Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in
Replies: 86 (Who?), Viewed: 19456 times.
Page 1 of 4
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#1 Old 10th Sep 2010 at 9:42 PM
Default Canadian Drive Doesn't Want Gay Blood
A Canadian judge recently upheld a gay blood donation ban set by the Canadian Blood Services (CBS) after a man lied about his sexual orientation while giving blood and was fined $10,000.

The supporters of the ban say that there is a "high relative prevalence" of HIV and other blood-born sexually transmitted pathogens among men who have sex with men, while critics say that it is discriminatory, and that "members of the gay community get blood as well", meaning that safety is important for everyone, including gay people.

Keep in mind that the reason why the ban was upheld was because CBS is not affiliated with the government, and therefore the Charter of Rights doesn't apply to them. Also, my question isn't whether the ruling was correct, but if there should be a ban in the first place.

In my opinion, it's idiotic to ban gays on this premise. All blood is tested, so they'll catch cases of HIV and other problems either way. It sounds like a case of homophobia to me. Oh, Canada.
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#2 Old 10th Sep 2010 at 9:48 PM
Oh, Canada. You'd think it would have progressed past something this prejudiced and ignorant by now.
Site Helper
#3 Old 10th Sep 2010 at 9:50 PM
It's bullsh*t. If a guy had sex with one other guy since 1977, he can't donate blood? Give me a break.

The rules need to be altered. I'd much rather get blood from a gay man who's been monogamous for the last 10 years than a heterosexual who's had 6 partners in that same time period.

It also bothers me that, by excluding gay men from donating blood, they're equating them with drug users and prostitutes.

And, potentially, wouldn't allowing more people to donate blood save lives in the long run? If someone donates blood and they find out they're HIV positive, they can take proper steps not to spread it around. By assuming that all gay men are carrying HIV and denying them the opportunity to donate, the blood services people may actually be helping to spreading the disease...
Inventor
#4 Old 10th Sep 2010 at 9:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakepeeps7
It's bullsh*t. If a guy had sex with one other guy since 1977, he can't donate blood? Give me a break.

The rules need to be altered. I'd much rather get blood from a gay man who's been monogamous for the last 10 years than a heterosexual who's had 6 partners in that same time period.

It also bothers me that, by excluding gay men from donating blood, they're equating them with drug users and prostitutes.

And, potentially, wouldn't allowing more people to donate blood save lives in the long run? If someone donates blood and they find out they're HIV positive, they can take proper steps not to spread it around. By assuming that all gay men are carrying HIV and denying them the opportunity to donate, the blood services people may actually be helping to spreading the disease...

Yes to all of that and :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Element Leaf
All blood is tested, so they'll catch cases of HIV and other problems either way.


Because perhaps not everyone is aware all blood is tested for HIV and other things anyway, regardless of how the donor answered the silly questions.
Mad Poster
staff: retired moderator
#5 Old 10th Sep 2010 at 10:05 PM
It's the same in NZ. I understand the desire to be cautious, but the science isn't really there to support a total ban on homosexual donors. I'm 0-, so it's a damn shame I can't donate.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Scholar
#6 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 7:03 AM
They should only let lesbians donate. A dutch test showed 60% of straight couples onlce in a while has anal sex. Lesbians are much safer.


"If I were not hijacked by my ex I could have been doing REAL science." - Stephen Hawking
Field Researcher
#7 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 7:09 AM
Eh, but even lesbians can and do experiment once in a while. They should only let small children donate. Much safer.
Scholar
#8 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 7:28 AM
Is donor blood not screened for the presence of HIV (or other pathogens) in Canada?

Provided the blood serology is clean, there should be no issue with homosexual men donating blood. Yes, the incidence of HIV is higher among this community, but heterosexual men and women (even if they are not drug users or prostitutes) can still be infected with HIV. If a donors serology comes back as negative for blood-borne pathogens, they should be able to donate regardless of their sexual orientation.

