[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;46783265]Like I said, the statistics there say that gay men are about 4x more likely to transmit HIV than straight men[/QUOTE]
This is one of those situations where you need to take into account population sizes before you come to a conclusion like that.
Assume we have 100 straight people and 10 gay people, if 2 straight people get HIV doing what they do and 8 gay people get HIV doing what they're doing, that doesn't mean that gay people are 4 times more likely to get HIV than straight people, what it actually means is 80 percent of the gay population would have HIV while only 0.02 percent of the straight population would have it. This would mean homosexual people would be 40 times more likely to get HIV than straight people. The actual numbers are much much different, this is just an example of how you should have reached your comparative number.
I agree that you are correct about there being nothing inherently more risky about gay sex than straight anal sex. The problem probably comes down to a number of factors, such as anal sex pretty much being the only form of penetrative sex available for homosexual men while anal sex is also the form of sex which poses the greatest risk of HIV transition. Or that the dating pool for gay people is much smaller than the pool for straight people, so if one person ends up catching something everyone in that dating pool is at a much greater risk than those in another dating pool.
I think homosexual people should be allowed to give blood assuming it is properly screened.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;46783553]What? No, I've been saying the opposite the entire time, read my posts.
Well the study I just linked demonstrated that HIV infection rates are identical between homosexual and heterosexual partners engaged in anal sex, so what do you mean? What other possible explanation is there other than much more anal sex occurring among gay couples that would account for identical infection rates when partaking in the same sexual activities?[/QUOTE]
Bro you're entirely missing the point. The study you linked proves that the risk of becoming infected with HIV is much higher in anal sex regardless if it's between a man and a woman or a man and another man. This is a no shit and we've known this for awhile now.
What the FDA and the CDC are saying is that the prevalence of becoming infected with HIV is substantially HIGHER if you have sex with another man.
Look at the statistics from the CDC below.
[quote="CDC"]Women accounted for 25% (7,949) of the estimated 32,052 AIDS diagnoses (including children) in 2011[B] and represent 20% (232,902) of the 1,155,792 cumulative AIDS diagnoses (including children) in the United States from the beginning of the epidemic through the end of 2011[/B][/quote]
[quote="CDC"]In 2011, 75% (24,088) of the 32,052 estimated AIDS diagnoses in the United States (including children) were among men. [B]Men represent 79% (913,368) of the estimated 1,155,792 people (including children) diagnosed with AIDS in the United States through the end of 2011.[/B][/quote]
Women account for 20% of all HIV diagnoses in the United States and men account for 79%. If you have oral/anal sex with a man the chances are much higher of becoming infected with HIV and THIS is why male-male sex is restricted from donating blood.
[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/men/index.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/women/facts/index.html[/URL]
Wait, so why does it matter whether or not they're gay if the issue is that the antibodies take time to develop? Surely that's the exact same thing for anybody regardless of sexuality? It doesn't really matter how many gay people have HIV because the fact is that [I]those[/I] people won't be able to donate, but neither will [I]those[/I] straight people with HIV. So why not just screen everybody? Just because it occurs more in gay people doesn't mean that it doesn't occur at all in straight people. I'm presuming that the antibodies take the same amount of time to develop no matter how you were infected, so statistics don't really make a difference at all, surely?
