Bitcoin Forum

I mean, come on, "Are a man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once"

Really?  I mean, I know my blood is clean.  As opposed to every straight friend I have, I get my blood tested for disease, every few months.  As does my magnanimous partner. 

what the fuck are you talking about?

shouldn't this be at politcs&society if it actually makes any sense?

I shared a needle once disqualifying me.  I don't see why gays deserve any more rights than i do

You're probably correct - my bad, someone move it.  I just figured it was off topic of bitcoin.



Really?  You don't see a difference?  I mean, the point here is if you are getting your blood tested for diseases and you are clean, it's dumb to disqualify.

I'm disease free, already checked.  But the fact I used them is an important red flag in finding people too stupid to check.  I know it's stupid, but when I'm sick one day, I want my blood coming from the cleanest sources possible.

wait,wait,wait

gay people can't give blood  ???

btw, you can move it yourself

bottem left corner, move topic

Actually, the ban is not at all, stupid as the risk of STDs especially Aids is much higher in gay community, you also have to note that the blood test are not 100% http://std.about.com/od/herpes/f/herpesaccurate.htm the accuracy range from 92% to 99% depending on the test, and that is huge if you consider the numbers we are talking about in blood donations and risk % blood donation from gay community can be a concern

I think he has a point.. it's not about sexual preference but health. Where are you from? The post was rather short

I think banning gay men from giving blood is completely stupid.
HIV doesn't even cause AIDS, it's a lifestyle disease. (ie, doing things to wear down your immune system).
Check out the work of Professor Peter Duesberg. He was interviewed on the Joe Rogan show recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jj0mUYJ_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1jj0mUYJ_g)
& here's his flagship book... Inventing The AIDS Virus:
http://amzn.com/0895263998 (http://amzn.com/0895263998)
It's quite the read at over 700 pages, but the dude knows his stuff. Unfortunately, he has been blackballed by the medical establishment & his funding has been cut.
Profit before people is a sad reality.

If AIDS is a lifestyle disease then why wasn't it killing people left and right in the free sex and drug era of the 60s-70s?

Even the gay community itself called it the "gay cancer" before AIDS was known because it was something new and unheard of.

Poppers for one are a HUGE immune suppressant, as well as meth (both big in the gay community).
In the 60's & 70's people were smoking pot, dropping acid, taking shooms... that sort of thing.
Also if you look at the bath-house culture & the number of sexual partners involved in that would have. These folks were getting STD's left & right.
What difference did it make to them if you can clear most of them up with anti-biotics. Anti-biotics are immune suppressants on their own. Imaging taking multiple rounds of anti-biotic treatments.
It's enough to fry your immune system.
Dr. Robert Gallo, under pressure from the US government hypothesized that the retro-virus, HIV, was the cause of AIDS. The US government accepted this whole-heartedly without much research into it.
They were under pressure from many gay rights groups. The hypothesis was accepted as the truth & any other research into the matter was de-funded & blackballed.
At least look into what I'm saying. No-one should blindly accept anything without researching it first.
I would also recommend the documentary film "House of Numbers" & the follow-up "Positively False", they are both on You tube.

House of Numbers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwgmzbnckII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwgmzbnckII)

Positively False:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-iccGpFto8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-iccGpFto8)

EDIT: Also I forgot to mention that those tested to have the retro-virus, HIV, were given highly toxic chemotherapy drugs (mainly AZT, which was rejected for use in cancer treatment because of how toxic it was) & now they are given anti-retro-viral drugs, while not as deadly as AZT... are still an immune suppressant.

Yeah most of gay get more right than a normal people. And most of people more feel disgusting to black people than gay. They are laugh at black people but, defend the gay with human rights.

I have no dog in this race. I guess I'm bisexual, but I only date transwomen. In my opinion, both the gay & black rights movements have gotten out of control. It's fucked up to put a label on every damn thing, as all it does is divide people. Personally, I like the fact that we are all human & that's good enough. The human race is unlikely to survive, when it's constantly fighting itself.

There are probably certain health concern which make them higher risk than an average person.

Should not turn valid issues into a political debacle.

I'm more concerned about people like my roommate that live on fast food & GMO's giving blood... I wouldn't want that garbage in my system.

The debate was political from the start.

In some regions, like Eastern Europe or Middle East a large part of society don't understand it. Cultural and religious factors are responsible for homophobia, transphobia, etc. In Islamic countries, the situation is probably the worst. Western problems are funny compared to them.

Yea, gay sex will get you the death sentence in many African & Muslim fundamentalist countries.
Nigeria is a good example.

