Scientists argue that men are more likely to carry certain sexually transmitted infections or diseases, which they wouldn't want passed on the recipient of the donor blood. But I don't understand why this is the case. If, say, an HIV positive man has sex with another man, yes, that man might become HIV Positive, but so would a woman, if he slept with a woman. And surely this is the same for any disease or infection? Cant scientists just screen/test the blood? Plus, it doesn't make sense that we're legalizing gay marriage, but still banning gay blood donation.
Even if gay men were more likely to have AIDS then straight ones (Which is now being seconded guessed as AIDS is now spreading much faster among heterosexuals), the blood is already checked. It makes it quite obvious that the goal isn't to prevent AIDS, it is simply to say that gay people aren't doing good works like straight people are.
The ban was understandable when it was first introduced as gay men WERE at a higher risk for HIV, and tests weren't yet available. However, tests are now available that can detect in less than 20 days of contraction. Around 1 in a MILLIONTH of blood samples are improperly screened, and the technology for doing so is constantly improving. If someone wants to help, there is no good reason for them to not be able to if the gain outweighs the risk. Also wanting to spread STDs has nothing to do with being gay. There are plenty of heterosexual sickos that want to do the same. This is nothing more than ANOTHER way to make homosexuals feel alienated.
In sweden there is a set of rules about sexual contact, such as not having had sex with intravenous drug users or prostitutes, as well as not donating blood within a certain period of time (think it's 3 months) after having sex with a new partner. This type of rules would work just as good for homosexuals as for heterosexuals. The fact that gay men have a higher incidence of some STDs wouldn't cause any significant risk increase with these safety measures in place. And the blood is tested before the first donation an individual makes. Quite obvious solution. The irrational ban on gay donors was still just recently abolished over here however.
Contrary to popular (and might I add IDIOTIC ) religious beliefs, gays are not some evil Satanist worshipers who carry "devil blood" (apologies for the humorous implications I just cant take morons seriously), they are no different to normal human beings....Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NORMAL. There blood is no different to straight people, And thus I say yes to this. And the only disagree to this debate I've seen, there opinion personally should just be discarded as the logic "they have more sti's" has no use what so ever, due to the fact that the blood is tested for diseases.
I've worked in a lab environment for over 10 years, so what do I know about medical procedures huh?
I do feel that homosexual men should be allowed to donate blood. The blood has to be screened so if there is something wrong with their blood it will not be used. So there really is no good reason to stop homosexual men from donating blood. I find the practice of denying someone blood based on an assumption of a willing donor to be foolish, especially when any skepticism can be easily proven. Homosexual men are not the only ones in risks of HIV/AIDS. Virtually everyone is at risk of contracting this disease. However, to single out one group of people and just stop them from giving blood means that you are discriminating against them based on a bias, and the unwillingness to test these blood samples shows an unwillingness to cooperate. This bias and bigotry has effected those in dire need of blood transplants and when it comes down to saving a life I'm sure their are no mentally sound people who would mind the clean blood of a gay man.
This is a completely stupid law. First of all, how are you going to identify gays? At most you could spot the boisterous butterflies, but not the normal everyday men who happen to be gay.
It may be so that the gay community has more STIs than the Hetero community, but this is a generalization, and laws should never be based on generalizations because they are inherently not fair.
We can and should test all donated blood for infectious diseases and infections, regardless of who it came from. We should do everything we can to promote blood donations. By banning all transfusions from gay men, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Donor blood is screened for HIV and other diseases before being used anyway. Just a slight statistically increased risk of a gay man having HIV is irrelevant- we do not screen out heterosexuals for behavior that contributes to increased likelihood of these diseases, such as promiscuity or patronage of prostitutes. Considering this, it is ridiculous to ban gay men from donating a sorely needed resource.
There is a high demand for people to donate blood, and you can't simply rule out an entire demographic due to stereotyping. EVERYONE donating blood should be subject to STD screenings before hand. It is incredibly unfair to assume that all gay people are carrying diseases, when there is no such assumption on straight people.
WHO CARES IF THEYRE GAY IT'S NOT LIKE YOUR GONNA CATCH IT! THIS IS SOME EXTREME BS! EVERY LITTLE BIT COUNTS! ! ! That is discrimination by the american government! One of those men could one day save your life. This is practically racist! I'm mad at myself for not knowing about this. WTF!!
Despite making up an incredibly small percentage of the population, gay men are the leaders in many sexually-transmitted diseases, including the brunt of all new HIV/AIDS cases. In fact, many in the gay community wish to spread their STDs to other gay men, and unsafe sex practices among gay youth are common. Until the gay community gets its act together and stops doing this crap, they should not be allowed to donate blood. The risk of a gay man having an STD is far, far higher than a straight man having it, and until that changes we cannot risk infecting even one person just to service political correctness.