about what people do with their private lives and it doesn't affect me at all, until I need a blood transfusion. One of my best friends' mother died after contracting HIV from a blood transfusion she needed after giving birth to him. He's all kinds of effed up because of it. So I think I have more of a dog in this fight than you do.
What I take issue with is folks like you who engage in serious intellectual gymnastics to justfiy what is INDEED a lifestyle choice for a number of people. My gay brother in law has been gay from birth. There's no question. But my wife's sister just up and decided one day she was a lesbian once she got to college and started getting indoctrinated.
There's a hell of a lot of people out there who are gay because it's "cool" and who are so upside down and out of their minds on drugs that they don't know if they're boys or girls anymore.
And as someone already said, this article wasn't about gay-right-or-wrong it's about a public health issue that's exacerbated by the lifestyles of a miniscule group of people. You're probably right about the testing as well. But that's not what this is about. It's about the same thing as the gays in the military deal. What are there about 50 gays that want into the Army? It's not about them, it's about forcing us to accept the deviant lifestyles of a handful of people and at some point it has to stop.
In a society where anything goes, eventually everything will. Ancient China and Rome, where are they now Erin?
You have nothing to say except to make clever plays on my screen name and to call me a bigot, which is the last refuge of every leftist that's getting handed their ass in an argument.
Wow. Talk about missing the point. As stated in the article, this is about science. Out of all the times I have given blood no one has EVER asked me if I was gay. They ask about your activities, but not necessarily your sexual preference. Straight men and woman have homosexual encounters all the time that could affect the condition of their blood. THAT is the point. Regardless of your sexual orientation, your experiences, your activities they need to know the condition of the "item" they are taking from you to give to someone else. It really doesn't matter whether you agree with a particular lifestyle, the point is Is It Safe?
L. J. Rhodes - I worked in HIV research until graduating with a Ph.D. in microbiology in 2009. I was a graduate student in 2006 when I was first sent by my professor to an annual UCSF conference on AIDS. That is where I first heard the 40% figure, heard the term MSM (men having sex with men) and presentations such as the study of hundreds of MSM young men logging sexual contacts with weekly HIV testing.
The figure of roughly 40% came from talks. Among HIV researchers this is not a secret. I don't have this at my fingertips now for citations, but I did a quick search and found some CDC stuff that will rock you back.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
No, I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I am a scientist with publications. (Although this is not my real name.)
John Toradze-
All immaterial! Don't believe your lying eyes, listen to the demagogues. They're scientists and smarter than us. You too because even though you have a PhD you seem to espouse some conservative viewpoints so by default cannot be as intelligent as the enlightened leftists who are about to drive us off a cliff yet again with their oft-failed ideology.
I would say with the above link, that this is reason enough to just ban gays from donating. There is such a higher percentage of gays that have aids, that it is really not worth the risk.
Or, how about this, if gays want to donate blood, then only give it to a gay person that needs the blood. I feel this is fair.
I get deferred for going to Canada.
Let's debate about the stupidity of that...
Or perhaps she was in denial about her sexuality up until that time -- did you ever consider that? No, I guess that would be too "enlightened" for you to consider. Blame someone else for "making" her be something that you can't -- or won't -- understand.
It was Christianity that eliminated same-sex marriage from the ancient civilizations. That same Christianity which has now brought us pedophile priests, among other things. So I would say that homosexuality and same-sex marriage did not necessarily destroy ancient China and Rome -- and BTW, China and Italy still exist, do they not? So their people have not exactly been decimated by homosexuality.
Blood transfusions are not natural. They require lots of tubes and machines that were not here at the beginning of time. Beyond that, the Bible forbids blood transfusions, anyway, so if you're going to use it as a tool to compel your argument, then you should be arguing that NO ONE should be allowed to donate blood.
If you were bleeding to death and I was the only one within 1000 miles with your blood type (I'm rare) I bet most of you'd be willing to accept it then.
And I don't have HIV, for the record.
This whole thing is really dumb.. What stops anyone from walking into a Red Cross center, filling out the questioner and checking off "Heterosexual"? Is there some kind of background check?
Thousand of gays have donated and will continue to donate, because they are trying to help people in need. There are thousands of people right now, living and breathing and still with their families, because the received blood from an unknown donor and that unknown donor could have been a homosexual.
Now, if someone feels that strongly about receiving a homosexuals blood, than do not receive a blood donation period. Start putting your own blood into your own blood bank.
For those out there who have ever needed blood and are walking around right now because of someones generosity, you might want to think about what your stance really is on this issue and thank EVERYONE who has ever donated, you owe them a great deal.
Spin that BS any way you want but....
If all members of any two sex organism engage in homosexual activity the species dies out. That makes it an unnatural act in my book as nature obviously intends species to live and reproduce.
scarab, nature also throws in it's own devices to ensure that a species doesn't OVER-populate which can, ultimately, lead to the demise of the species as well. Those devices include things like disease, predators and infertility. Why not homosexuality as well?
I think there's little doubt that humans would quickly over-run the planet if "nature" was not allowed to take it's course.
Should have stuck with the long, insult-free version, stally. It's well-written and not a violation of the first rule here.
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Not sure exactly how to respond to that except to say that it isn't a matter of conservatism, it's just reality.
I could also say to L. J. Rhodes that if we accept his figure of 25% HIV+ among MSM that this is still an astonishingly high figure. Relative to maps and statistics, since this is such a politically charged issue, there is significant pressure on authors to the side of low estimates. Like all disease incidence, actual infections are hard to track. Our best estimates for malaria, for instance, vary by about 50% because it's the best we can do.
HIV has other problems that obstruct proper estimating. There are unique laws preventing public health personnel from knowing who is HIV+ and from following up on people that are. HIV is unique in this respect. There is no other deadly disease for which public health is not allowed to investigate contacts and even compel diagnosis and treatment.
The fact that HIV+ status is "protected" by law from being addressed by public health is not a good thing for gay men. In fact, quite the opposite is true, because gay men are the primary affected group.
There is nothing that has been done that has specifically targeted gay men for death except the HIV status protection laws. There has never been a pogrom to kill gay men in the USA, not ever in our history. There are isolated crimes, yes. But no law, no program has ever specifically targeted gay men so as to ensure their deaths in huge numbers except one. And that body of law is the law around HIV+ status that stops public health from responding.
Think about that if you are AIDS activist or gay rights activist. What these groups have accomplished in their ignorance and paranoia is to slaughter their own like cattle. It is not an exaggeration to call the results of the gay activists genocidal on themselves.
Secondary to that, the most genocidal thing that is directed towards gay men is the mainstream media campaign, which comes from gay activists, that says that HIV is a disease "of everybody". While technically true, by avoiding the rest of the story it accomplishes a well intentioned genocidal lie. This has been done with the best of intentions. The intent has been to minimize discrimination against individuals. But the effect has been to make young people complacent, resulting in a rise in HIV incidence.
Dear Sheila -
What is stupid is that you actually believe what you just said.
John,
40% of new HIV cases are from gay men. But that in no way equates to 40% of gay men having HIV. I've already read that report. Again, the highest percentage of gay men in any given area is 25%--in San Francisco. 20% in other areas, 15% in others, 7% in yet others, and even as low as 3% in still others. However, they did recently find that as many as 40% of black men in the D.C. area have HIV. Yet, blacks are still allowed to donate.
This, again, illustrates that there is no medically valid reason to ban gays from donating while not banning blacks. And they don't ban blacks, because they know there'd be hell to pay. They simply must rely on good blood-testing practices after the fact, and those practices actually keep the blood supply incredibly safe. When they find that a sample tests positive, then they ban that particular person from donating for life.
But, to allow blacks to donate while not allowing gay men is, indeed, to illustrate that they ban gays simply out of discrimination. But, they're legally allowed to discriminate against gays, so they do. If they were legally allowed to discriminate against blacks, I dare say they'd do that, too.
LJ, your point is very good. I see exactly what you are saying. I was stunned by the person who said 40% of gay men have HIV. If that were the case, I would know a lot more men who have it.
I know far more woman who have herpes.
I know John I'm just incapable of reigning in my smart ass streak.
According to the link you posted, 4% of US males over 13 account for 48% of infections. Now, one argument I see here is that we can screen for HIV so what's the big deal.
Well, the big deal is that barring these folks from the blood bank cuts down on a massive amount of waste. It's really a COST issue more than anything. Sure we can screen for it, and once HIV or some other disease is found in the blood, it must be thrown away. Waste of time. So I don't see from an economic standpoint how eliminating 4% of potential donors to isolate 48% of the reservoir of a disease with no cure is a bad idea.
Health care is a finite resource and we're simply being wasteful by putting our collective conscience over reality.
However, they did recently find that as many as 40% of black men in the D.C. area have HIV. Yet, blacks are still allowed to donate.
Ever think that's because the Congressional Black Caucus is more powerful than Barney Frank?
Logic never wins the day in America. Only feelings.
Spin that BS any way you want but....
If all members of any two sex organism engage in homosexual activity the species dies out. That makes it an unnatural act in my book as nature obviously intends species to live and reproduce.
WOW! Good thing not everyone is engaging in homosexuality! Otherwise, the world would never have you to reproduce. What a disaster that would be....
Male homosexual sex (anal) is statistically a more at-risk activity than male heterosexual sex. The CDC refers specifically to MSM (men who have sex with men) when determining their HIV/AIDS statistics. Here's an exerpt from the CDC's website:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
Quote:
The term men who have sex with men (MSM) refers to all men who have sex with other men, regardless of how they identify themselves (gay, bisexual, or heterosexual). In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous impact on MSM. Consider these facts:
While all donated blood is tested, the screening process is in place to further lower the possibility of accepting tainted blood. I'm not current with the most modern testing technology, but as of 2005, there was a 6 month window where an HIV carrier could test negative, possibly slightly longer if the person tested was infected by another carrier who was currently participating in antiviral therapy.
This is a very provocative topic on so many levels, because there are so many homosexual men who want to contribute to society by donating their blood. Also, the demand for blood often outpaces supply. However, issues of public health must be determined dispassionately, based on statistics and the most current information available, and should not be used as a tool for political correctness, or as a tool to curry favor with constituents.
Army Medic and 13 year civilian health-care worker
Please note that this is not an argument for taking blood donations from gay men, it is an argument for getting rid of political correctness in other areas.