If I required a life saving blood transfusion, I would much rather take the tested donated blood of a homosexual man than bleed to death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanito
They should only let lesbians donate. A dutch test showed 60% of straight couples onlce in a while has anal sex. Lesbians are much safer.


I'm not sure what this statement has to do with anything. Anal sex doesn't equate to HIV. If both partners, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, do not have STDs or STIs, there is no difference between anal sex and vaginal intercourse.
And lesbians can still engage in anal penetration- there are a variety of interesting toys available that make this possible. If infected bodily fluids are transferred from one person to another, regardless of how it was done (vaginal, anal, oral ect), there is the potential that the other person may develop the illness... even if they are lesbian.
Top Secret Researcher
#9 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 7:58 AM
I agree. Small children. Preferably orphans, fed on sugar water and farmed properly they should get several gallons a week from a properly treated child.
Forum Resident
#10 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 8:01 AM
Unfortunately it is also the same here in the US with the American Red Cross. I agree, however, that it is nothing more than needless homophobia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenielle
I'm not sure what this statement has to do with anything. Anal sex doesn't equate to HIV. If both partners, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, do not have STDs or STIs, there is no difference between anal sex and vaginal intercourse.


Supposedly, it is easier to catch STDs and such through anal intercourse, due to the lining (or due to how absorbant it is or something, since a lot of water is also collected through the large intestines).

....Aaand now thanks to that "absorbant" bit I'm now reminded of paper towel commercials. I really hate how my mind works sometimes.
Scholar
#11 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 8:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anothereyjana
Supposedly, it is easier to catch STDs and such through anal intercourse, due to the lining (or due to how absorbant it is or something, since a lot of water is also collected through the large intestines).

....Aaand now thanks to that "absorbant" bit I'm now reminded of paper towel commercials. I really hate how my mind works sometimes.


While it is true that anal sex with an infected partner can more easilly spread sexually transmitted infection or disease due to the increased mucous membrane of the anus, if both partners are clean, HIV (or any other infection/disease) cannot be spread.

Heterosexual couples can both engage in anal sex and test positive for all sexually transmitted infections and diseases, yet are still able to donate blood.

Providing that the donated blood is tested before being distributed there is no scientific basis for not allow homosexual men to donate blood. It just seems a little backward when donated blood is such a precious commodity and there are willing (and clean) donors.
Mad Poster
#12 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 11:45 AM
It's the same way in the UK too.

My Sims 3 stories blog - *NEW* Heather Legacy
My Sims 3 CC blog || My MTS page
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
11th Sep 2010 at 1:03 PM
This message has been deleted by Wojtek. Reason: Never mind...
Lab Assistant
#13 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 1:26 PM
Sadly, this seems to be the case in Norway as well, guidelines posted on the Norwegian Red Cross blood donor site is similar to what Wojtek quotes. A few articles on news sites informs it has been up for discussion if men that has been in sexual contact with other men should be allowed to donate blood recently - opinions on this is scattered wildly among political parties and individuals. Honestly, since Sweden opened up for gay blood donors, I kind of expected Norway to follow.

Interestingly enough, we still want them to donate their organs. (Same restrictions on disease and conditions as for straights apply.)

Well I can't look under the hood but nothing will erase the joy of gunning townies down in front of City Hall - suzetter
Mad Poster
#14 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 2:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wojtek
'Persons who because of their sexual behavior are at increased risk of serious infection diseases which can spread through blood transfusions'

No word about homosexuals and the 'sexual behavior' described may apply to anyone whose sexual activities are somewhat emmm...risky ??



We have similar requirements, and they actually don't let you donate blood if you've had more than one or two sex partners during the last six months. You also can't donate if you're pregnant, if you have skin diseasese, if you've had surgery during the last six months, if you're a pilot, truck driver or operate heavy machinery, or if you are in a profession that involves caring for animals. Regarding HIV, blood does get tested but it usually takes about six months for the infection to become visible in blood tests so I can see why they would try to eliminate as much as possible the risks for contamination. Besides, people also tend to lie if they are poor and donate for the benefits they get from donating. Don't know how it's in other countries, but in my country they give you some food coupons and a day off from work and some bus fare discounts.

