Gays Still Pissed They Can’t Poison Blood Supply: Suggest Blacks Should Be Banned From Blood Donation
I wrote on the 11th that gays are extremely upset that they are being discrminated against because they are forbidden from donating blood. Instead they want to have the right to push HIV infected blood into the American plasma pool because to them, that would be better than the insult of “discrimination.” Well, happily, their argument failed and the gay ban remains in place. Now the same gays say that if they are going to be banned, they should ban black people from donating too.
From Slate here:
According to the Centers for Disease Control, HIV prevalence is eight to nine times higher among blacks than among whites, and HIV incidence (the rate of new infections in a given year) is seven times higher. For black women, HIV prevalence is 18 times higher than for white women.
And these numbers understate the likely difference in risk to the blood supply. A recent CDC analysis of MSM in five cities found that while only 18 percent of the HIV-infected white men were unaware of their infections, 67 percent of the infected black men were unaware.
So instead of focusing on the real issue here, in that there needs to be more awareness and education among black communities, the liberals, still butthurt about the gay blood ban, wants to genuinely ban blacks too. Because maybe if it is outright racist, maybe then gays can poison the blood supply?
Wait, it sounds like blacks are far more likely to posion the blood supply then whites… so its quite possible a black person killed your mother in law. Are you telling me you are okay with letting blacks posion the blood supply? Though I wonder, what are the odds of a gay person contracting AIDS if they only have safe sex and make sure that the person they are having sex with hasn’t been declared positive. Are you saying that education wouldn’t help the gay community too?
P.S. You know enough to know that I know (is that enough knowing yet! lol) that their are people who do this in the gay community, yea some are idiots, but there are a lot of straight idiots too.
The original argument by gays was “let us help keep the blood supplies full by allowing us to donate.” Now that they were ruled against, their argument is “you should reduce the blood supply by eliminating blacks.”
Blacks might be an elevated risk, but no where near the risk of a gay man, regardless of skin color.
Maybe so, but I am also willing to bet you are the type that would rather have a boy in an orphanage (group home whatever), then in a home of a loving (gay) father. I donno, if you no you aren’t sick, and have had the same partner for the past decade, why shouldn’t you be allowed to give blood? You can lie about being gay as much as you can lie about anything else that they ask you.
What the hell are you babbling about gay fathers for? This has nothing to do with that. Why would a child be taken away from his father and be placed in an orphanage? That doesnt happen in this country. However, if you are suggesting that gay single men be allowed to adopt a child from an orphanage and given equal or preferential treatment over a married heterosexual couple, then yes, I stand pretty firmly against that.
You can’t lie about sex and giving blood. Just like you can’t lie about your income to steal welfare benefits. There is a law against it.
Yea, I am sure investigators are going to work to find out when you last had sex. Right, I am sure that they always do that. I am sorry I still don’t get why you shouldn’t be allowed to give blood if you have had the partner for a long time. Especcially considering those that pay for prostitutes (even regularly) can eventually give blood, I would be willing to bet that they have been exposed.
I went have an old college peer that was born in Rwanda and after things went to hell became a refugee in the Congo. Because he lived like a year in the Congo he is forever prohibitted from giving blood (suprisingly being of Rwandan heritage doesn’t mean anything). Does being a 7 (I believe, not sure how old he is now) living in a country with a high HIV rate mean you shouldn’t be able to give blood? Does doing a missionary / peace corp mission to such a country mean that you shouldn’t be able to give blood. Can we agree that this is stupid?
Yea, how many hetrosexual couples do you see that want to adopt 12 year old boys with serious issues. Do you and your wife, would you even adopt a tweenage aspie (thats about the least serious condition you can get). Yea, there are some no doubt, but considering theres still millions of kids (not babies mind you, but kids) needing to be adopted, opening them up to be adopted by anyone might, just might, be a good idea.
Bryan, the issue here is managing the risk to the blood supply. And there are more blood borne disease risks than just HIV from visiting Africa. They also ban you for up to a year if you go to Jamaica. Missionaries go to Africa and lose their ability to donate blood. I’m fine with that.
My wife can’t donate blood because her Mom died of AIDS. She understands and is fine with it. I can’t donate because my blood once tested with elevated enzymes that are common among Hepatitus victims. I didn’t have Hep, but I’m fine with the decision to ban my blood. Because I understand their mission and their need to protect their blood supply and I understand their near-zero tolerance for risk to that supply.
If and when I need that supply I want it to be absolutely free of blood borne diseases.
Millions of kids need adoption? Millions really? Nope, you insanely exaggerate on your stats. There may be a few kids that have problems being placed, but most children are cared for in loving foster homes. Very few children are wards of the state. This is not a topic on gay or aspie adoption, so drop this from any reply if you want to see it in print. (no threadjacking)
See personally, if and when I need that supply… I want to make sure it will be there. Personally I would rather get infected then die because there is no blood there. Now I have no clue if the Red Cross is just lying about shortages or if they really do exist, but it seems to me if we do have shortages, it might be a good idea to get rid of some asine rules.
For example seeing as how your wife has done absolutely no high risk behavior a simple blood test would see if she is infected or not. Same thing for you. And seeing as how my friend hasn’t been in Africa since he was a little kid, chances are without doing any sort of treatment he would be dead now if he was infected. But even despite that a simple blood test would work there too. It seems like a blood test would work in a lot of cases, and from everything I have heard blood tests are pretty cheap.
134,000 kids need adoption just in the US, look it up. Go outside the US, you get up to the millions pretty quickly. I just brought this up to wonder if you prefered these kids staying familyless or having a gay dad. Thanks for answering :).