Again, L.J. Rhodes, you are misinterpreting the stats you are looking at. Gathering statistics on HIV rate is very difficult, and there are laws preventing followup. There is strong pressure on authors to stick to the low end of estimates they make.
Ray - Keep in mind that at most 10% of people with HIV know it. It takes 5-7 years for people in the first 2 standard deviations to develop symptoms of AIDS. (Although how long depends on the HIV strain, there is a much less virulent variant, but it isn't the common one in the USA.) For some it can take as long as 14 years. This is quite different from Herpes. Most people with herpes know it because there is an obvious symptom.
PS - L.J. Rhodes. That article I posted showed that over half of new cases were gay men.
The CDC data can be criticized because it only shows test results. It does not show actual incidence. White males may be over-represented because they are more likely to get tested. If I recall correctly, white women are over-represented because they are the most likely to get tested if they think they might have been exposed. But you didn't cite that link correctly when you said that 40% of new cases are gay men. The article says 53% of new cases are gay men.
If you go to the last page of that CDC link you will see a reference by the CDC to the high prevalence of HIV among MSM. They astutely avoid the political firestorm from gay activists by not putting a figure on it in this instance because all such estimates are quite fuzzy and any can be challenged.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to put together what would essentially be a review article for you right now. That would take months to do properly. But I do know what I am talking about.
What the heck type of question is that?
UNLESS that blood is tainted infected with HIV or AIDS it should not be used donated, what have you. Heterosexual people have the disease too.
Who the heck cares if a healthy gay person donates blood? As long as the blood is not infected with anything why should it be discounted.
You may not think so John, but this is indeed just another liberal-conservative smackdown.
Why do you think you were called a Christian fundamentalist?
Why do you think people just refuse to accept the information that you've put forth?
It's because this is about ideology, not reality. Gays just CAN'T be more likely to get HIV if we're all the same. So perhaps we're not all the same? These folks just can't fathom it.
Those AIDS activists you were talking about who are just making things worse for the people they're supposedly helping? How many do you think voted for Dole, Bush, and McCain?
Everything is political in today's America.
Morality is not the issue here. The safety of the blood supply is the issue. Screening out high-risk individuals, testing for infectious agents, and not paying individuals for donating has made our blood supply quite safe. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is not a risk factor for HIV - but behaviors one might engage in are HIV risk factors. And more cases are transmitted heterosexually than homosexually in the U.S. A monogamous homosexual is less likely to acquire HIV than a heterosexual with multiple partners.
But, here are some stats to consider: per New England Journal of Medicine, March 18, 2010: "more than 1 in 30 adults in Washington, D.C., are HIV-infected — a prevalence higher than that reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria, or Rwanda. Certain U.S. subpopulations are particularly hard hit. In New York City, 1 in 40 blacks, 1 in 10 men who have sex with men, and 1 in 8 injection-drug users are HIV-infected, as are 1 in 16 black men in Washington, D.C. In several U.S. urban areas, the HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men is as high as 30% — as compared with a general-population prevalence of 7.8% in Kenya and 16.9% in South Africa."
With such a high percentage of AIDS patients being homosexual it isn't worth the risk.
John, I understand that not everyone who has HIV knows it. But that doesn't mean that nearly half of all gay men have HIV. That applies to heterosexuals as well. In fact, heterosexuals are far MORE Likely to be unaware of their HIV status for the simple fact that so many of them think it's a mostly GAY illness.
HIV is simply not an exclusively gay illness. It seemed like one at one time but at this point, it's effecting everyone and convincing people that OTHERS are more at risk than THEY ARE is only going to perpetuate the situation.
In the end, people need to be aware that EVERYONE is at risk of contracting HIV. Whatever the situation was in the 80's, it was the lack of awareness that EVERYONE was at risk - and not just the gays - that helped it into the "mainstream" blood stream. Now it's there and it continues to spread there.
Altering the law to state that a year must pass from the time sex between two men occurs is of little consequence as so few grown adults actually go an entire year without sex anymore. If people want to donate, they will just lie. Changing it to a year will hardly open the floodgates.
How about this - we simply have the blood bank label the blood donated by gay and intravenous drug users, and anyone needing blood can choose whether or not to take the risk?
Why expose the entire blood supply for 89,000 pints? That sounds like a very small number to be getting up in arms about.
Sheesh - all the ranting seems really silly - so some people think gay sex is unnatural and some think Christians are kooks - whoopie.
"...so many of them think it's a mostly GAY illness."
The CDC and the JAMA both say it IS a mostly homosexual male illness. They comprise the vast majority of HIV cases.
AA females are 19 times more likely to have HIV/AIDS than a white female. Is that worth the risk?
AA make up 47% of the total HIV+ population and over half of the new cases, yet are only 12% of the population. Is that worth the risk?
Check, double-check, and triple check all of the blood being donated. Have EVERYONE tested for HIV/AIDS and other diseases BEFORE they are allowed to donate. People receiving blood shouldn't be at risk for AIDS whether it comes from a homosexual male or a heterosexual female. Take every precaution to protect the public.
If a gay male is proven to be HIV-free and can donate, LET HIM DO IT. A blanket ban on gay blood is stupid. Take it as a case-by-case basis just like everyone else. Even if you have to put gay men through extra screening to be sure, fine. But I would rather do that than tell a perfectly healthy person they cannot donate much needed blood because they like Jim instead of Sally.
Not only do I agree with the ban, I also believe that blood from heterosexuals who have had sex with an HIV infected person should be banned FOREVER not 12 months as in the article.
I am so glad I am healthy and not facing surgery. I know plenty of people who store up THEIR OWN BLOOD for surgery because too many people have been infected with HIV because of a blood transfusion.
Remember Karen, these same people are demanding DADT be eliminated and homsexuals serve openly in the military.
It's all part of a plan.
Robert C - They are not getting any sympathy from me and anything I can do to thwart "their plan" (as you call it), I will, because I do not agree with their plan at all.
If you knew what I and the government knew, you would not call it so stupid.
Seriously Robert? Our "plan"? Yeah, make sure your doors are locked and don't even look out the window on December 21, 2012. That's the day when it all goes down. I'm just warning you all. . .
You know - the "plan".
"The CDC and the JAMA both say it IS a mostly homosexual male illness. They comprise the vast majority of HIV cases."
Robert - What I am trying to say is that there is a sad number of non-gay people in this country who seem to think that HIV is something that they are not at risk of getting. They see it as something that only gay people get. Straight people are NOT immune to it. If the majority of HIV cases since the early 80's have been among the gay community it is because that is where the disease initially entered the country. In THE WORLD, the vast majority of HIV cases are among straight, black men, not among gays. That is not because Straight WHITE people are immune to it.
The infection rate in straight white America has increased. Straight white Americans were further away in there connections to "ground zero" but as time passes, they move closer and closer and it's through this misconception that it's a GAY disease that it will spread.
EVERYONE is at risk. No one is immune to it. HIV/AIDS is HUMAN disease, not a GAY disease.
You know, I can even understand this law. I am not even arguing that here. What I find so revolting is the way people use something like this article as a means to fuel their own agendas. We are only people. Right or wrong. We are not some secret society. We come from YOU and YOURS. We are the CHILDREN of STRAIGHT AMERICA. Gay people don't CREATE MORE gay people. We came from mothers and fathers who were normal, every day STRAIGHT people.
We are your children and we are here.
Yes, just like with anyone else, there are extremists. But it's not like all of us are out there screaming our heads off, trying to force anyone to accept anything. All most of us want is to be able to pursue the same happiness anyone else wants.
We are not murderers and perverts. We don't want your children. We just want to feel safe and we want love. Just like you.
Karen has the truth everybody, let's sit down and listen.
Enlighten us ma'am.
Wow Karen, now you're just talking completely out of your ass, the odds of contacting HIV from a blood transfusion in America is something like 1 in 2 million. It's happened less than 5 times in the last decade. Who are you trying to fool?
And gay men HAVE been donating all this time, newsflash, they just lie on the application. Plenty of people with other risk factors do, that's why they screen the blood instead of relying on the donor's word.
People, since when is 40% the vast majority? If 40% of HIV cases are among gay men, then who has the other 60%? We know it's not lesbians, so it must be straight people. So the majority of HIV cases are among straight people, right?
hm. . .
Karen in Los Angeles and Robert Cascadden--
Ok out of complete curiosity, if CLEAN, HEALTHY UNINFECTED gay people donated blood would still agree with the ban?
I mean you both do realize heterosexual people are infected with AIDS and HIVE as well right?
As long as they have been tested negative for HIV for at least 12 months...sure.
Robert Cascadden--
You would also say that about heterosexuals as well, yes?
Please be advised that heterosexuals who are exposed to HIV can not donate blood either.
Thank you Capt Tripps. I indeed have answers and many questions too.
Yep. What many of you fail to understand is how the donor list gets reduced. We stand in platoon formation on base for the drives. The medics start asking questions. As you raise your hand, you are eliminated. In the last one I stood for, out of 200, 20 were left.
THAT is how picky the system is, and needs to be. Those 20 would then be tested, and if good, drawn and shipped to the frontlines.
I can NOT believe the lack of privacy in doing this. This goes against everything I've ever been taught & remember from school. The vast majority of your doctors & nurses go to outside schools (not military) that teach them their ethics & values when it comes to medical privacy. This blows my mind !
In regular non-military blood drives, one is taken into a booth that is private & asked a few questions. Then, a computer is given to one & they answer the rest of the questions in total privacy.
...we'd all still be in first grade.
Karen in Los Angeles--
You did not answer my question and I never said heterosexuals infected with HIV/AIDS could donate.
However, you have not answered my question, merely avoided it. Do you have a problem with healthy, uninfected gay people donating blood?
"In regular non-military blood drives, one is taken into a booth that is private & asked a few questions. Then, a computer is given to one & they answer the rest of the questions in total privacy"
That's great. Have you ever taken a shower with 40 other people? Used a toilet that has 24 to a room and no stalls? A trough for a urinal? A sink that can accomodate 20? No?
There are no secrets among the troops in any unit. We all know who's who, and what's what. There is no right to privacy in the military at all. We do urinalisys testing a whole bunch different than the civilians do.
Here's the problem.
