Tricky. However gay men aren’t the only ones that contract HIV right now. Women are being infected by their boyfriends/husbands.

The doctor is correct, testing is not 100%.
However, using his reasoning….they should not permit black people to donate blood. In 2007, blacks made up 12.4% of the US population yet accounted for 49.4% of the cases of AIDs. While whites made up 75.0% of the US population but only accounted for 29.3% of the cases of AIDs.
Peace!

It should be based on science and if people are to be banned it should be the most at-risk people first, assuming the tests work equally well on everyone’s blood.

Continuing dangerous behavior, by people of any persuasion, may make the tests less valid by allowing small amounts of new infection that would be, perhaps, less likely to be caught and/or require more frequent testing for the same degree of reliability.
Which is an argument for committed monogamous relationships which in turn is an argument for allowing marriage of any pair of committed monogamous people old enough to make such decisions.

Nice JohnQ, first you try to use Black people to equate homosexuality to racial equality, now you use Blacks to try to divert attention to the fact that homosexuality is the number one means of AIDS transfer.
For black men living with HIV/AIDS, the most common methods of HIV transmission were (in order) [3]:
1.sexual contact with other men
2.injection drug use
3.high-risk heterosexual contact
given all of the facts there is but one conclusion, they are right to be concerned.

Shut up you moron.

Jr I didn’t make up the facts they are government researched facts not moronic, so even if I did shut up the facts would not change.

Jr it’s not clear which moron you are referring to (well, it’s pretty clear to me) and telling him to shut up isn’t very effective. Show where he’s wrong.

The highest risk for HIV transmission is for the “receiver” of a penis that has been with multiple partners using unprotected sex.
That is a fact.
The largest group falling into that group are black, homosexual, men.
If they deny ANYONE who has engaged in high risk behavior, then that is the SAFEST way to maintain blood supplies.
Nough said.

The highest risk of HIV transmission PER EXPOSURE is intravenous drug abuse with shared needles. Homosexual contact probably accounts for a greater number of cases because the frequency of exposure is higher. It is worth mentioning that if two male homosexuals were both virgins at the time they met and became a couple, and have been monogamous with each other ever since, and neither had congenital HIV from birth and neither has never received blood transfusions or had any other type of potential exposure, then their risk of HIV is zero. Similarly, an intravenous drug abuser who has a supply of “clean” drugs and sterile needles that are used once and properly disposed of is not in danger of HIV.
Obviously, I am not trying to encourage drug abuse, and there is no way to encourage (or discourage) sexual orientation. The point is simply that HIV is an infectious condition, not a “punishment for immorality” and the retrovirus does not care at all about race.

I agree that steps should be taken to protect the blood supply.
For anyone who may not have understood my earlier point….I was not suggesting that blacks should be barred from donating blood. I was attempting to point out the ridiculousness of using a broad brush (that is really based upon prejudice) to call out a whole group of people.
No, I do not think blacks and/or black males should be prevented from donating blood. Nor, do I think that all homosexual men should be prevented from donating blood. Homosexuality is no more an indicator of infected blood than being black is an indicator. As has already been stated above….people who engage in risky sexual acts and drug users are a good indicator. These are the people, that until testing is further improved, should be prevented from donating blood.
Not all gay men engage in risky sexual acts with multiply partners any more than all black men engage in risky sexual acts and/or use drugs.
Peace!

Here we go again. Another reason to discriminate against a particular group because of a presumptionous opinions against gay men, assuming that gay men are infected with bad blood, as a reason to phohibiting gay men from doating blood.

Welcome to our website: http://www.wowhotsale.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,adidas, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
We do wholesale and retail! All are extremely CHEAP, please visit: http://www.wowhotsale.com

This stuff is documented by government research homosexual sex is the greatest cause of AIDS.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm
• For black men living with HIV/AIDS, the most common methods of HIV transmission were (in order) [3]:
o sexual contact with other men
o injection drug use
o high-risk heterosexual contact**.
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

ck: “a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.”
Lesbians are more likely to have sex with men than heterosexual women? Really, cknuck?
Why don’t we talk about what all this is really about? It’s the same reason LGBT people aren’t allowed to join the military or adopt. If these people are seen serving (and dying for) their country, or raising children, or donating blood or doing anything positive, it’s that much harder for the conservatives and Christians to label them as perverts who only care about sex.

