Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CDC, FDA, CBC, and WHO consider homosexuality a health risk

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Why don't they just test the blood after it is donated? My friend is gay and he donates plasma. They test it before the give it out. If someone is found to have an STD they call them. It says so in the paperwork.
Yes he did tell them he was gay.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Whoa! I thought this thread interesting because it descibes a life style choice as being a negative if you decide to donate blood.

Why all the anger?


Because, if I may, this is not based on the premise that it is unfair/fair for homosexuals not to be able to give blood, it's suggesting that because homosexuals can't give blood there is proof from the CDC, FDA, CBC, and WHO that homosexuality in itself is an unhealthy and bannable lifestyle.

I have actually seen the documents at the blood bank here and it specifies anal intercourse with a member of the same sex. To make this a blanket "homosexual" issue is false, as there are many straight people that have "jumped the fence" once and found that it wasn't for them. Not to count all the heterosexual people that engage in this activity as well.

And comparing homosexuality to IV drug use or prostitution to make this argument work is absolutely ludicrous.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Why all the anger?

Your allegations are as imflamatory as those you rail against.

It's called Critical Theory. It's a tried and true Marxist tactic that is often used in order to create a false sense of dis entitlement.

You see, even when one merely points out the medical disadvantages of a behavior. Even when all of the world's major health organizations and people with the highest degrees in science point out the health risks involved in a behavior. Even after the Center for Disease Control black-lists a group of people as ineligible to donate blood. After all of that people will still come out of the woodwork and blast your ideas as bigoted and hate mongering.

It's almost as if this were a manufactured societal problem isn't it? It's fascinating because when it comes down to actual medical science there's no contesting that homosexuality is a serious health risk to the individuals partaking in that lifestyle. Yet there's this false sense of urgency to silence all those who voice their opinions against it.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Do I have any diseases, do I feel healthy, do I use drugs or share needles? Have I had a tattoo within the last year? Have I paid for sexual acts?


And yet you didn't feel the need to point out any of the above "unhealthy" acts? Hmm....biassed much?

As far as your OP. It is because of AIDS (much like the other questions you had to answer). Before the AIDS epidemic, any and all gay men could donate blood.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 



As someone stated earlier, it has been going on since 1977.

Why have there never (to my knowlege) been any issue/protest change in this regard?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
I have actually seen the documents at the blood bank here and it specifies anal intercourse with a member of the same sex. To make this a blanket "homosexual" issue is false

No, the CDC and FDA doesn't make that distinction in their documentation. (Links in original post). It merely states "Homosexual contact" is the excluding factor.

Are you stating that "homosexual contact" means anal intercourse? I never said that and no one said that in any of the multiple sources I referenced.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
It's almost as if this were a manufactured societal problem isn't it? It's fascinating because when it comes down to actual medical science there's no contesting that homosexuality is a serious health risk to the individuals partaking in that lifestyle. Yet there's this false sense of urgency to silence all those who voice their opinions against it.


There's a serious health risk to all those who partake in the "straight" lifestyle as well. We have all sorts of sexually based diseases out there, both physical and mental. They affect straights, gays and bi-sexuals alike. Should we just go back to the days of outlawing all sex that is not intended for reproduction?

I am not about to call you homophobic based on this one premise, that would be premature, but to twist the words of the CDC and WHO and others as a means to support an argument that is specualtive at best and does not bear out to the facts at all is far from denying ignorance and something I would not have expected to see from a Super Mod.

I have plenty of friends who are gay. Many of them are conservatives (this is Texas, after all) and some are rather old and have been gay most of their lives with NO MEDICAL ISSUES. Other acquaintances I have are straight, right-wing christian types who suffer from hepatitis (one of them) and herpes (a differant one) because all they do is watch football, drink, and screw 6 days a week and go to church on sunday to ask for forgiveness.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
You see, even when one merely points out the medical disadvantages of a behavior.

You have provided none. You have pointed out that different medical agencies have stated that homosexuals cannot donate blood and inferred from this information that homosexuality is obviously the same IV drug use, prostitution, and the like. But for medical disadvantages you have provided none. Its hard to make an argument without the argument.


After all of that people will still come out of the woodwork and blast your ideas as bigoted and hate mongering.

I never said such, no reason to state the obvious.


It's almost as if this were a manufactured societal problem isn't it? It's fascinating because when it comes down to actual medical science there's no contesting that homosexuality is a serious health risk to the individuals partaking in that lifestyle. Yet there's this false sense of urgency to silence all those who voice their opinions against it.