It's a virus. A basic characteristic of a virus is that they MUTATE.
Wow! Why the huge debate about whether or not being a homosexual is "natural" or not? It is risky behavior and spreads disease. Needle sharing is also a risky practice. When it comes to our blood supply, can we afford the put everyone at risk because the homosexuals are (of course) going to get upset and DEMAND that they be given the RIGHT to INFECT the rest of the population with HIV? What do we do if the IV drug users start demanding their right to infect the rest of the population too?
We need to quit with th pc rhetoric before it gets us all killed!
OK. Since the homosexuals here seem incapable of doing their own research:
It would seem that the biggest risk is in the black homosexual community:
Since the homosexuals will demand where the information came from:
http://cdc.gov/Features/dsWorldAidsDay/
Also from the CDC:
The male-to-male sexual contact transmission category represented 72% of new infections among males.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5736a1.htm
Bottom line: the homosexual "lifestyle" is not healthy! You can pout and whine all you want but it doesn't change the facts!
AIDS was the leading cause of death for Black Women in America if they were of *child bearing* age, back in the 1990's, so based on this illogical logic....Black Women of *child bearing* age should be banned as well.
As in "animals are doing it"? Most animals do this as an act to show domination.
Some animals throw @!$%#, eat @!$%#, eat their own vomit, and drink their own pee, some eat their own young, and some males kill a newborn male to ensure their future domination. Also animals don't seem to concerned about suffering when bringing down their meals. Many eat their prey, literally alive.
If you are going to justify one human act based on the way animals may act in nature, then you must include all animal acts as justifiable human activity. No picking and choosing.
I don't think animals are a good example to use as a moral compass.
If you needed the blood and only because there is a "chance" of hiv because of some homophobics,think of all of the people who may possibly donate that are either maybe bi or just did something in the day?why shouldn't those people not be able to donate too?There already isn't enough blood being circulated around as it is.
Keep in mind if you read this my sexual orientation is straight,and I'm 15.
Agreed, as for the Red Cross if my brother & friends' blood isn't good enough for them than neither is mine. Want blood? Go & find yourself a 50 y/o life-long nun.
Medically, this is a no-brainer; Political Correctness is destroying Western Civilization.
This is just STUPID in every way possible. Let a person die that needs blood all because the donor is gay. Dumb! What about all the heterosexuals that are HIV and donating blood to these facilities. To me, this is nothing more than discrimination against gay people. I will no longer donate $ or blood to this organization. Just STUPID.
You aren't all that bright are you Twinsankes? The gay community HIV+ percentage have dropped. It's the ignorant people of your likes that thing and believe that the Aids disease don't discriminate. Well let me tell you something you stupid man. My brother Gary (heterosexual) died from aids, infected his wife and unborn child with aids all because he slept around with different women at the bars he went to on the weekends. He wiped out his whole family. another brother of mine (James) died from it as well from using dirty needles (dead), also a sister of mine (heterosexual) died from it as well for sleeping around with strangers in the clubs (dead). They always condemned me for being gay and said I would catch AIDS and die and early death. I'm still alive, lived past their age, and HIV-. I might be gay, but I don't sleep around like most horny heterosexuals do.
Its amzing how the religious nutters gather whenever there is a meantion of gays in any story.
I wont give blood anymore. Religious freaks make decisions for the red cross. Let everyone die. Who cares when the world is filled with such ignorance.
A bit of common sense (unfortunately, not commonly found!) :
AIDS / HIV can be dormant in the blood stream below detection levels for up to 90 days. If one engages in more risky behavior than the average person (i.e: anal sex practitioners, gays, IV usage, sex workers), then it makes PERFECT sense to exclude such groups AND individuals from blood donation.
It is the government's responsibility and prerogative to take such measures in order to protect the masses.
I couldn't let that go.
That one is a total impossibility considering the Bible was written 3,000 years ago while the technology for blood transfusions would not exist until the 20th century.
The Jehovah's witnesses have built much of their religion on the misinterpretation of a single Biblical verse (Deuteronomy 12:16) prohibiting the eating of blood.
The only interpretation of this verse that makes any sense in the historical context is the literal one - no drinking animal blood as part of a ritual, no blood pudding or other food items containing animal blood, etc.
Prior to the discovery of ABO blood groups in 1900, human to human blood transfusions would have carried a high risk of the recipient dying of massive internal blood clots. Hence, until the 20th century, blood transfusions were seldom if ever performed.
I looked at the numbers from the CDCs face sheet that I saw John post anywho...
My understanding of "MSM" isn't exclusively gay men. The report looks at all genders and races and MSM is sleeping with other men, but may or may not be identified as gay or bi. If you look at the statistics the highest rate is white men with newly contracted HIV status, followed by blacks and Latinos on the other hand are a small fraction of the other two races. Should there be some leniency for Latino gay donors? Just playing devils advocate. So yah MSM does not mean they are defiantly gay but one who may have male on male relations on occasion but not exclusively identified as gay or bi.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
I also looked at how many people in the US are estimated to have hiv/aids per the CDC they say its around 1.1 million so with that number hiv/aids people make up .003% of the total population. Just something I found interesting is all.
What happens if it turns hetrosexuals into a gay.:)
Someone's going to take you seriously, you know, PWD! :)
Yeah I herd you can get the gay from that, you know the gay blood. Oh and... and... unclean tolit seats.
OK I am sorry. I just had to pick on the P**-7****0's
This rule is dated and, we all know it needs to be changed.
I wonder if it'll heighten one's gaydar senses.
thats only if the gay was radioactive!
John Toradze: Please...if you want to just make up a number, you might want to make it more believable, even if you skew it very high. You have no facts, just bigotry and fear. Check out the CDC, not Limbaugh or Beck. Parroting lies is still lying.
No Danjax. I have a PhD in the area. If you bothered to read you would see that I did post from CDC. Down below I went through the kind of exercise that was used in the talk I am remembering on HIV rates in USA gay men circa 2006 and gave references to credible sources.
CDC, which you quote stated that the numbers are 13-23%, not 40%. Even those numbers are inflated, in my experience.
Understated, if anything. Many homosexuals still won't admit it in public. It could get out and cause them all sorts of social problems.
Why don't you people simply go to the damn CDC website instead of guessing about the information? When it comes to the welfare of the general public we need factual data, not guesses, opinions and pc rheteric.
Just click here: http://cdc.gov/hiv/default.htm then read the material, then you can discuss the facts. If you cannot do that just STFU!
in real life, I would rather have the clean blood of a homosexual man or woman than the dirty blood of a heterosexual. . . . . . and another thing, why is it that when it comes to homo-sexual hatred it's always the MEN that get shat on? why don't people hate lesbians as much? Is it because they are men and are supposed to be all strong and it's OK for women because we are sensitive and soft?
look, I LOVE my gay men and women and I know QUITE few and NONE of them have HIV. I DO know even MORE heterosexual people and I know a couple with HIV..... i would take my gay boyfriend's blood any day! (& I mean like a boy that is my friend.. duh)
How far can it bring us if we follow this logic? Later they will consider blood donators on the basis of skin color. I think it would be more efficient to stregthen blood checking procedures rather than identifying sexuality of a donor. Patients need blood and it doesn't matter whether it's gay or not.
P.S. If you are single and have any std join http://stidatingclub.com/ a dating site where you won't suffer sex discrimination
Please, If I'm dying I don't care if they give me blood from a man who has sex with Indian puppies. Test it & give it to me.
Plus this is just a way of discriminating on the slick. If it WERE about HIV, then I wouldn't be able to donate bc everyone knows black women are the leading cases of HIV due to black men on the down low scared to come out bc it's still taboo in our culture.
Never understood the stupid policy in the first place.
It is very simple. HIV+ rate for gay men in the developed world is the same as in the worst populations in subsaharan Africa. It is around 40% by best estimates.
There are a small percentage of false negative HIV tests.
Proof please. If you're going to pull that statistic out you better have a citation or a link.
"It is very simple. HIV+ rate for gay men in the developed world is the same as in the worst populations in subsaharan Africa. It is around 40% by best estimates."
John. wait. . .
First of all, 40% of gay men do not have HIV. Your statement is worded very badly. 40% of NEW CASES are among gay men. That is not to say that nearly half of the gay population has HIV.
Second, if 40% of HIV cases are among gay men then doesn't that mean that 60% of HIV cases are among straight people? So, really, the MAJORITY of HIV cases are NOT among gay men, huh? They're among straight people. Since when does 40% equal a vast majority?
"There are a small percentage of false negative HIV tests."
This is true. My brother was tested for years and kept showing negative, while suffering all of the symptoms. He finally tested positive, and died 6 months later.
Political correct?
Let them donate. After all we can't be discriminatory over ones sexuality.
Just one thing, if an individual knowingly has HIV and donates make it a mandatory 30 year prison sentence with no possibility of parole. Also, if the HIV infected persons blood contaminates another through transfusion, the blood bank is not responsible, the individual doner accepts all responsibility and would face premeditated murder charges.
If you donate you will be held accountable.
Fair is fair.
Exactly.
Thankfully, the Red Cross is obligated to screen every unit of blood donated for HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C.
As the situation stands, a blood transfusion in the U.S. carries less than a one in a million chance of the recipient contracting HIV.
Sovereign man - Big deal. I'm sure a prison term for the person that donated tainted blood would really comfort the person who ended up receiving it. And as for the people screaming that everyone should be allowed to donate - just have the blood tested enough to make sure it's untainted - tell the Red Cross where to get the extra money to pay for this. It's fiscally prudent to eliminate a source that potentially could lead to tainted supplies.
They already test all the blood! Straight people can have diseases to and they know this, so all the blood is ALREADY screened.
Choice Please.
In today society where right is wrong and wrong is right, some people believe that an alternative life style should be accepted no matter if it degrades overall social dynamics. In this instance this could kill people.
Imposing harsh deterrents in order to satisfy the gay community is an answer, not the only answer but an answer just the same.
I don't understand why one who is at high risk of HIV would want to give blood anyway.
I can't give blood because I had lived in S.E. Asia. I am not sick, never tested positive for HIV or any hepatitis...
Does this mean I am being discriminated against? Or can I not give blood because this is a rule that the red cross uses to save lives?