View my other downloads on MTS

www.mintrubbing.org
Site Helper
#15 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 7:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenielle
Is donor blood not screened for the presence of HIV (or other pathogens) in Canada?


Of course it's screened. They learned that lesson from the Hepatitis C debacle. At least, I hope they learned something from that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenielle
Anal sex doesn't equate to HIV.


I think the issue/fear here is that anal sex could cause ruptures or cuts in the anus. That's a great way for the virus to enter the bloodstream. Having anal sex doesn't mean you're more likely to be carrying the disease in the first place... but it probably increases the risk of transmitting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Leia
Eh, but even lesbians can and do experiment once in a while. They should only let small children donate. Much safer.


Is it really safer? I thought all children were rife with Hepatitis B. Isn't that why they stick them with the vaccine right after birth?

Size matters, though. Children wouldn't be allowed to donate blood, no matter how clean it was. I've yet to reach the required weight for blood donation. I've been about 5 pounds short my whole adult life. I'd be willing to donate... but they don't want my skinny-ass blood. Eh... their loss.
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#16 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 9:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakepeeps7
Having anal sex doesn't mean you're more likely to be carrying the disease in the first place... but it probably increases the risk of transmitting it.
There's also the more frequent lack of condom use, since anal sex won't produce, er, children if it's unprotected. However, this is still highly irrelevant to the matter when blood is tested no matter what.
Test Subject
#17 Old 11th Sep 2010 at 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocobaura
Besides, people also tend to lie if they are poor and donate for the benefits they get from donating. Don't know how it's in other countries, but in my country they give you some food coupons and a day off from work and some bus fare discounts.


Here in Canada there is no money given to donate, you donate because you want to.

In regards to Anal sex, people rarely use condoms, and it doesn't equal pregnancy, BUT there is NO lubrication there to soften the 'ahem' movements. Which creates a bigger happening of tears, which will open yourself up immensely for the virus to pass through the fluid of the member, into the tears. That is why anal sex can be extremely dangerous if you do not use a condom AND lube.
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
12th Sep 2010 at 12:17 AM
This message has been deleted by Wojtek. Reason: Never mind...
Scholar
#18 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 2:51 AM
Who wouldn't use lube? Ow.

I'm pretty sure you guys know how I feel about this- Headdesk. Such a moronic decision. That's like turning a donor away because you think their haircut is stupid. Thank you, Canada, for restoring my faith in humanity.

Canadians are such fags, bro.

"You're born naked, and everything else is drag."
dA
Last.fm
tumblr
Scholar
#19 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 5:32 AM
Its lame that people are often banned because they are gay, bi whatever, wether they are virgins or not, sexually active or not. The thing is, people probably will feel safer when a label says "exclude gays", taking into consideration the large amount of non tolerant and "semi tolerant" (aka semi intolerant) people.


"If I were not hijacked by my ex I could have been doing REAL science." - Stephen Hawking
Forum Resident
#20 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 6:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pare321
Who wouldn't use lube? Ow.


...There are some kinky, kinky bastards out there. Rule 34 people, Rule 34.

And yeah, like I said, the whole "gays can't donate blood" thing is ridiculous and downright homophobic, and it saddens me to find out that it is apparently so widespread. Plus, you can't even really follow the supposed logic behind it, other than that some people apparently think that homosexuality can be spread via bodily fluids. "Don't let their blood git in ya, it'll turn ya GAAYY!!" Sorry people, but there's only one type of "bodily fluid exchange" that can determine if you're gay or not.

As for the whole "HIV risk" thing, if they were really serious about watching out for it, they would require all adults to have proof that they have been tested for STDs within the past year before they can donate. That would do a hell of a lot more for curbing HIV/AIDS/other STDs than discrimination will.
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
12th Sep 2010 at 12:56 PM
This message has been deleted by Wojtek. Reason: Never mind...
Scholar
#21 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 1:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anothereyjana
...There are some kinky, kinky bastards out there. Rule 34 people, Rule 34.