Mordred, quote, “If these people are seen serving (and dying for) their country, or raising children, or donating blood or doing anything positive, it’s that much harder for the conservatives and Christians to label them as perverts who only care about sex.”
WHY?

Mordred’s comment seems perfectly clear and reasonable to me. Some (not all) religious conservatives like to portray gay people (and Democrats, and liberals, and atheists, and the media, and anyone who is not a Bible-quoting trinitarian Christian and social conservative) as degenerate, lascivious, evil, unpatriotic, selfish, and generally loathsome. Gay people doing good deeds conflicts with that mindset. Again, not all Christian conservatives have that kind of attitude, but there can be no doubt that such attitudes exist.

H4C that is a lot of descriptions lumped and it would specifically point to a small group or a single person but that is not the case about those who object to the practices of homosexuality they are many for many real reasons that are scientifically proven.

cknuck: “they (those who object to whatever “the practices of homosexuality” means to ck) are many for many real reasons that are scientifically proven.”
I’d like to hear from these scientific minded homophobes I keep hearing about. From my experience, if they don’t use religious texts, they’re reciting “statistics” like “lesbians are more likely to have sex with HIV-infected males than straight women who are actually attracted to males” or something equally stupid. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that homosexuals don’t live past 30 due to their “lifestyles”, but most of the gay people I’ve met are over 50.

I cringed when I read that the blood testing that is done with donations isn’t 100% accurate. People shouldn’t feel that safe even if Gay people can’t donate blood. Heterosexual people sleep around and don’t ask for a certificate of no disease before or after they have sex. They go home and have sex with their wives or girlfriends, and “they” go and have sex with someone else the husband doesn’t know about. The only 100% way of knowing blood is safe is to have someone you know give you their blood if it’s the same type. The Medical world needs to get their act going and make all blood 100% safe.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that the Christian Medical Association has anything to say about this. As Christians, they might believe that homosexuality is “sinful,” but that viewpoint has nothing to do with the fact that they are physicians; as physicians, their views about the safety of blood supplies should be based on scientific fact and epidemiological data, and that perspective has nothing to do with the fact that they are Christians. They are wearing both hats at once, and it is hard to say what is prompting their position.
Concerns about viral contamination of blood supplies is not limited to HIV; hepatitis is a huge concern. I do not know if CMA has taken any position regarding blood donations from people who might have hepatitis. If so, then it would seem that they are speaking as physicians who, not that it matters, happen to be Christians; if not, it would suggest that they are speaking as Christians who, not that it matters, happen to be physicians.

gov. stats states clearly homosexuality is the leading cause of HIV so what more scientific proof is needed? And yes concerns are not limited to HIV AIDS.

Keep in mind that not only can gays not donate blood now, but any man who experimented once with being bi-curious since 1977 is banned for life from donating.
Not only that, any woman who wants to donate blood must remain celibate from any such man for a year before donating blood.
In other words, technically (all of this is unenforcable,) a woman who wants to get married and has any interest in donating blood in the future better make sure she knows if her future husband has ever done it with a man. Additionally, I suspect that a lot of men who experiment once when they’re young have no idea that it’ll prevent them from ever donating blood. To me, at least, a lifetime ban or the corresponding one-year ban for women in THOSE cases seems a bit excessive.
In other words, the arguments that “But no gay man goes celibate for a year, so this change is useless!” aren’t the be-all and end-all. And allowing currently active gays to donate blood is a completely different issue from what we’re looking at here; I can better understand the concerns over that due to infection statistics
Arguably, the biggest beneficiaries of this change would be ex-gay evangelicals.
I’d consider it nearly a certainty that this FDA panel will replace the first of these laws with something around a 1-year deferral and change the second to something like a “double 1-year deferral,” i.e. a woman must defer from donating blood for 1 year if she has had intercourse with a man who has had gay sex within the previous 1 year. The reason that at least the first one is a certainty is that Bush’s FDA panel only failed to do so by one vote.
I suspect that one or two other disqualifiers will have to be either added or subtracted, both as a necessary means of dealing with any other new blood-borne diseases out there, and to show that this is not just done to “appease the gays.”