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46784586]Wait, so why does it matter whether or not they're gay if the issue is that the antibodies take time to develop? Surely that's the exact same thing for anybody regardless of sexuality? It doesn't really matter how many gay people have HIV because the fact is that [I]those[/I] people won't be able to donate, but neither will [I]those[/I] straight people with HIV. So why not just screen everybody? Just because it occurs more in gay people doesn't mean that it doesn't occur at all in straight people. I'm presuming that the antibodies take the same amount of time to develop no matter how you were infected, so statistics don't really make a difference at all, surely?[/QUOTE]
They do screen everybody. They disqualify drug users and those who have visited prostitutes too. Gay sex is considered a high risk behavior by them because of very disproportionate infection rates among gay men.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;46781972]It is true though. Gay couples don't use condoms as often as straight couples because they see no risk of pregnancy, so they fuck each other raw and spread STDs like crazy. People forget condoms protect from STDs in addition to preventing pregnancies.[/QUOTE]
lol what? They have a higher risk of HIV due to they being more likely to partake in anal sex.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46784586]Wait, so why does it matter whether or not they're gay if the issue is that the antibodies take time to develop? Surely that's the exact same thing for anybody regardless of sexuality? It doesn't really matter how many gay people have HIV because the fact is that [I]those[/I] people won't be able to donate, but neither will [I]those[/I] straight people with HIV. So why not just screen everybody? Just because it occurs more in gay people doesn't mean that it doesn't occur at all in straight people. I'm presuming that the antibodies take the same amount of time to develop no matter how you were infected, so statistics don't really make a difference at all, surely?[/QUOTE]
They do screen everybody, there's probably almost a hundred different questions in the typical screening process, just the "I have had sex with another Man" question is a D/Q to donate blood. Although in some places you can still donate your blood (if you have HIV, gay sex etc.) but you just put a special barcode sticker on it saying "Throw this blood away" when scanned.
[QUOTE=StrikerTruck;46781813]You could lie, you're right. The problem here though is that gay people shouldn't have to lie about who they are.[/QUOTE]
Uhh what?
Doesn't the "1 month of sexual inactivity" requirement apply to heterosexual blood donors as well?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46784874]Uhh what?
Doesn't the "1 month of sexual inactivity" requirement apply to heterosexual blood donors as well?[/QUOTE]
Never seen a "1 month of sexual inactivity" question, like so said I just donated blood today and wasn't asked that. Some people here think this is purely some discriminatory thing when it's not entirely, when were talking about whole blood products you need to be incredibly thorough, especially when raw data proves that the incidence of HIV is much more prevalent in sexually active homosexual men.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46784725]They do screen everybody. They disqualify drug users and those who have visited prostitutes too. Gay sex is considered a high risk behavior by them because of very disproportionate infection rates among gay men.[/QUOTE]
Then shouldn't the question be about anal sex? Heterosexual couples are just as capable of having anal sex as homosexual ones, even if it might be less common.
[QUOTE=gufu;46783179]IMO, it's such a blanket law. What if 2/3 of all HIV affected individuals would be black? Would they ban black people from donating?
Again, all they need is information of the last date of having sex with a newest partner. If it's within 9 weeks (or w/e it takes for the specific antibodies development), run the tests (they do this anyway). If clear, bam! Let the donation be made.[/QUOTE]
Yes they would, one of the questions on their questionnaire is, "Have you gone to Europe between 1990 and 1996?"
If you answer yes you are at a higher risk of having Creutzfeldt-Jakop disease and they'll tell you that you can't donate.
Everyone is pushing political agendas on what is a medical issue, the ban was in place because they feared the risk of contamination was too high. The same fear must no longer exist and they have reversed their position. I understand that in everyday life it sucks to get singled out because of where you were born or other factors you can't control, but in medicine the doctors don't take your blood type before giving you a transfusion so they can look down on the AB- peasant, they categorize you because society needs safety and standards in medicine.
[quote]In 2011, 75% (24,088) of the 32,052 estimated AIDS diagnoses in the United States (including children) were among men. Men represent 79% (913,368) of the estimated 1,155,792 people (including children) diagnosed with AIDS in the United States through the end of 2011.[/quote]
So going by this reasoning why didn't the FDA ban men from giving blood? After all they're statistically more likely to have it.
It'd be retarded but the reasoning is pretty much the same.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;46781970][img]http://i.imgur.com/1o3BQr4.png[/img]
The homosexual community's attitude towards HIV is frankly terrible and all this talk about discrimination just seems like a smokescreen to deflect from the real issue. The glaring red issue. With flashing lights. And a siren.[/QUOTE]
you are being stupid. Banning anyone who has had homosexual sex from giving blood- because statistically gay people are more likely to have HIV- is like banning all black people from a football game because- according to the town statistics- they are more likely to commit a violent crime.
As for "the real issue!!!!" Did you not consider the possibility that dating sites like that exist so people who are already infected with HIV can still meet people/get laid/etc without risk of infecting others?- or have you just decided something retarded like "all gay people enjoy spreading hiv! :o"
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46784874]Uhh what?