And yeah, like I said, the whole "gays can't donate blood" thing is ridiculous and downright homophobic, and it saddens me to find out that it is apparently so widespread. Plus, you can't even really follow the supposed logic behind it, other than that some people apparently think that homosexuality can be spread via bodily fluids. "Don't let their blood git in ya, it'll turn ya GAAYY!!" Sorry people, but there's only one type of "bodily fluid exchange" that can determine if you're gay or not.

As for the whole "HIV risk" thing, if they were really serious about watching out for it, they would require all adults to have proof that they have been tested for STDs within the past year before they can donate. That would do a hell of a lot more for curbing HIV/AIDS/other STDs than discrimination will.

There are quite some couples that do not have sex anymore in their marriages, so having those tested then donate half a year later would work better. People can always lie, and there are already lying gays on gayseites (who find the rules ridiculous since they are not sexing around) so rules only work half anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wojtek
I consider myself self-tolerant but I'm not homophobic because homophobia means acts of hatred and aggression towards the homosexuals. I'm not like that. I only think it's too early to establish laws allowing homosexual marriages/homosexual couples adopting children in Poland. The situation is not as easy as majority of you think. It's very complex and sensitive. The political situation in my country is very unstable and the society is divided. We cannot even deal with simple matters such as the cross in front of the Presidential Palace. You cannot change the society immediately, everything needs time.

Just to remind you: When WWII had ended western Europe was living in a world of freedom while eastern Europe was under USRR rule. There was no freedom in communist Poland and other countries of eastern Europe. Although we've been free for 20 years it's too early to impose radical and controversial changes. You have to understand and respect it. That's the way tolerance works. Bear in mind you cannot attack intolerant people if you don't actually understand why they're like that.

Where you live may affect the propaganda you get stuffed down your throat. It does not take away the free choice to be tolerant or not.

When someone says they are semi tolerant to gays to some it may sound ok or normal, to me it doenst sounds any better than people who say they are only semi-tolerant to black people. Narrowmindedness is a choice in itself wether its packed as hate, fear or dislike ror baling it on culture. Wherever you live.


"If I were not hijacked by my ex I could have been doing REAL science." - Stephen Hawking
Test Subject
#22 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 1:47 PM
Very strange how ignorant many groups still are today.

Where we live, it is oh maybe 80% gay people in the area, so we have aquired quite a few (many) gay friends through work, going out to the restaurants, and just walking the dogs around the streets here.

While I know it's not some scientific study or anything and far from ever being able to say that either the minority or the majority of gay people are the same as our many friends, what I do know is that out of the many gay friends that we have here, the vast majority of them are in monogomous (sorry spelling) relationships and have been for 5, 10, 20, up to 50 years in some of our friends cases. Completely one on one like husband and well... husband.

From my way of seeing it, the gay people that are in these commited relationships and that don't cheat on each other have a as much chance of coming down with HIV or Aids as any of the other straight couples in the area that are also in a committed and monogamous relationship.

It sounds to me like this CBS is assuming that 'all' homosexuals sleep around with any old guy they can shack up with for a night, which if true would obviously put them at a greater risk for catching a disease, if not HIV or Aids, and assuming they are not practicing safe sex.

I don't know, it just sounds crazy to me to exclude a portion of the population because they 'might' be of the minority of people in general in this world that are shacking up with everybody they possibly can.

Don't get me wrong, obviously there are gay people just as their are straight people that do try to notch their bedposts with as many people as they can have sex with, but to exclude an entire group of people based on the assumption seems a little high handed to me.

One of my best friends is gay, actually he probably is my best male friend and he's been in a relationship with his partner now for over 35 years, and assures me that neither of them have any desire to go sexing around with strangers and neither do as he tells me, I just can't imagine if he was willing to donate blood to get down to a blood bank and be told 'sorry, we don't want your gay blood', I suppose if I went down to a blood bank to give blood with him and heard that I'd likely go off the wall on the person and let them have an earful they'd not likely forget anytime too soon.