Not all gay men are at high risk of catching HIV, the idea that being gay is itself a risk factor is ridiculous, there are variances in sexual lifestyles, the same as among heterosexuals. It's treated the way it is not based on science but on social stigma.
Not all. Just the majority.
The majority of homosexuals have HIV? Really? I did not know of this.
Yes, donate...why keep a good thing all to yourself...:p
great, yes, stupid policy as you say.
but I feel sorry for the poor patients needing blood, as well as the policy makers trying to make sense of it all.
not all gay men are high risk.
5 years ago, I discovered my ex-hubby now was having sex with anonymous young gay guys met on the internet secretively. on average one new guy a week. He basically tested positive for every STD's short of HIV. yes, he also said he used protection. we have one child and were trying for a 2 nd one at the time.
he is also a practicing MD.
the baseline: do not trust anyone ! the sex orientation does not matter.
Lola
Lola,
That is horrible!!! Of all people you should be able to trust your spouse. My heart goes out to you and I am so glad he didn't expose you to HIV!! Your ex seems like a complete idiot and it is even more unbelievable that he is an MD! But, you know what they say, "What goes around comes around" and he will get his if he doesn't improve his lifestyle.
Which means the percentage of AIDS patients that are gay are probably UNDERSTATED. Even more reason to ban them. I am not for job discrimination for gay men but donating blood is different. It is not worth someone's life just to be PC!
ALL donated blood is tested for STIs, so there is no difference between gay person blood and straight person blood.
What a ridiculous ban. As if a virus differentiates who to infect. Plus more heterosexuals in the world have HIV than homosexuals, so why not ban heterosexuals from donating?
but there are more hetrosexuals in the world
you fail at statistics
The rate of HIV+ in the developed world is high for gay men, around 40%. Only in Africa and a few other places (Thailand prostitutes) is it in the 10% to 40% range in any female demographic.
The two reasons for this are that gay men have highly promiscuous sex of a kind that transmits well. Studies have shown it takes male homosexuals on average 200 sexual contacts to seroconvert. The simple fact is that even if sexual transmission between male and female were at the same rate, (it isn't) that heterosexuals don't have enough partners.
But the transmission rate is much higher for MSM (men having sex with men). Anal sex is relatively good. Vaginal and oral sex have much lower transmission rates if there is no tissue trauma. Vaginal walls, are quite good barriers. It can happen, but at a much lower rate.
The three major reasons for the high rate of transmission to women in Subsaharan Africa are: 1. Large number of partners who have sex with men. 2. Genital mutilation (FGM) (clitorectomy, female cirumcision, etc.) leaving easily torn scar tissue. 3. "Dry sex" in which a woman's vagina is filled with dirt and sand in order to cause bleeding during sex (it is quite painful).
In the developed world, gay men are the reservoir for HIV, period. End. Stop. That is what science says.
I'd like a legitimate source for all that garbage. Claims are easy to make, much harder to back up with facts.
Me too, Brillant! I read omnivorously & I've never heard of the sand in the vagina thing. Wouldn't it also hurt the man "raping" the woman?
There are plenty of STRAIGHT sluts, he-whores, and sex-freaks out there, who can't remember or never knew the name of the person they sexed two days ago. Since some people still believe the ignorance that AIDS is a gay ONLY disease, they never get tested...then one day they end up in the hospital.....but untill that day comes, they should be allowed to donate infected blood....because back in 1984 a disease showed up in the gay community.
Reagan is dead. It is time to bury the fear and ignorance as well.
That's a total lie. HIV has the same chance of coming from anyone.
You're totally wrong.
Let's review the groups at high risk for being HIV positive: (Think of it as the 4H club).
1. Homosexual males, for the reasons John Toradze enumerated.
2. Hookers, or women who have unprotected sex with multiple partners.
3. Heroin addicts or anyone who shares needles to inject IV drugs.
4. Hemophiliacs - they all but dropped off the radar screen by the 1990's because the blood supply was much safer, and recombinant clotting factors became available. Until then, blood serum from thousands of donors had to be pooled to produce a single injection of Factor VIII protein.
Obviously, anyone who has unprotected sex with a partner whose HIV status is unknown runs the risk of contracting STDs including HIV.
Nonetheless, the first three groups of people account for most new cases of HIV in the U.S.
"Nonetheless, the first three groups of people account for most new cases of HIV in the U.S."
BINGO!!! It's not about someone's sexual orientation. It's about the end results of that orientation.
Though, it doesn't matter in the end, because all blood donations are screened for STIs like HIV.
Are you CRAZY??!! Donate to each other and keep it clearly segregated. HIV is the byproduct of a risky, irresponsible and immoral lifestye. KEEP YOUR BLOOD A nd your perversion to yourselves.
Such behavior is not unique to homosexuals and in fact if you believe that you’re more at risk because you’re more likely to be careless.
AIDS is not a gay disease, I think the world infection rates MORE than prove this.
Not to mention heterosexuals engage in some pretty risque behavior ourselves, I know I did some stupid things in my yesteryears.
Yet another idiot in the pile! I hope you need blood and the only supply available is a gay man's blood. Then we will see what choice you make.
Cpt. Tripps, HIV is just a disease, yes. But the primary behaviors that transmit it are anal sex and sex with many partners. IV drug needle sharing can also, but there are just not that many IV drug users sharing needles.
World statistics are often cited these days. But that is not the whole picture. Within the developed world, the picture is crystal clear. MSM population (men having sex with men) has an approximately 40% infection rate. And roughly 10% of those infected know it.
That is what science says. Epidemiology is the true dismal science, not economics. But when these results are reported, mainstream media never report it because mainstream journalists and editors don't want to target gay men.
But it is the fact. If you go to an HIV research conference, everyone knows this.
Really John? Its a fact that if you go to an HIV research conference, everyone knows that 40% of gay men have HIV? HA you're funny. 40% infection rate? Where's your references. I work in computational biology and bioinformatics and have worked on HIV studies. POST YOUR REFERENCES.
Are you CRAZY??!! Donate to each other and keep it clearly segregated. HIV is the byproduct of a risky, irresponsible and immoral lifestye. KEEP YOUR BLOOD A nd your perversion to yourselves.
Much like your stupid opinions, keep them to yourself. I love these immoral comments. Like someone of your caliper knows what immoral is... What you don't know, could fill a warehouse. The only perversion going on, is the twisted way you perceive your fellow humans. Well, that and your treatment of the English language. Please check your spelling and grammer before you look like more of a dope.
Jeisun, did you mean caliber instead of caliper?
No, Joshua, you and others are the ones with closed minds and predetermined agenda. Go yourself, educate yourself. The reality is not the rosy little pack of lies that you have been fed by activists. Dig around and be objective. I don't have the time right now to do a big literature search. I do have a doctoral education in the area though. You don't.
A doctorate in BS? Because that's the only way your coming up with a 40% infection rate among American homosexuals.
I never said the behavior was without risk, it's obviously by far the most common way of getting infected. But here's the deal, we can deal with the risk factors in a smart way, with a reasonable waiting period, knowing that we have pretty much fullproof tests, or we can continue a policy based on bigotry and fear.
And like Joshua said above, John, post your sources. Surely someone with a PhD ( Piled higher & deeper) can/must have many resources at their fingertips to substantiate their argument.
...and lets be honest here, gay men are NOT the only ones out there having anal intercourse...
Bisexual males and female prostitutes round out the list.
Along with heterosexual couples, BJK. (Nurses know all-lol We just don't TALK about it)
Yea, pretty sure I've engaged in anal sex with every woman I've had a relationship longer than a month with.
Do the women know this?
Wouldn't you know it?
I assume so, they may have been really drunk at the time.
Can they say with a 100% medical bilogical and chemical certainty that the blood is not contaminated or will ever develop the HIV Virus? I don't believe anyone in the medical field can say that!
Gays should be banned from donating any part or fluids of their body to another human being!
They can't say that about the hetrosexual population, why are you holding the homosexual population to a different standard?
If they test it, yes they can. With 100% certainty.
You are an uneducated idiot!
I have been in my monogamous relationship for 26 years. All of my friends have also been in their relationships for over a decade. I worked in a bar for years. I watched more rampant, "risky" behavior among heterosexuals than I can even tell you. One example of hundreds - A guy that was known to have herpes had sex with more women in that club than I can count. He would do it in the women's bathroom, in the ice machine room, everywhere he could find. Once he was caught on the dance floor.
So tell me...is it just homosexuals that are risky?
If I had the to accept your blood I would question it.
The thing I'm most tired of in these postings are those that insist on calling names and being rude and thinking that actually makes them look smarter or more knowledgeable. Correcting someone else's spelling? Looks to me that those who do that need to check their own before they post their smug superiority. I've been raised to believe that those that stoop to calling names only do so because they aren't intelligent enough to win their argument. If you want anyone to take you seriously, then try to act like an adult while doing so.
If the ban keeps the blood supply safer why not. I am banned frrom donating blood since I lived in Europe for more than six months back in the eighties. I think if I were exposed to mad cow, I would have developed it by now, but if it keeps the blood supply safer keep me banned. I have had two blood transfusions after the birth of my second child, and am glad not to have been exopsed to disease.
I kind of agree with you, but I'd need to see actual numbers to justify it. Is the rate of HIV significantly higher in the male homosexual community than the general population - as high as travellers to Haiti, Africa, or other groups that are banned from giving blood? Are there any other groups of people who have elevated HIV rates or are homosexuals being unfairly targeted? Does current testing allow for a 100% identification of tainted blood?
If you're going to say travellers to Haiti can't give blood, when there is no inherent risk to contracting HIV simply going to Haiti, but since such travellers have statistically higher HIV rates they're disallowed, then if you're using the same standards for homosexuals that is at least consistent. Homosexuals may not have any at risk behaviors, just as most Hatian visitors don't engage in at risk behaviors, but if that puts you in a group that has statistically higher rates of infection screening you out is a legitimate method to insure a safer blood supply.
totally wrong analogy. mad cow disease is not a virus and there is no way to test for it until you develop it, therefore the blanket ban. there are 2 HIV tests permormed on donated blood, one for the virus itself (nucleic acid testing) and one for the antivirus formed by our immune systems.
to all posters: please educate yourself before you post, even a quick wikipedia search will do. ignorant posts harm us all.
