As has been stated before, it's not the homosexuality aspect that prevents gays from donating blood, it's the risky practices they engage in.
In New Zealand (and I'm assuming other countries have a similar format) there's no "are you a homosexual?" question, they do however ask:
-Have you engaged in unprotected sex with anyone in the last XX (I think it's 6?) months?
-Have you ever had unprotected anal sex?
-Have you ever had anal sex with another man?
Theoretically homosexuals already can give blood, as long as they are lesbians or men who only do blowjobs with condoms. They shouldn't feel discriminated against, if you've ever done IV drugs or lived in the UK during the mad cow scare you can't give blood either. For some time I couldn't give blood because I was on isotretinoin for acne so my blood could cause birth defects in babies if given to a pregnant woman. I also couldn't give one time because I'd had root canal surgery recently. Should I be offended? Of course not, I understand that these aren't personal slights; just sensible measures taken to reduce risk.
Gays themselves need to realise that their own risky behaviour makes them poor candidates as well. In fact, our old friend Milo posted an article saying just that: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/...ing-sluts/
Highlights include:
In New Zealand (and I'm assuming other countries have a similar format) there's no "are you a homosexual?" question, they do however ask:
-Have you engaged in unprotected sex with anyone in the last XX (I think it's 6?) months?
-Have you ever had unprotected anal sex?
-Have you ever had anal sex with another man?
Theoretically homosexuals already can give blood, as long as they are lesbians or men who only do blowjobs with condoms. They shouldn't feel discriminated against, if you've ever done IV drugs or lived in the UK during the mad cow scare you can't give blood either. For some time I couldn't give blood because I was on isotretinoin for acne so my blood could cause birth defects in babies if given to a pregnant woman. I also couldn't give one time because I'd had root canal surgery recently. Should I be offended? Of course not, I understand that these aren't personal slights; just sensible measures taken to reduce risk.
Gays themselves need to realise that their own risky behaviour makes them poor candidates as well. In fact, our old friend Milo posted an article saying just that: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/...ing-sluts/
Highlights include:
Quote:Quote:
Look, I’m not trying to be offensive. But I know from experience how randy queens can be. I’m the most recklessly promiscuous person I know — with a fondness for African gentlemen to boot. Fortunately, I live a charmed life and I’ve never had so much as crabs. But I’m a unicorn: everyone else I know emerges ashen-faced from the clap clinic on a near-monthly basis.
The clearest figures on HIV infections come from the US, where although gays are less than 2 per cent of the population, they account for 61 per cent of all new infections. An estimated 77 per cent of diagnosed HIV infections in men is down to gay sex, according to the FDA — and the figures among gay men are going up, not down. That’s why there’s a lifetime ban on gay blood donors in the US. The NHS isn’t even that strict, by the way: they just ask that the donor refrain from sex for a year.
I get that asking a gay man to go without sex for a year is, in practice, the same thing as a lifetime ban, but whatever. Consider the fact that younger people are more likely to donate blood and that the largest increase in gay HIV infections is in the 13 to 24-year-old category. This isn’t bigotry: it’s a question of public health.