Doesn't the "1 month of sexual inactivity" requirement apply to heterosexual blood donors as well?[/QUOTE]
1 month of sexual inactivity is not a requirement for donating in the US.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;46785779]you are being stupid. Banning anyone who has had homosexual sex from giving blood- because statistically gay people are more likely to have HIV- is like banning all black people from a football game because- according to the town statistics- they are more likely to commit a violent crime.
As for "the real issue!!!!" Did you not consider the possibility that dating sites like that exist so people who are already infected with HIV can still meet people/get laid/etc without risk of infecting others?- or have you just decided something retarded like "all gay people enjoy spreading hiv! :o"[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing[/url]
[QUOTE=acarvromvroom;46782909]You just can't deny the facts. While the majority of gays are not infected, around 50% of the people with HIV ARE GAY, by excluding gays you are excluding 50% of the infected.
Lifting this ban is pretty stupid and demonstrates a clear disregard for health over retarded non problems such as offending gays.
It's a no brainer that gays should not be allowed to donate blood, chances are that an infected person is gay, therefore the gays should be banned from donating blood. Do not risk the health of others over this retarded shit.[/QUOTE]
Wanna burn people at the stake for being left handed while you're at it?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46783455]So you're saying that there isn't a higher percentage of homosexual men with HIV than any other subset? The CDC begs to differ....
You're saying that anal sex is the reason for this, but it's not proven that even a majority of these cases were due to anal sex. You're trying to say the cause is anal sex, but that's not proven.[/QUOTE]
Because it's a blanket law. The issue is not homosexual sex. The issue is unprotected sex. Since verification of past sexual history when donating blood relies on the honesty of the donor anyway, it makes more sense to ban people who have had unprotected sex in the past, say, six months from donating blood and perhaps people who have had protected anal sex within that time period from donating as well.
As previous posters have documented with verified statistics that you have since ignored or misunderstood, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among gay men does not mean that their homosexuality is a [i]cause[/i] of said prevalence, but rather simply a [i]correlation[/i]. Anal sex and unprotected sex are the cause for a higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS, and if heterosexuals engaged in anal sex and unprotected sex as often as homosexuals the prevalence of HIV/AIDS would potentially be equal among both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
While yes, statistically, it is more likely for a homosexual to find a partner who is HIV positive and have the virus transmitted simply because of the higher prevalence, the choice of a sexual partner in the real world is not a computer simulation and realistically the odds of anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, having sex with a person who is HIV positive are unknown because they rely on more than the prevalence of the virus among potential partners.
A ban on homosexuals donating blood is treating a symptom not a cause. The cause is unprotected sex, especially anal sex. Under any other facet of the law, such a ban would be considered unconstitutional and discriminatory. A ban on people who have participated in unprotected and/or anal sex in the past six months would be fairer and would not put anyone at health risk, because the sexual history of a blood donor is already ascertained from an assumption that said donor is being honest.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;46785931][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing[/url][/QUOTE]
Ah of course, silly me of course all homosexuals have that particular nasty fetish!.
are you trolling m80?
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46785032]Then shouldn't the question be about anal sex? Heterosexual couples are just as capable of having anal sex as homosexual ones, even if it might be less common.[/QUOTE]
No, heterosexual couples who have anal are still far more less likely to come into contact with the disease.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;46785931][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing[/url][/QUOTE]
What the fuck? What does this have to do with anything?
[editline]24th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46786298]No, heterosexual couples who have anal are still far more less likely to come into contact with the disease.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][url]http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmiss...7/#item1446189[/url]
The risk of HIV transmission during anal intercourse may be around 18 times greater than during vaginal intercourse, according to the results of a meta-analysis published online ahead of print in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
...
Two of these studies were conducted with gay men and two with heterosexuals, and the results did not vary by sexuality.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Magman77;46781800]It takes a while for the body to produce traceable antibodies which can be used to detect HIV in blood. It makes sense for them to put a ban on [I]people[/I] who have been sexually active in the past three months.[/QUOTE]
Actually its only about 2 weeks
The body needs 2 weeks or so after getting HIV before HIV is detectable within the bloodstream with certain types of tests that are most certainly used for testing donated blood
The fact that they have a clause that says it needs a fucking year after you've had sex with someone is fucking dumb, especially since it only applies to gay people (for some reason)
And technically it really only applies if you've been sleeping around. If you had sex with the same person yesterday that you've had sex for years with then it doesn't matter at all
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46783267] [...]