I wasn't comparing Mad Cow to HIV, I was comparing the bans. Yes there is testing for HIV, but guess what, it's not 100% and mistakes happen. One blood donation can find it's way into several different blood products. I may not necessarily agree that a lifetime ban is necessary, but that would be for scientists who are experts in the field to decide.
Any decision has to be made from a completely dispassionate fact-based analysis of the risks.
The decision should not be made out of anti-gay bigotry, nor should it be made to make a politically correct statement against bigotry.
It should come completely from an analysis of the risks and accuracy of testing.
If there is a proven correlation between [X] and a transmittable disease, then [X] should be restricted from donating, unless we have tests for that disease that are 100% accurate all the time.
It doesn't matter if [X] is something that is unfairly discriminated against in society (being gay and male) or not (traveling to Europe, traveling to Haiti, having chest pain). The fact is [X] produces an increase in the risk of disease transmission, which is why it should be screened for.
Thank you for your sane, rational, and dispassionate response. Finally, someone who can actually stick to the issue at hand and not go off on agenda-driven drivel.
Yes, bmxmom. The HIV+ rate for MSM (men having sex with men) in the developed world is what it is in subsaharan Africa. It is just not true that HIV is a disease of everyone equally. That is a fiction.
Two tests lowers the risk of a false negative test result. But it does not eliminate it. Let's say that the false negative is 1 in 100,0000. (Which isn't bad.) Then a double false negative is the square of that, or 1 in 10,000,000,000 (ten billion). That sounds acceptable, but in the real world there is an additional factor which is incorrectly done tests. The rate of screwed up tests is higher than any of that. And screwed up tests tend to come in clumps. There will be a person doing something wrong, or some factor that throws off a batch of tests. That's how most false negatives get through.
And yes, I know what I'm talking about I worked in HIV research.
John, thank you for contributing the facts about HIV to this discussion.
Did you work in HIV research John? then lets talk. I have compiled and analyzed data from many studies, HIV studies included. Post references. If you worked in research you know that references and building upon others work is how research is conducted.
If the double false negative is really 1 in 10 billion and the biggest false negative factor is human error wouldn't it make sense to just have a second person perform both tests in high risk donors rather than simply not allowing them? Frankly if the numbers were really that low there might be more benefit from allowing an extra 10% of the population to give blood than preventing them because once every twenty years you'd get one pint of tainted blood.
As I said above, I have no problem with the policy if it is scientifically warranted, but if tests are really that accurate then why are we stopping anyone from donating blood?
It is too expensive Andrew. I worked with a company working with the Red Cross on multi-diagnostics. This is a significant cost.
Post #9. BRX Mom. Did you now that "Mad Cow Disease" occurs spontaneously in the general population? It's not common, but Bovine Spongeform Encephalitis in the human form CAN spontaneously mutate.
How do we test for this IF you want 100% guarantees in purity?
So what we are really saying is that the Red Cross doesn't want to pay to test blood for HIV. They care more about their payroll than about your safety. How do you know that pint of blood you got last week was ever tested? Because some dumbass hospital bureaucrat who answers to the idiots in gov'ment said that it was tested? Prove it.
**Show me the carfax.**
It doesn't. All blood is tested for STIs.
I believe you're referring to CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease). The odds of someone getting it sporadically are less than 1 in 1 million - lower than one's annual risk of being struck by lightning.
Yes, I know that BJK, but I was speaking to the population in general who recognize "Mad Cow" much quicker than Creutzfeldt-Jakod.
It's been a while since I read the stats. on it, but I think it was a bit more than 1-1,000,000. Something like 3 per or so.
Anyway, the general popoulation doesn't realize that it CAN occur spontaneously.
When I was 17 years old I had sexual relations with another guy, my age. We had never had sex before that time, and were perfectly healthy.
Two months later I hear there's a blood drive going on at my school. I didn't know about the ban and quickly signed up, as I wanted to be able to save a life. I ended up waiting 30 minutes; it was rather nerve-wracking, seeing all the hospital beds and needles and pints of blood being taken. Me and several of my friends joked or ate lunch together while we waited.
Finally I was called, going through various information, my name, age, sex, all the obvious stuff. Then they get to the question of whether I had had sex with another man, which I circled yes. I figured that they'd give me maybe 6-12 months probation, as that's what the straight people got. I mean, if a straight man could donate blood 6 months after having sex with a prostitute, why can't I get just 6 months after having sex with a healthy guy? But no. They told me, in front of my friends, that I had to sign a permanent deferral.
A lot of you straight people that are pro-ban have no idea what it's like to be refused the opportunity to give something vital of yours to another person in need. From then on I refused to know my blood type, as I know if I were to have the rarest blood type or something, I'd be outraged. My dad, who frequently gives blood, asked me later that day how the blood drive went. I lied and said I couldn't donate on account of cold I had the week before. I had never felt so ashamed in my life.
Please, people, be smart about this. Heterosexuals engage in risky behavior all the time, I'd say at about the same rate as homosexuals, and heteros only get 6-12 months. We get a lifetime. We could've helped in 9/11, we could've helped in Katrina, we could've helped in Haiti. We want to help so badly! Give us that chance!
Nick-T 1545438: "Please, people, be smart about this. Heterosexuals engage in risky behavior all the time"
Yes, they do, but the ONLY way a gay male can have intercourse is from behind, very, very risky behavior, because of the bacteria present and the risk of damage to the lining of the orifice.
Having said that, you group of generous folks and drug users have exacerbated the spread of this problem to hetrosexuals, given you don't disclose your proclivity! There is no known diseases acquired from monogamous, vaginal intercourse, without (mostly) males experimenting with variations of living beings...sexually!
"Yes, they do, but the ONLY way a gay male can have intercourse is from behind"
Keep in mind that not all homosexuals have anal sex, and that heterosexual couples have anal sex as well, often as a way of avoiding pregnancy.
"Having said that, you group of generous folks and drug users have exacerbated the spread of this problem to hetrosexuals, given you don't disclose your proclivity!"
Ignoring your obvious bias by comparing homosexuals to drug users, you're making it seem like we are the reason heteros have AIDS. AIDS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE. The "patient zero" argument has been debunked; even the man who coined that term in his book later admitted that AIDS was in America long before the infamous flight attendant.
"There is no known diseases acquired from monogamous, vaginal intercourse, without (mostly) males experimenting with variations of living beings...sexually!"
And how do you know that female didn't inherit a genetic disorder or STD from her mother? They can be passed from mother to fetus. Furthermore, if there "[are] no known diseases acquired from monogamous intercourse" then the same can be said from homosexual couples. We have monogamous relationships too. Sexual orientation affects NOTHING besides gender. Almost anything you all do, we can do as well. Almost anything we do, you all can do as well.
If people want to help other people, then they need to do what is BEST for other people. There are people who want to donate an organ to a friend, relative, or stranger, but if that organ is infected with cancerous tissue, it will spread to the organ recipient. If that organ is not compatible with the recipient, the organ will be rejected, and the person you were trying to help will die.
Don't be selfish. Be prudent about the way you "help". You may have a great desire to help, but your efforts may hurt instead. Stop thinking about your "equality" and your "rights" and think instead about what helping others really means.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath and promise to "do no harm". If they even suspect that their actions MAY cause harm, they are required by their oath not to act. We should all behave in the same way.
Do you idiots realize that you're saying that Nick, as a high school student, was smarter than you are today?
I know the risks, but the part of the reason why the ban should be removed is that gay blood isn't even tested. ALL blood that goes through transfusions are checked and tested numerous times. We're not even given a chance, and we would like that chance. Healthy, needed blood is being refused.
I totally agree with smrtcookie. Blood donation is not a party that you haven't been invited to. It's a service. If your participation puts others at risk, then you shouldn't donate. Find some other way to help people.
There is a consistent thread of ignorance throughout this discussion. That thread is one of the reasons why gay men still have sky-high rates of HIV. The elders who knew died. It's that simple. Young men today in high school have no idea what it was like during the plague years with young men in the Bay Area dropping like flies. Only those who were resistant to infection or had a less promiscuous lifestyle (not the norm) survived.
And the self-assessment of a young high school student that he and his friend were "perfectly healthy" is ignorant. At one time I was working with AIDS patients and in one high school there were 15 students being treated for AIDS by one physician! High school kids look around and presume that their peers are "clean". They aren't.
There is only one way that a kid of 15-17 develops AIDS. Five to seven years earlier, that child was infected by an adult with HIV. Period. We call them predators, and they are. That means that kids you are looking at in the hallway, more than a few have had sex with older men. And that includes young boys and teen boys.
And that is how "perfectly healthy" teen boys have sex with each other and one gives the other HIV.
Seriously? Only one way? Really? Want to try that one again?
Yes "Jebus is my Dog", one way. (For all practical purposes.)
Remember, I was talking about AIDS, not HIV. Most of them had showed up with pneumonia which turned out to be pneumocystic. If you do the math it takes 5-7 years from the time of infection for AIDS to develop. Back up 5 to 7 years in a 15-17 year old. You arrive at between 8 and 12 as the time of infection.
Children that age do not share IV drug needles. But they are victimized by adult men who are sex-addicts. It isn't pretty, but this is the world we live in. The way this happens varies a lot. The high school in question was in a well to do almost entirely white town.
Sexual predation on minors knows no economic bounds.
10.7 The ONLY "consistant threat of ignorance throughout this conversation" is that YOU, John, refuse to give any credentals, cite any double-blind, peer-reviewed studies of which either you were involved in or which you have knowledge of.
You MAY "Buffalo" some people, but not all of us are buying it, esp. those of us who have worked in health care.
BTW, yes, the incidence of AIDS IS rising in the gay population in the U.S. The reason? We are a generation removed from the 1st. AIDS sufferers & many do not see this as a death sentence since they know people with it leading normal lives while taking medicine(s). They have NO idea of what the plaque did to decimate a portion of our country-gay AND straight-25 yrs. ago.
"The reason? We are a generation removed from the 1st. AIDS sufferers & many do not see this as a death sentence since they know people with it leading normal lives while taking medicine(s)."
AND they are having sex with as many as 15 times the number of partners as the average heterosexual....lets not forget that your risk of getting HIV is increases ten fold with every new partner you have sex with....and since the vary large majority of homosexual males are at a higher risk than heterosexuals who on average have 7 partners in their entire life.... for gay men ...its about 150...and in many cases over 300...do the math....there are about 15 or so studies that show the difference...i can provide these if you like.....or you can google it your self.