This is such a sensationalist thread and we've got far bigger issues in society to be concerned about imo. :-\

The possibility of airborne Ebola does take precedence over this, I agree.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33277/title/Ebola-from-Pigs-to-Monkeys/ (http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33277/title/Ebola-from-Pigs-to-Monkeys/)

Woah I was not even aware this was a thing still. That's disgusting. As long as they are tested there should be no issues.

The tests look for anti-bodies. What are anti-bodies? They are created by your immune system to fight off viruses. If you have anti-bodies of whatever in you're system, it means that you have effectively fought off the virus. This is basic 6th grade science... why is the most basic & obvious discarded? For Profits... that''s why!

This is a difficult issue. If there is in fact a known higher risk of transmitting a disease from the blood of male homosexuals I can see not allowing them to give blood if there is no absolute way to rule out these diseases. At the same time it smacks of prejudice to exclude them.

My brother is a homosexual and I know how difficult it can be when you are treated as less than human, but my wife had 3 blood transfusions back in the early 1980's that could have been a death sentence for her so I can see both sides of this. 

We need to move this discussion beyond politics and focus on the human side of it.

This is a kind of right that MAY have some kind of threat. Rethink about it, it isn't stupid.

Right. Political correctness is getting in the way of issue.

HIV is a retro-virus. Retro-viruses are harmless, everyone is full of them.

Says the person with an infowars link in their signature. What is with all the tin foil hat stuff lately?

That's old news; they kept the two in very close proximity for an extended period of time, inevitably it was going to spread.  As long as you're not exposed to someone with ebola for extended periods of time, you're probably not going to catch it; you have much greater odds of catching and dying from the flu.

Every single population group, which is having an above average prevalence of diseases which are spread through blood should be banned from donating blood. For every state / region, a HIV prevalence survey should be done. If the HIV prevalence for a particular population group (such as gays, IDUs, sex-workers, truck drivers, prisoners, bankers.etc) is more than 10 times the general prevalence, then that group should be excluded from donating blood.

And since HIV was first discovered among the homosexuals (it was exclusively a disease among the gays for more than a decade, before spreading to the general population through blood donated from the gays) I am skeptical about using blood derived from them.

HIV will eventually turn into AIDS which will kill you (it actually makes it easier for sickness to kill you, but the point is still there). If you have HIV it will eventually turn into AIDS.

I don't have HIV or AIDs.  I am in a magnanimous relationship with my boyfriend.  We both get tested every other month.  Not just for aids, but full STD panels.  Why can't I give blood?  A good answer...


This isn't strictly true - but is in practicality.

We both get tested every other month

Why so often if you trust each other?

Health is not about being politically correct. As soon as you inject PC into the mix you may end up with hepatitis c, or worse. Not giving blood is not the end of your life. What other things can you do to help out on your free time? You don't have enough free time? How much can you give to your favorite blood bank? This is how things work really.

OK.... I have a compromise solution.

Let there be two types of blood banks. The first type should accept blood from everyone, without any restriction at all. The second type should accept blood only from the safe groups.

Let the consumers (sic) decide which blood they want.  ;D

Best practice. 

I agree that it should be more about the safety or health not on sexuality.

That is kind of the point I think. If there is even a slight risk of something being wrong and it isn't completely preventable you have to make the tough choice. Even a slight risk is too much.

That's at least an average of what... 6, 7 tests a year? Unless you are in the porn industry then yes that would make best practice sense.
Anyway don't forget the thousands of other ways you can still massively help your next of kin, blood relatives or not.

As I explained before the risk involved with gay community is high and the blood test are not reliable enough, if blood test was 100% reliable, this won't be a non issue, but it isn't the case, and for this same reason, people with high risk (it's not limited to gay) http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical-listing
As for other countries it depends but according to redcross I don't see any limitation on this matter

If they are brave enough to have their veins fierce with a big needle and see their blood flowing to the blood bag. Then why not?

So what if the person is not openly gay?  They can still give blood right?  So that would mean the system is very flawed in my opinion.  I could be wrong and would like someone to explain how if so.

But wont the gay blood make me gay? Or maybe if I just got a little bit of it I would have better fashion sense.  ???

I believe gay is a result of hormonal abnormality. If those blood has shemale hormones maybe that can affect you.  :)

This is just common sense.

It's just not about HIV, by the way.  There are numerous things transmitted by blood.

Being gay is a sign you are not fit to contribute to the future existence of man.

Thank you for willingly removing yourself from the genepool.


Maybe these 'gays' should have taken better care of their acts before HIV rates among themselves sky rocketed.

You bigots can seriously go die in a fire.  Thread locked.