Why should blood be donated on a case-by case basis? What happens if there is a mass-casualty event? What if a building collapses and hundreds of people are injured and require immediate blood transfusion? What about service-members that get shot/blown up overseas and require immediate blood transfusion? We have blood banks for a very good reason because you [b]never[/b] know when you are going to need to transfuse blood products.[/QUOTE]
Yes we have blood banks for that exact reason, that have [I]already[/I] been screened for HIV/AIDS/etc. But as previous posters have said, even though there is a higher correlation with homosexual men and HIV, that does not mean it is limited to homosexual men. As the main vector for the virus is unprotected sex, specifically anal and oral. At that point, why implement the ban and simply have the question of any unprotected sex within the past six months with the normal antibody checks.
Even during an emergency, there's still a chance (albeit lower than homosexual men) that a heterosexual man/etc can have HIV from unprotected sex. Any responsible medical technician would check the donor prior to any donation/transfusion.
[QUOTE=gufu;46783179]IMO, it's such a blanket law. What if 2/3 of all HIV affected individuals would be black? Would they ban black people from donating?
Again, all they need is information of the last date of having sex with a newest partner. If it's within 9 weeks (or w/e it takes for the specific antibodies development), run the tests (they do this anyway). If clear, bam! Let the donation be made.[/QUOTE]
gufu: I don't know what proportion of people have AIDS. Let's say half a percent.
Suppose in an alternate universe I told you that the rate of AIDS in the black population was 50%, and everyone else was .5%. Let's go further- suppose I told you that the rate of AIDS in the black population was 90%? Is there any point at which you would be willing to concede that we should exclude black blood from donation?
There is a risk of including a group and a benefit. If the risk is particularly great for one group in society, then I do not dismiss out-of-hand that we should exclude that group - as everyone else seems to do. Instead we have to study and balance the risks and benefits of including the group - and there's bigger issues at hand than whether or not we're offending them.
[QUOTE=KorJax;46786372]Actually its only about 2 weeks
The body needs 2 weeks or so after getting HIV before HIV is detectable within the bloodstream with certain types of tests that are most certainly used for testing donated blood
The fact that they have a clause that says it needs a fucking year after you've had sex with someone is fucking dumb, especially since it only applies to gay people (for some reason)
And technically it really only applies if you've been sleeping around. If you had sex with the same person yesterday that you've had sex for years with then it doesn't matter at all[/QUOTE]
What test can detect it in two weeks?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46786503]What test can detect it in two weeks?[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.idph.state.il.us/aids/materials/10questions.htm]Source[/url]
[quote]Almost all persons develop antibodies within [b]2 to 12 weeks, but it can take up to 6 months after infection.[/b][/quote]
The proper solution here?
Have you had unprotected sex in the past six months? Yes? Then you can't donate blood.
Or you could even go as far and ban it for people who have had anal sex, protected or not, in the past six months because of the high transmission rate.
They can easily test for those things now, you would think it would have been reversed a while ago.
[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;46786307]-About HIV transmission-[/QUOTE]
You're misunderstanding what he actually wrote, though. Of course HIV doesn't care whether you're a homo- or heterosexual, but you're far more likely to encounter an HIV infected partner if you're homosexual, as homosexual men make up ~60%(?) of all HIV infected people in the US. Doesn't mean heterosexual buttsex is safer, just that you're less likely to do it with someone already infected.
Apparently (as far as I can get on the internet) there have only been 3 cases of HIV infections by donor blood in the last ten years in the US, so maybe these rules are outdated and should be changed - at least if there's a shortage of donor blood (which I would imagine there is like many other places).
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;46793112]They can easily test for those things now, you would think it would have been reversed a while ago.[/QUOTE]
Testing is the last line of defense against infectious blood because its not always 100% accurate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