I'm starting to think that John was molested by a Catholic priest when he was an altar boy.
That's a complete fail. STIs can come from any (ANY) kind of sex.
Mister Momo - you either misread the statement that was posted, or you just don't understand. What was said was if a heterosexual couple engage in nothing more than vaginal intercourse with only one another, then no known diseases can be acquired. What that poster was trying to show was that anal intercourse which is known to occur in homosexual relationships can cause disease while the other cannot.
He said at no diseases can come from vaginal intercourse, right? Well, they can. My Sex Ed teacher told us.
10.2 O.K. Yes, you are correct in adding in the increased sexual contact which has a direct effect on AIDS/HIV. But I think most people know that; I was parroting my oldest son who pointed out the less obvious reason to me a while back.
BTW, John Holmes, one of the 1st. famous "porn" stars, estimated that he'd had 10,000 sexual contacts & he died of AIDS. So there is a direct correlation between partners both gay & straight!
CONDOMS! CONDOMS! CONDOMS! use 'em every time!
Mister Momo - not sure who your sex ed teacher was but mine taught that if 2 people were in a monogamous relationship and only used vaginal intercourse and both were not infected beforehand with any sexually transmitted diseases, no stds would be a worry. Maybe your sex ed teacher meant if one was not monogamous then there could be some type of transmission. Pretty sure the other poster meant monogamous relationships.
ok prior to any blood draws, you are screened and asked several questions whether or not you (being a man) have had sex with another man or prostitute etc within a certain time-frame. If you fall within a certain high-risk category they wont allow you to take blood. I was was told i couldnt give blood for one year - (am a hetereosexual) that traveled to mexico. Apparently mexico has a high malaria risk so I was rejected but given tickets to a comedy club instead....hahahaha...
But in all seriousness, Homosexuals and intravenous drug users (male and female) are in a higher risk category and should be looked at closer especially during the screening process. It isnt anything against homosexuals. One must come to the understanding that the blood drawn from an individual is used in other people in need of blood. Does anyone remember the 80's? You know when all these people including children contracted Aids/HIV as a result of blood transfusions because of no screening and no testing of blood. The screening is in place for higher risk indivuals who engage in risky behaviour. It certainly does not mean that ALL homosexuals take risks and are not safe when engaging in the things they do.
Also, there are several Heterosexuals that take many risks. I think everyone is screened at a reasonable rate and it is not just a homosexuial thing.
This is no time for poiltical correctness. We do not need a rise in AIDS/HIV due to faulty blood. What we need is a cure. Just my humble 2 cents.
This is ridiculous. The reason people contracted AIDS in the 1980's is because the American Red Cross would not spend the money to screen the blood. They had the capability.
There is a rapid HIV test that gives results in 20 minutes. Every donor should have to take that test prior.
As for risky homosexuals, I have been in my monogamous relationship for 26 years. All of my friends have also been in their relationships for over a decade. You my friend are generalizing. I worked in a bar for years. I watched more rampant, "risky" behavior among heterosexuals than I can even tell you. One example of hundreds - A guy that was known to have herpes had sex with more women in that club than I can count. He would do it in the women's bathroom, in the ice machine room, everywhere he could find. Once he was caught on the dance floor.
So tell me...is it just homosexuals that are risky?
easy rich...I included heterosexuals in my post. Maybe you should reread.
yes I am aware of that...did I not say "several Heterosexuals take many risks?"
The article said that statistically as a group gay men have a 60 times higher rate of hiv infection. Also that one in 2 million units of blood that has passed the screening actually is infected. If allowing gay men to donate raises that risk, we shouldn't do it. One in 2 million is already too high. I know it sounds low but it means certain infection for that one. Some people, for one reason or another, have to have frequent transfusions. This would raise the risk for them quite a bit. My friend has to have one every week when she's on a round of chemo. The chemo kills off her regular blood cells. It would be terrible if she contracted hiv from the blood she needed in order to fight cancer.
I have to agree with you SP42. Raising the chances for infected blood is not good for anyone who must take regular transfusions or needs blood. Hope your friend pulls thru ok. Chemo is brutal. Seen alot of family and good friends die of cancer and it's no easy way to see them go.
Actually richclear, you are incorrect. There was no test for HIV for a long time. For much of that time we didn't know what was causing it. We hear the echoes of that time today in that Berkeley professor, Dr. Duesberg who still maintains his belief that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Today's tests are not 100% accurate. They just aren't. No test is.
It is also not true that heterosexuals are as promiscuous as homosexuals. Heterosexuals that have 100 sex partners are rare. Those having more than 1000 are even more rare. This is not true for homosexual men.
Thank you Lee. She's doing OK so far. Not in remission but she's keeping it beat back. I'm sorry for your loss. Cancer is a horrible scary thing.
Cite your source
Ok. Show your sources. So you are saying that Homosexual men with more than 100 or even 1000 partners are more common than heterosexuals? Prove it. I don’t buy it. Seems like you have been doing a great job posting a lot of BS in this thread that you can’t back up. You are a bigot. And you seem to be pretty proud of it.
YAWN......I was wondering when the bigot card was going to be played by someone. Can we just agree that some heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in risky behaviour and be done with it? Be realistic...how can you cite statistics on sexual behaviour?
No, I am not a bigot. My best, oldest friend died of AIDS. I have hung out in the gay community quite a bit, and lived with gay roommates for years. I have sat through the conference talks and there are many studies on homosexual promiscuity in addition to popular literature and figures. No I don't have a lot at my fingertips but anyone claiming otherwise is either lying or extremely naive. Gay activists have even made this case in grand fashion.
Also, for your information, a side project I have been slowly progressing on for several years (I submitted a draft manuscript last December) is to prove that there is a significant fraction of homosexual people who have a clear biological cause for their preference. I am certain this is true. It is an area, however, for which funding is very difficult to obtain, so it has all been on my own dime. One well established professor even warned me, "Don't touch it. That will destroy your career."
So no. You are quite wrong in your assessment of me.
John is correct. I'm a Doctoral Candidate in Psychology with Univ of OK. I've read many studies on sexual behavior and patterns. It's an accepted fact in the academic world that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Further, studies show that homosexuals in committed relationships are much more likely to have affairs than heterosexuals. It's not bigotry, just a statistical fact. As a side note, homosexuals are more likely to smoke, have alcohol addictions and use illegal drugs. Some of this is often attributed to a lack of acceptance from common society and their families.
Hi John,
I have never read a study that claims the 40% of the homosexual population is HIV positive. Can you please give me the PubMed ID? You've stated this is many of your posts.
Also, I notice that you are conducting a side project on the biological factors that contribute to homosexuality. Do you believe that this is genetic or epigenetic or both? What factors are you considering?
I've posted on several of your posts. Please reply. I apologize if my post may come off as rude, but any credible scientist would never just throw out numbers the way you have. If you're wrong or lying, you are misleading people. For those of us that do work in biomedical research, please cite your references so that we may look at this.
As I stated before, I am someone that does work with HIV studies. I work in computational biology and bioinformatics. I compile and analyze clinical data everyday.
Please produce your study information to back up your claims.
trim,
Maybe you can help me. I have read studies about the promiscuity of homosexuals, but I've never read a study that says that 40% of the homosexual population is HIV positive. John has been throwing out this number on several posts. Do you know of any legitimate study that he has gotten this number from?
Thanks,
Joshua
Joshua
I posted below something fairly close to the logic laid out in the talk I am referring to. search for "Avert.org"
What I am trying to look at is an odd genetic phenomenon. I am of the opinion that homosexuality has multiple causes. Some of this comes from data in animals, much of it is inference at this point because a proper study would be hugely expensive and take years. (To say nothing of generating a firestorm on both sides.) But I think the thesis is provable that at least some homosexuality is from this cause. If it can be proven it will change things forever.
"Odd genetic phenomenon?" Get over it John. Your hypothesis isn't exactly new. And why would it create a "firestorm" if it could be proven? Can't deal with the truth? And, although I can't quote "chapter & verse," there ARE studies going on about this & have ben for years-at least back to the 80's as far as I know.
You clowns think that gays are swinging from the chandelier 24-7. If gays were having half the sex that you claim they are having, gays would have to quit their jobs to make time for all that sex.
That assumes it is 1) actually used in a transfusion and 2) given as whole blood.
1) Donated blood not used in 4-6 weeks is discarded. Red cells do not hold up well, even when stored frozen.
That's why the Red Cross needs to hold blood drives so frequently.
2) In peripheral venous blood of HIV positive people, most virus particles are found inside white blood cells (esp. helper T cells).
For years now, most units of donor blood are not stored as whole blood. They are fractionated into packed red blood cells, blood plasma, cryoprecipitate (frozen blood plasma minus some of the clotting factors), and platelets.
This reduces, but obviously does not eliminate, the risk of a recipient getting HIV from a false negative blood sample.
I knew 2 men that died with aids and know of one child that received bad blood, so please let them give their blood among themselves. The blood is not 100% safe when tested from heterosexuals. I also know someone that got hepatitus from receiving blood. It is too risky bc hospitals can never be trusted. If we have a shortage of blood bc of gays, then maybe they should stop being gay. If gays think they are singled out it might just be bc they are.
why dont you donate all your money to the poor then you would stop being greedy!!!
Can you stop being straight? No? I thought not.
Pat would you listen to how ridiculous you sound....
I'm straight, I am not the ridiculous one.
why are you straight? when did you make that choice? could you just decide to find men attractive? do you find men attractive but just controll yourself?
Yep, I do find men attractive and I am married to one and have been for 37 years bc I am a woman. I also find some women attractive but not to the extent of wanting sex with them. I say yes to the fact you have control over whom you have sex with. Just bc you see someone you admire doesn't mean it is right to be with them sexually. You can love someone without having sex. Talking about control, you gay guys stay thin...lol, so use the same control with sex that you do at the dinner table, or do you stay thin by just setting yourself up by going to the gym to lose control when you see men half-necked. Gay is all in your mind.
Pat I am a hetereosexual man and your comments are completely ignorant and obviosly moronic. I'd like to nominate you for the NewsVine Buffoon of the day award....congratulations...
