Pali Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 However' date=' I do not believe that it is natural, nor were we initially created that way.[/quote'] If it's not natural, then why is it seen in animals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Incorrect. Homosexuals can give blood, they can NOT give blood if they have sex with another man. The reason being that in the 90's the aids numbers jumped increadably fast because of bi-sexual men giving it to men not thinking they could get it. Awareness was a lot less than what it is now. Why is it still in place? The same reason you can't get a tattoo within a year of giving blood. The unknown. People are still unsure of how rapidly the symptoms occur when transmitted from one man to another, instead of vaginaly. Lesbians can give blood without problems, just men. Don't agree with it, but it is what it is. Sorry. I was unclear. Although, my question to the Red Cross people is, what constitutes sex? Oral sex? Anal sex? Genital-Genital contact? Kissing? I'd be interested to know where they draw the line. I'd also be interested to see the face of the RC volunteer that gets asked that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinicky Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 well, I would think they define in a more medical manner, such as 'intercourse' rather than simply saying sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Actually, they don't. When I last gave blood (and organized said blood drive), the "Information to Know" or whatever packet said you are deferred from donating if you are male and have had sex with another man (ever). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinicky Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Hrmm. They need to fix that. Heh. And next time you go in, ask the question and come back and tell us what they said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinicky Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 If it's not natural' date=' then why is it seen in animals?[/quote'] Male rabbits attempt sexual intercourse with house cats, if they are in the same household. I don't consider that natural either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 "are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977" That's the exact quote from the eligibility guideline that is in use as of April 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBwillie Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 i, for one, will not be wearing pink or purple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 They would probably go to the risk transmission limit, bleeding gums. If a men told me that he kissed another man i would assume that he was probably lying and that also had intercourse. (Nothing to do with homosexuals, but human nature in general.) But then again i'm not in the Red Cross. Which is a good question. Don't you test blood for AIDS before you collect ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Any particular reasoning, not interested in sharing, or just "no"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 They would probably go to the risk transmission limit, bleeding gums. If a men told me that he kissed another man i would assume that he was probably lying and that also had intercourse. (Nothing to do with homosexuals, but human nature in general.) But then again i'm not in the Red Cross. Which is a good question. Don't you test blood for AIDS before you collect ? Well, the rule has been in place since 1977 (check date?). At that point in time, it was illegal to test volunteer donations for HIV/AIDS. As that's not the case anymore, the FDA restriction is outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 So i assume you test 100% the blood donated like in my country ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Correct. But for some reason this is not reflected in an updated eligibility requirement... All it does is perpetuate yet another stereotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinicky Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Well, it's also a matter of extra precaution. HIV can lie dormant for a LONG time, and when it is dormant, it will not show up on any tests that we currently have for it. Or at least, it was that way when I last read up on it, but that was at least 5 years ago, so newer tests may be present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 By the way why do you guys have this concept that people should only have sex after married ? I am catholic and I do not share the same view, nor i condone condoms. I did not say I have this concept. Merely that I could understand Kinicky having it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 As I mentioned earlier, statistically speaking, African-American and Latina women are more at risk for contraction of HIV than homosexual males. Yet they are not barred from giving blood. As far as the actual currency of that knowledge... I'm not sure either. But you can rest assured I will do some research on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinicky Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I did not say I have this concept. Merely that I could understand Kinicky having it. Well, I do have a Christian worldview, but I would not go so far as Catholicism. For example, I believe in a biblical concept of marriage and sex, but I do not have any problems with the use of contraceptives. I suppose if someone could convince me that there was a Biblical mandate AGAINST it, I might shift position, but that person would be hard pressed to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinicky Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 As I mentioned earlier, statistically speaking, African-American and Latina women are more at risk for contraction of HIV than homosexual males. Yet they are not barred from giving blood. As far as the actual currency of that knowledge... I'm not sure either. But you can rest assured I will do some research on the matter. Let us know what you find. And I think it is safe to say that there are a great many prejudices and outdated laws/regulations based on prejudice against homosexuals. I do not agree with the lifestyle, but I guarantee you I will be the first up defending them against anyone who begins any gay bashing. Which, as a side note, I just want to say that it is refreshing to be able to have a conversation about a possibly volatile topic in a manner that promotes mutual respect. Especially on a forum known for requiring heavy moderation because of flaming and flame-baiting. Kudos to you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 My preliminary findings (I'm not stopping, just letting you know what I've found so far via the Red Cross and some info by the Human Rights Campaign): Current HIV testing is extremely effective. As of 2001, 1 in 2.5 million transfusions resulted in a new case of HIV (meaning the screening missed the infected blood, and it was given to a non-HIV infected patient). Multiple tests allow for maximum effectiveness, including two high-sensitivity HIV antibody tests and nucleic acid tests. There IS a window period that often provides "false negative" test results (which is why HIV testing is done as a series, not a single "conclusive" test). While most infected people begin to produce HIV antibodies within 30 days of contracting the disease, there is a range of anywhere from 21 days to 6 months in which a potentially infected person could return a "false negative" result, the higher end of the spectrum occurring only in extremely rare cases. What does this mean? No, HIV testing is not 100% effective. No, if you receive a blood transfusion, you are not 100% guaranteed to not be infected with HIV. However, there are two things to consider. First of all, I would wager that blood is tested for weeks if not months, prior to being used in any medical procedure. Second of all, with the extremely low odds of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion, the extremely careful screening process donors and their blood go through, and frankly, the treatability of HIV in this day and age, I will not pass up a blood transfusion if it's going to save my life or the life of whoever I happen to be the medical proxy for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieman Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 i' date=' for one, will not be wearing pink or purple.[/quote'] No, but Tony Romo might as well! Yes, neither of us are finishing this feud until sunday night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Out of curiosity, Mya... if you're cool with sex outside of marriage, why aren't you cool with condom use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insepiddeception Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I support em I will wear a shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Sweet. A day that can make me proud of myself by not respecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wayward Knight Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Every Christian just loves to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he or she wants to listen to. For the feminist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that women should submit to their husbands, and that the husband should be the head of the household. For the anti-feminist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that men should honor their wives and treat them with respect and care. For racist Christians, they choose to disbelieve that Jesus wasn't white. For gay Christians, they choose to disbelieve that non-heterosexual sex (sodomy) is a sin. For gay-hater Christians, they choose to disbelieve that God loves everybody, no matter where you put it. Me? No, I didn't wear pink or purple. I had no idea it was, and have never heard of, whatever-day-you-said-that-was. And even if I had, I wouldn't wear pink or purple, because I don't have but two shirts that fall into that category of colors, and they are both dirty. Plus, none of the gay people I know are even willing to admit that what they are doing -might- be wrong. Not is, but might be. They aren't even willing to admit that they are fallible and as human as the rest of us. I don't care if it is, or isn't. Actually, I just don't care. Put it where it makes you happy, gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I'm not even going to get involved here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.