|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 11:52:04 GMT -5
My boyfriend has long hair. He is most certainly not gay. I would know. ;D pshhh. how many women to freddie mercury bang/ |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 20, 2011 11:59:19 GMT -5
My boyfriend has long hair. He is most certainly not gay. I would know. ;D pshhh. how many women to freddie mercury bang/ That is some syntax. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 13:52:31 GMT -5
pshhh. how many women to freddie mercury bang/ That is some syntax. I'm trolling grammar nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 20, 2011 14:07:10 GMT -5
At least you didn't terminate with a backslash. He's a psychopath.
|
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 17:04:35 GMT -5
Considering the 'gay' look can be divided into camp and butch with both perceptions being curb stomped by the reality that actually being gay doesn't look like anything this is pretty bullshit. It's like being fashionable: fashion literally looks like anything people will pay stupid sums of money to wear and changes constantly based on outside perception.
Singling out gay men as a risk factor should have gone out with the realization that straight people are just as likely to be HIV positive. The questionaire you fill out before you donate already covers the two largest risks: "Do you certify your health information is up to date?" And "Since your last blood test, have you engaged in relations with someone whose health you cannot verify?"
Or hell, just run tests before fresh blood is placed in permanent storage and deliver payment only when the donation clears as clean. I'm not terribly knowledgable about the process, is there any reason that wouldn't be feasible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 20, 2011 17:50:31 GMT -5
You know it was pretty darn easy for the blood bank to test my parents' blood for Hepatitis and easier to flag them as being ineligible because they caught Hep B (or was it A? I forget... the least deadly one... I guess?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 18:47:45 GMT -5
You know it was pretty darn easy for the blood bank to test my parents' blood for Hepatitis and easier to flag them as being ineligible because they caught Hep B (or was it A? I forget... the least deadly one... I guess?) They already test it all anyway. The "logic," and I use the term loosely, is to bar high-risk groups who are likely to carry disease in order to save money. Which is bullshit, because blacks are a high risk group, but they don't ban blacks from giving blood. Nor am I saying they should, but by their "gay" logic.... |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 20, 2011 21:04:12 GMT -5
I know that they already test it (I did just say that...), hence why it's BS to ban a group based on ignorance and homophobia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 21:06:24 GMT -5
Patronizing tone: Yes, and I was expanding upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 21:26:45 GMT -5
It's an outdated federal policy from when there was no test for HIV. It has no bearing on current technology and should be revoked. This place fucked up, but I understand them being cautious as it is known sexually active gay men will donate and if a bank accepts such donations they can be shut down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 20, 2011 21:36:47 GMT -5
It's an outdated federal policy from when there was no test for HIV. It has no bearing on current technology and should be revoked. This place fucked up, but I understand them being cautious as it is known sexually active gay men will donate and if a bank accepts such donations they can be shut down. Except they no longer seem to argue science, but "convenience." |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 20, 2011 21:42:46 GMT -5
It's an outdated federal policy from when there was no test for HIV. It has no bearing on current technology and should be revoked. This place fucked up, but I understand them being cautious as it is known sexually active gay men will donate and if a bank accepts such donations they can be shut down. Except they no longer seem to argue science, but "convenience." I just said it should be revoked, I was more explaining where it came from because it didn't quite come from convenience. I am sure that there was some bigotry factoring into the decision, but at least there was a non-stupid rationale. |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 3:07:19 GMT -5
Wait a minute, if they already test all blood samples doesn't that make that make the 'risky behavior' automatic rejection criteria little more than an insult?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 21, 2011 3:10:44 GMT -5
Wait a minute, if they already test all blood samples doesn't that make that make the 'risky behavior' automatic rejection criteria little more than an insult? Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 7:17:56 GMT -5
Wait a minute, if they already test all blood samples doesn't that make that make the 'risky behavior' automatic rejection criteria little more than an insult? Well, yeah, but it's a cost-benefit insult. Or something. The important thing is, we're not homophobic, even if we single out queers. |
|