Pat, it's so obvious that you've put in a lot of time and effort toward researching this topic -- NOT.
If they could only test blood for stupidity -- YOU would never be allowed to donate.
Pat. Just curious- did you recently wake from a long coma? Your stream of comments seem very old fashioned and ridiculous. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but lets at least try to keep them intelligent.
Is your last name Robertson?
Pat. O.K. I respect your "opinion," so just either donate your own blood for major surgery or take you chances. Your surgeon could leave a sponge or clamp inside you. Life, esp. medical situations, come with risk. Anyone that wants total guarantees will have to wait until the next life.
BTW, you might not be so cavalier if your child suddenly gets hit by a car with massive internal bleeding. Live with the risk that some blood MIGHT be tainted or let him/her die to be 100% sure it doesn't. Most of the time we don't have the luxury of deciding whether or not to take blood or even blood products.
If G*d really hated gays, and invented AIDS to *teach fags a lesson*.....then why did He design a disease that is passed by way of bodily fluids....including those used for reproduction? Wouldn't a disease passed by way of the use of poppers, listening to Euro-dance music, and having good taste in fashion and interior design....have been more productive?
Some of you need to evolve or at least stand up straight when you walk so your knuckles do not drag the ground.
TwinSnakes - You are an idiot. If you want to talk about misusing the body try getting off your couch potato ass and do some exercise. Being fat is not only a sin, but a burden on the countries health care system. People where you live must not read or you would know that being gay is not deviant behavior.
As for donating blood, you notice this is about greed or need. The blood banks are very low and they are turning to the gay community to try to fill it. They told the community they could not donate blood in the 1980's because of aids. They told the world how bad the "gays" are.
Yet...they never tested the blood. The American Red Cross knew they had tainted blood in the 1980's and they still gave it out to the world. The excuse was "it's too expensive to test the blood for aids."
You want to blame someone? Blame the American Red Cross!
They have rapid testing now. In 20 minutes they would know if the donor was positive or not. Anyone, gay or straight, should have to go through this test before donating. Although it is not 100% accurate, it is an inexpensive way to check your donors prior to taking their blood.
Funny how you can be shunned and then when you are "needed"........
Yet, when you receive blood in the hospital, every doctor and nurse will tell you when you sign the release form to get blood, that even though the blood has been tested, there is still a chance of receiving infected blood. Had a major surgery lately that required blood? It is a sobering experience to need blood and have the medical staff make you sign a release form after acknowledging that the blood you receive to save your life can end your life or prolong your life just long enough to make you REALLY sick. There is no reason to add further chance of contamination into the blood supply.
but the point being made is that every time somone gives blood REGARDLESS of sexual orentation theres a risk of contaminating the blood supply.
Yes but the risk is higher if you are a gay man.
Yes, Jeff. Gay men have a hugely higher rate of infection, and not just with HIV.
Going to a Gladstone Institute conference on HIV is very sobering. The idea that gays and straights have the same HIV risk is just wrong, and not a little bit.
Solution: Gays can give blood to other gay types
Drug users can give blood to other drug users
Normal people can give blood to other normal people
Richlear can give blood to other idiots
See how it works? Now let's get to it!
dangstraight.....*Archie Bunker* was canceled and they are not looking for a replacement.
Normal people?
*Normal* requires ONLY 51 percent.
dangstraight, all blood is tested for STIs, so anyone can give to anyone, as long as their blood isn't infected.
Reported for CoH violation.
Mister Momo - a little biased in your reporting aren't you? BlueDevilBasher has consistently posted comments denigrating others yet not once have you spoken to him about it or reported it. Others have done the same. Seems the only time you report things is when the person is on the other side of the discussion from you. Play fair.
I haven't read any of his comments yet. If I see one that is inflammatory, I'll report it, don't you worry.
I don't believe in giving anything to this SICK segment of society other than their Constutioinal rights. They can just keep quiet and revel in their immoral activity in private. Stay OUT of my back yard.
Gay men aren't interested in YOUR back yard. We're not interested in YOUR lives, we're interested in OUR lives, and our rights are frequently trodden on because of people saying, "You should know your place, keep it quiet!" We've been quiet for long enough. If African Americans, women, Native Americans, etc. didn't fight for the rights they deserved, they wouldn't have gotten them. And so we will fight for ours.
Go wear some sheets & burn crosses on another forum, Charles Stark.
bigot.
i find your bigotry SICK and dont want you in MY back yard. so go be quiet about your hate charles.
Nick-
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you aren't interested in anyone's life but your own. You want your rights and you want them now. How selfish. For you this isn't about helping others by donating blood. You're just having a little tantrum because you can't do whatever you want.
The issue here is about blood supply safety not gay rights.
seriously.........you have hit the nail on the head. It is NOT about gay rights it is about blood safety. This has been stated in early posts but many people want to ignore that fact. We need to do what ever we have to do to keep the supply safe. And all of those who stated that they have, or know someone who lied about their "history"to be able to donate......it is disguting to me that you think it is funny, or something to brag about. Why in the h*** would you willing want to take a chance to put a death sentence on a young child or someones grandparent. Why be selfish just so can say, hey I broke the stupid rule and gave blood. Science will find a way to make donation safer for everyone. Until then we ALL need to be careful......and HONEST.
It is about gay rights because plenty of heterosexuals engage in risky sexual behavior and plenty of heterosexuals have had anal sex and plenty of heterosexuals have contracted STD's! And yet people in this thread think that we should ban all gay people on the basis that they are "risky." The logic behind that is non-existent, so the only reason people are against gays donating blood is because they are bigots who are horrified at the idea that they may end up with "homo blood" inside them one day.
@Pat-419920 - I have been in my relationship with my partner for 26 years. We have not had sex with anyone else. I know without a doubt that my blood is clean. Can you say that?
And, you are more likely to get hepatitis from a restaurant then from a blood donation. Hepatitis is rampant and one of the biggest worries for health care providers. Ask a Phlebotomist . I linked it so you can look it up.
You might better worry bc the aids virus was already running pretty rampant before you and your partner got together 26 years ago, so you may not be safe if he had sex before he met you. If we want to solve this most of us could give our own blood for if and when we need it. It is true more people die from infections in hospitals too, but that doesn't mean we should take risk with having tainted blood. I am hetorosexual and I got that right from God, not the government. If some of you think the government is going to give you more rights, then you need to think again, bc the government has plans to take them away from us all, not give more. You have the basic rights of most Americans. I wished none of us had to get license to marry or go through divorces. I think marriage should be a sanction with a couple and God, leave the government out of it. What happened to don't ask, don't tell, how do they know at the blood bank you are gay if you don't tell. Do you have gay written on your forehead?
Did you get your lack of intellect from God, too, Pat?
Pat please rant to the Vatican not us. They need to also Ban priests from giving blood since they seem to really like little boys.
I guess they think it is there right to have sex with children Since they wear a collar.
nice little qu33r
@Charles Stark-1642988 - I hope you need blood one day and the only person available to give it to you is a homosexual. What would your choice be then?
Statements like yours demonstrate quite vividly your humanitarian urges to help others.
Lift the ban on people having spent time in Europe too. I was stationed overseas for five years from 1984 to 1989 and because of the mad cow disease, my wife and I can no longer donate blood. If I or my wife have not been diagnosed with any problems relating to mad cow after twenty one years......our blood is probably pretty safe.
Has nothing to do with the topic....just wanted to share another ban that should be lifted.
Yes it is ridiculous. Soon nobody will be able to donate blood . Then the backyard bigots could feel all righteous when someone they love died because there was not any blood for them.
If people think gay men should not donate neither should
anyone who had any piercings
anyone with tattoes
anyone who ever had sex
anyone who lives with a drug user or recovering drug user
nurses
etc etc etc People who are in here crying there bigotry have no common sense and are not educated. These are the people who get hiv because they think they cannot because they are not gay or a junkie. Most people I know who are gay men know the risks are higher because it is easier to get it from anal sex , so they use protection more so than the so called Lower risk group.
These people should go to an hiv forum and see how many straight people have this disease .
Why nurses, ashia? I've been giving for YEARS! Only problem is a bit low on iron in finger-prick before donation.
Because nurses spend all day at work swimming in the body fluids of patients. They come in contact with everything from lice and chicken pox to Ebola and AIDS.
A nurse is a walking pandemic waiting to happen. And they wear their crocs and nurse clothes into the grocery store on their way home from work. yucky.
That's why they take precautions like wearing latex gloves, masks, glasses, etc. if they think exposure to body fluid is likely.
The riskiest habit some nurses have is to recap needles instead of disposing of them in the sharps box as is. Needle sticks account for the vast majority of HIV cases among health care workers.
Capt Tripps, a very good friend of mine had diabetes, needed a blood transfusion, that transfusion ended with him getting AIDS and dying. It happened only 4 years ago. Not so good. Lifetime ban is worthwhile
This may have been one of the liars. It is a nasty fact that there are people with HIV who make a project out of infecting others with it. Men on HAART therapy have undetectable HIV levels and can pass the PCR test. But their blood can still infect others.
After running across two men with AIDS who made it their life's mission to infect as many others as possible, I am no longer as trusting, particularly of men who are aggressive about it.
# 18 dicpie: Where di this happen?
dicpie....did the blood your friend got, come from a dirty queer or a nice, normal straight person? Since homo's are banned, some nice straight person with AIDS donated their dirty blood and your friend got killed because of it. So lifetime fag ban does not seem to work.
AIDS doesn't know or care about the type of person it crawls into....gay or straight, republinazi or democrammunist, slut or prude.
Anyone who has had any form of sex...even just ONE time since 1980, could have been exposed to AIDS...so therefore should be banned from giving blood FOREVER. Based on the logic being showcased by most people here.
Oh, come on. The chance of an STI test getting a false result is VERY low.
didpie,
According to the pronouncements from your fellow right wing travelers in the early 80's Falwell etc. it must have been gods judgement that he got it in the first place
This is insanity. One person posts about a friend getting aids from a blood transfusion and the nasty posters show up on the run. If anyone dares to state their opinion here, they are referred to as right wing nut jobs, fear mongers, bigots and on and on. I am not here posting about God, politics or anything else. I worked in a hospital for years and have seen first hand some - not all - aids patients purposely trying to infect others. Had one that put his urinal in the middle of the floor, shut off the lights in the room and rang for help. When the nurse came in she tripped over it and it splashed up her legs. Not saying that all are like this - I had 2 stepbrothers that were gay and both died of aids but neither would have done anything like that. I am not saying pro or con here. All I am saying is this is supposed to be an open forum where all can post their opinions - not just one side or the other. If you want to call names, go to the local schoolyard and join the rest of the kiddies.
