This is stupid. How will they (the government / the donation center) know whether they have had homosexual sex?!?? And why would the homosexuals help those that look at them and their blood like it's toxic? Those people can die of blood shortage for all they care. Just like the blood donation center here in US. I am an Asian in US. Just because I am not white, they want to see all kinds of paperwork - inoculation and immunization records. So I just walk out ... if you don't trust my blood, then you can die from blood shortage for all I care. I'm O blood type - universal donor. And O blood can only receive O blood. Overall I think this is an idiotic and uneducated ban. Homosexuals aren't the only ones exposed to HIV and AIDS. The girl you met at the club has as high of a chance of having HIV and AIDS. The more sensible action the UK govt can take is test and re-test the blood they receive. Nothing is to say that the heterosexual male or female is HIV and AIDS free.
^ LOL. Thats so true. Its more of their loss than yours. Its a favour of you to donate your blood anyways.
Yeah and all vegetarians should become Hindu, ill say no more because i get the impression you think you came up with a good idea-shock why not though lol you would become homophobes if you had the choice lol maybe you dont want it to make you come out the closet (i cant remember the rest of what you said for me to use on you :trollface2
...How is it a bad argument? Your second sentence makes absolutely no sense to me, I'm sure many would agree.
It's a bad argument, because you do not know whether or not the blood donor is a pedophile or into bestiality. However, in this case, you do know whether or not the blood is from a homosexual person.
Lets make it more politically correct. The law was laid not because of homophobia, but because at the time gay individuals had a higher incidence of contracting HIV. At the time, the government, based on these statistics, decided to lay down this law and have it influence subsequent blood donations indefinitely. Of course, bisexuality and/or drugs (the needle types) makes the picture cloudy and muddy, which is why today's statistics say that gay individuals are not much more likely to contract HIV than straight individuals. You could say the law was an act of homophobia, it's was more so the mentality of the general public of at the time, and not the official reason the government made this choice. Being openly Gay was criminal until just a short time before that (not sure about UK laws, but this was so in some country of which I have forgotten. USA?) I'm glad they decided to lift the ban, but there is no way to know if the gay individual indeed abstained from sex for a whole year prior to donating blood.
They're not mutually exclusive, you know. That is, there are homosexuals out there that are also pedophiles as well. Further, some of these guys have remained in the closet, so to speak. So, they may have already been donating for years without any public acknowledgment. But, it is specifically for the above reason that you stated that blood banks do not acknowledge who blood comes from as it creates emotional barriers for both donors and recipients based on personal and often irrational fears. One can also contract HIV as a baby drinking from their mother's breast milk.
What is so ridiculous about these types of debates is that the majority of it doesn't really center on epidemiology or science, but rather, individual and personal emotional triggers, themselves often based upon a foundation of loose facts and hearsay. There obviously remains a tremendous need for community health education. That said, I also can respect people who, for whatever reason, would prefer to die than to be the recipient of something that they feel personally at odds with. However, I need to point out, that even in the worst case scenario, if one unfortunately contracts HIV/AIDS through a transfusion related event; it is no longer the deadly disease it once was. So if given the choice of dying or living with a chronic but manageable illness, the latter isn't that horrible an option, IMHO.
I just wanna say that it is illegal to be a homosexual in uganda and there was some law or some shit that nearly got passed through to hang all homosexuals .... it's things like these just makes me go .. what the actual fuck and i bet you're the type (bulla) to actually think that that is an acceptable thing ... also to compare the idea that bestiality is the same as homosexuality THE FUCK? ... to fuck animals is the same as two homosexuals fucking? ... really .. bitch really? ... seriously if i saw you in the street and you was preaching i'd punch you
As far as I can tell, you don't know if the blood you're getting is from an homosexual individual or not. The article merely said that homosexuals may now give blood. Its safe to assume the blood is not separated between heterosexual and homosexual blood, mainly because it would not be cost effective nor is it relevant in saving peoples lives.
Wasn't that the reason to condemn witchcraft practitioners as evil-doers? Not sure what I'm talking about? Google witch and leprosy.