With the ability to test the blood for almost all forms of disease it seems a huge waste to me to exclude a population that might be willing to donate their blood to help others.

It does indeed sound to me like it's nothing more than a very homophobic run organization. I do have to wonder though if whomever it is at that organization was in need of blood or would die and the only available blood was from a gay person, whether they would take the blood or let themselves die.

Reminds me of a situation we had around here about 3 or 4 years ago with a terrible accident where this couples child was hit by a car (accidental) around the block, the childs parents were known to be one of the most forward stepping homophobic people in the area, but yet the women was more than willing to take assistance for her child from the man that lived next door that they had shunned for supposedly years because he was gay.

I guess it just makes me wonder what sort of catastrophe it would take where the blood service would be willing to lift the restriction and take some 'gay blood' in the face of some huge emergency.

Sorry for the long(ish) post, I am a very liberal person and fully believe in live and let live if one does not harm one another, and I've yet to see the harm in any of my friends being gay, but have seen plenty of anger and sometimes tears in their eyes for those times that they are face with discrimination or hatred simply because they are gay. When I heard some of the stories from the really older gay men about what they had to endure in their lives just because somebody else couldn't live and let others live when they are not hurting anybody and doesn't have the brainpower to possibly research the situation, but rather just take the biggoted or homophobic path in life just makes me want to puke.

Anyway, again my apologies, I was remembering some of the stories that we heard at some house get togethers and it sometimes makes me embarrased just to be a part of the human race.

Somebody needs to ask CBS where that tainted blood came from, is it all from homosexual men who lied on their paperwork and who didn't know they had HIV or some other communicable disease, or was some of it from the straight guy that didn't bother to mention that he too was sleeping with any women that would take him and an eight ball for the night. Yuck, it's just shameful to me that we as human beings haven't evolved past this already.

Yeah, I'm sure that one morning I'm going to kick my fiance out of the bed and pronounce that I've decided to go homosexual because we go out to dinner too often with our neighbor Curtis and Paul. Pffft, stupid humans.
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
12th Sep 2010 at 3:14 PM
This message has been deleted by Wojtek. Reason: Never mind...
Mad Poster
staff: retired moderator
#23 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 3:27 PM
Wojtek there's a lot I'm tempted to say right now, but it all belongs in another thread.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
12th Sep 2010 at 3:54 PM
This message has been deleted by Wojtek. Reason: Never mind...
Scholar
#24 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 4:02 PM
In the UK, we have a fairly high percentage of gay men with HIV. I saw a news report a few months ago in which some statistics came out - that 1 in every 10 gay men is HIV positive. I think some of those are unaware (they get these statistics from routine blood tests, if they do a random blood test on you for another reason they wont necessarily tell you that you have HIV). A bit of a dodgy statistic, but scare-mongering none-the-less.

The gay activists were saying that if it was heterosexual people it would be a national emergency, but because everyone is against them its homophobia as to why people aren't going crazy. Personally at the time I thought it was because gay men are a relatively small demographic, but that's just me.

I think it is disgusting that even here in the UK we won't let people give blood if they've had sex with a man (and are a man themselves). It's all because of the "gay plague" scare in the 1960s (so-called because it was first detected in a gay community in the USA). I honestly can't understand why it's still banned.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Mad Poster
#25 Old 12th Sep 2010 at 5:01 PM
In the last 10-15 years or so the rates of infection via heterosexual sex has actually overtaken the rates of infection via homosexual sex, meaning that when you look at transmission statistics you can see that the rates are now virtually equal for both.

Whilst I understand why the Red Cross (and other countries' equivalents) will not accept donations from men who have sex with men - they are a high risk group - I don't necessarily agree with it. Blood is screened and you're equally likely to catch HIV from a straight partner than a gay one. With the way that transmission routes are changing I think this is something that will be phased out in the coming years.

My Sims 3 stories blog - *NEW* Heather Legacy
My Sims 3 CC blog || My MTS page
Page 1 of 4
Back to top

Section jump