Here's the problem I see. Just like the article said, "men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence that’s 60 times higher than the general population." Now, this might not seem like a significant number, but ask yourself this. Would you be willing to fly on an airlines that has had 60 times the number of accidents than the rest of the airlines? It now becomes a significant number. I know there is screening that the blood goes through, but its not a 100% accurate. This is not about political correctness, or "rights". This is about the increased odds of a person receiving a blood donation becoming infected with HIV.
Yes, that 60 times higher risk translates to 40% of the gay male population being HIV+.
This is a pretty stark figure. Gay men have the same HIV rates seen in the worst of Subsaharan Africa.
That means that we should expect that almost half of all gay men who volunteer will be infected.
John, you've been asked several times to post your references. Please do so. You just come sweeping in and throwing numbers out there like that are not helpful at all.
John, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
But he doesn't listen, Niki. Probably because he's a "Fag Hag wannabe!" lol
here are the recent facts from the CDC in a pdf file on HIV infections among gay/bisexual men....all you gay guys who are in denial that you are a high risk catagory, are delusional.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
It's just about 100%. There's a very low chance of a test coming up with a false result.
"The National Hemophilia Foundation, though, will argue at the meeting for the continuation of current policy, pending further research. “We want the science to dictate the choice,’’ says CEO Val Bias. “We don’t want it to be an emotional issue.’’
This nails it on the head. "An emotional issue". This country is surviving barely on emotional thinking. Here's a novel idea for change, leave emotion out of our decision making.
Yes.
Laos Deo,
Another great insight...and so true. The social debate has been so manipulated by a pernicious attempt to create division on social issues, be it race, abortion, HIV, religion vs gay's and lesbians - mostly gays, taxes - shifting the burden from the upper 1-5% with money to the lower 95% wage earner...
It's been VERY financially successful for those who do it...for 30 years now...Emotionalism is a cash cow, and destructive for the country, but it's done well for Republicans...Look at Pat Roberston, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reily Faux Noise and tell me I'm wrong...
Did you know the leading carrier of HIV is currently African American Women? Look up the stats. Currently employed in the blood industry, you don't realize how much blood and blood products are needed every day and there is never never enough. Only 5% of the population donates blood where more than 60% needs blood or blood products. Unless you can find other alternatives to help patients, having homosexual men donating is a huge help to our country and the patients receiving treatment.
First I've heard of that. Where did you get your figures from? African American women are up on the radar, but leading carrier? That's nonsense.
And where are you getting your numbers from John? Huh? Please post the reference.
I have joshua. Here's another few quick search results.
http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm If you look at this, you realize that much depends on what figure is accepted for male homosexual numbers in the USA. These figures show about half a million MSM with HIV. Now, if approximately 1/5th (per Avert.org) of those with HIV are diagnosed, how many MSM have HIV? Could be anywhere from 1.5 million to 3 million. How many homosexual men are there in the USA? I'm not going to look it up, but in terms of primary homosexuals I think 5-7 million is a reasonable figure. Correct me if I'm wrong. That puts the HIV rate for all homosexual men at between 20% and 50% in the USA. All such figures are challengable. It's a matter of best guess in the end.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/world-hiv-aids-adult-prevalence-rate-map.html - This map is a useful one. There is a set of graphics I used for a class I gave a couple months back that showed HIV rates around the world over 30 years taken form a source I don't have at my fingertips now. The most remarkable thing is how much it expanded in most of the world. Quite sobering.
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Thanks for replying John. I notice you called me narrow minded. I've not referred to you as narrow minded and I'm not going to. I however, don't like statistics thrown out without real backup. There seems to a lot of that here on the vine. Please look at your own reference that you just provided me, its says:
At the end of 2007, the CDC estimates that there were 571,378 people living with HIV/AIDS in the 39 states and dependent areas that have a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, based on reported diagnoses and deaths2. However, the total number of people living in the USA with HIV/AIDS is thought to be around 1.1 million3
Also:
You had said:
Now, if approximately 1/5th (per Avert.org) of those with HIV are diagnosed, how many MSM have HIV? Could be anywhere from 1.5 million to 3 million. How many homosexual men are there in the USA? I'm not going to look it up, but in terms of primary homosexuals I think 5-7 million is a reasonable figure.
---
4 out of 5 have been diagnosed. 1 in 5 have not been diagnosed.
according to here: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ca. 309 million people live in the United States. Please rethink your math.
Yes I agree "all such figures are challengable", but I feel that misrepresenting facts is very misleading to people.
Thanks,
Joshua
Marie: Pay no attention to the "Toad" behind the curtain directly below your post.
Well, someone has to be the leading one.
Marie in NC,
You speak the truth...this has been the case since the mid 90's...but I'm sure the get the fa***ts crowd will ignore that truth
Where are you getting the 60% figure?
Even if you claim a person has a 60% lifetime chance of needing a blood transfusion or blood products, that still sounds exaggerated.
The reason for the demand exceeding the supply is that blood products have a short shelf life.
Platelets must be used within 3 days of being harvested.
Red blood cells can be used for 4-6 weeks after being frozen.
Plasma and cryoprecipitate can be stored for longer periods of time, but they are not as useful as red blood cells (which transport around 99% of all the oxygen in human blood).
100% correct, BJK. Well, put.
For John Toradze> Marie is correct in the greatest numbers of new cases of HIV being in black women. Besides general reading, (the sources of which I can't quote off the top of my head), I give blood regular as clockwork every 6 wks. & the Amerian Red Cross out of Columbus, Ohio is where I got my latest stats. that support my conclusion. The CDC SHOULD have info. on it also.
The interesting part of why black heterosexual women should be the greatest cohort is really simple yet not. Many black men will not use a condom as it is a somewhat "anti" masculine belief. If we can't "educate" the men into using them, we need to raise the self-image of black women to "just say no" unless a man uses a condom.
The dangerous people who give blood are the ones who have secret unprotected gay sex on the down low and who will lie about it when asked to give blood. Therefore, they are already giving blood. It's a stupid policy.
Jpsh Ames
Here here Josh...Your post should be mandatory reading for everyone of those morons pointing fingers at openly gay men...
I'm not saying there is no infection rate for out gay men, but the current policy is, and has been so flawed you could fly an Airbus through it...
The fact that there is such a low infection rate from donated blood is NOT because gay men are 'banned' from donating, but demonstrates how good the science is at keeping the blood supply clean...
You realize it doesn't matter whether someone has had gay sex, as all blood is screened for STIs, right?
What the big deal? You already play Russian Roulette when you receive blood anyway. Letting them donate only adds another bullet to the chamber. "You feel lucky punk? Well do ya?!"
FlyinV,
Cynicism is the lowest form of discourse...it solves nothing, it contributes nothing, it only serves the purpose of distraction, creating fear wherever it is applied...that's pathetic guy
Unless it was just uneducated stupidity...which is still pathetic, sad but pathetic
All blood is screened for STIs. It's nothing like that.
Testing costs money. If you already know a certain group is going to have a very high failure rate, you simply eliminate that group from the pool.
If you are willing to pay out of pocket for the testing, go for it.
So, Robert, that means they shouldn't check heterosexuals for STIs? Only "high risk" groups? Really? I wouldn't want to be part of your health care system.
There shouldn't be any problem with gays donating blood. Type A is type A, regardless of where it comes from. There has never been a study which shows having a mental disorder affects one's blood.
I agree with the Type A is Type A comment, but homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. Hasn't been classified as such for a long time now.
Not since 1955, I think. Anyway, it's not in the DSM.
Homosexuality is a genetic defect, not a mental disorder.
Homosexuality is not unique to humans, therefore it is perfectly fine/natural? Many animals eat their own young too. Some animals eat their own feces. Doesn't make it perfectly natural for humans to do so.
So you are comparing homosexuality to eating feces and killing your young. Nice.
Who cares what is "natural?" All that matters is that we are civilized as human beings and don't hurt other people. Homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. Only bigots think otherwise.
"So you are comparing homosexuality to eating feces and killing your young"
well the argument is that homosexuality is natural...so is having sex with juvaniles and so is incest, canabolism and murder and rape....if you are going to say its natural ...and it is...then you must accpet these other behaviors on that premise....the question for humans is whther or not its moral, ethical or healthy....and depending on who you want to believe and why, will decide that issue for your self....but dont be mislead into thinking that all science in this area is unbiased....there is ample evidence to show that the APA has caved to political pressure in many many incidences in the past and the "homosexuality issue" is not unique in that regard.... but this article is about the safety of the human blood supply and clearly the most recent stats from the CDC put white gay men at the top of the list as far as HIV infectsions go...do the math
a quote from the CDC in 2010
"A study of MSM in five U.S. cities found extremely high levels of infection among MSM, and many of those infected did not know it. • Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected. Black MSM were twice as likely to be infected with HIV than other MSM. • Among all of those who were infected, about half were unaware of their HIV status. Results were particularly alarming for black MSM and young MSM, with more than two-thirds of infected black MSM, and nearly 80 percent of infected young MSM (aged 18–24), unaware that they were infected." MSM= men who have sex with men"
It is natural, considering the fact that it comes from genetics.
Lets see some proof pal!
Randy, homosexual behavior has been observed and documented in approximately 1500 animal species, including: mammals (humans, too), birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects and other invertebrates. This has definitely supported scientists' and medical professionals' assertions that homosexuality -- as well as other sexual orientations -- is natural and inborn.
The old "who you going to believe me, or your lying eyes" routine should only be used when you face kindergartners. Which is probably why you spend so much energy demanding that your indoctrination coursework begins at age five.
Randy, in the first place, I work in a middle school -- no kindergartens here. And there has been no "energy" expended demanding any type of "indoctrination" beginning at age five -- YOU ARE A LIAR.
That's too bad, because your "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" bullsh*t has been working so well for you! *sarcasm*