No one here has attempted to silence you. I haven't seen any serious health risks proposed by you that are limited to the homosexuals, either. Why would anyone that's not gay even care about this unless they had an agenda? They can't give you their blood already, you're not a homosexual; what need is there to post this at all unless there is an agenda behind it to state that homosexuality = wrong?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Interesting. It does appear that this is a contrived issue and has no medical merit. In my case, prion detection is difficult, ergo, I can't donate. But with the advent of generalized testing, it would appear that it is the ruling bodies that have a case of homophobia.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I know many people that have worked to change this and have protested it. Quite honestly though, I find there are more precious issues to discuss in the world, and even in the arena of gay rights. If a heterosexual wants to die instead of receiving blood from a homosexual, I wish them the death that they are embracing for their foolishness. Darwinism at it's best.


The topic in this thread is not whether rejecting the blood is right or wrong, though. The topic of this thread is that by inference of the OP's quotes, homosexuality itself is a problem.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I have plenty of friends who are gay.

That's really an aside. I got out to eat with the gay couple across the street at least once a month. That doesn't make me less or more "homophobic".

I have friends that are fat, smoke, and drink yet I'm not bigoted for stating that they're living an unhealthy lifestyle. Why this once specific agenda? If I say I don't like smoking do I automatically hate smokers or anyone who sells cigarettes? Why would you draw that conclusion?

If you want to get to the heart of my annoyance it's the manufactured disentitlement. It's the knee jerk response to anyone who dares to state the obvious. Even when there are obvious health risks I'm a bigot (to some) when I state I don't think it's a natural healthy lifestyle. Who cares if I have medical science on my side of the argument.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 


I took it differently. I saw it as the CDC (et al) have a problem with homosexuality. The OP was just using what is already out there to illustrate the issue.

hmmff

I'll re-read.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Great post Dbates! Although I can't give blood due to medications, this brings to mind another issue...why is the President supportive of activity that is not considered safe by his own governmental agencies? I guess this would be a question considered off topic, but your OP brought this to mind for me.

Thanks,

I_R



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
Darwinism at it's best.


No, you don't want to cross that bridge on this subject. Trust me. In another thread perhaps, but that's a whole other can of worms.

On the matter tying homosexuality to drug use and prostitution, it was the Dr De Cock of the WHO that made that statement. Not I. The statement stands alone with no support from myself or others.



Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease (AIDS), said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

www.independent.co.uk



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


If you are going to quote me, please don't deliberately take me out of context.

I specifically did NOT call you homophobic or even hateful. I merely pointed out that your argument was based on conjecture at best and that your argument does not play out against facts in the real world.

You are pointing out that you have "medical evidence", but I have yet to see you post any. I also don't see any acknowledgement from you that heterosexual sex is also "risky". I understand the point you are making, but you are not being balanced or fair about it, so it is just coming across as propaganda to push an agenda.

I personally don't care if you think that homosexuality is wrong. That's your priviledge. You can think that the clouds in the sky are God's farts, for all I care. People can believe whatever the hell they want UNTIL those beliefs start demonizing other people and making them appear to be something they aren't. That is when I take issue.

We are all humans and we all get sick and have problems. We are not special or set aside and I have not, as yet, seen anything that we humans do that the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't also do in some way. We just do more of it.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I have some friends who believe in an invisible man who created the world in seven days. But I digress...
Whether or not being gay is a health risk, here we are. And unless you've been toe-tapping in some stalls lately, you don't know what causes people to be gay. So, yes, these agencies do not accept blood from gay people due to inadequate facilities or cost of properly testing blood. That's it. Your point?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Lets get down to it.. Since you firmly believe it's a health risk. (And um.. if I did some of those practices too, I'd say it's a health risk)

What exactly are you suggesting should be done?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
On the matter tying homosexuality to drug use and prostitution, it was the Dr De Cock of the WHO that made that statement. Not I. The statement stands alone with no support from myself or others.



Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease (AIDS), said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

www.independent.co.uk



I am curious, though. Based on the section you highlited above, this only applies to gay men? So gay or bisexual women are fine? Why the distinction? Wouldn't any medical issues related to homosexuality be the same across genders? What makes the two differant enough to cause a problem at a blood donation level?

(I know the answer, I am raises a rhetorical question to make a point)



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Well already is been prove that certain people within certain groups and this is not homosexual only ones can not donate blood.

That is a fact, but what I find inflammatory is that one specific group is targeted because of sexual preferences.

Actually before HIV many of the sexual transmitted diseases were and still are from the heterosexual group also drug users were the first group targeted when the HIV was spreading.

Sodomy is not only practiced by homosexuals.

Still I see how the fact that like already somebody posted pointing out "homosexuality is linked to sodomy they are been targeted.

I say the whole thing is nothing but bias and gender preferences targeting.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
You are pointing out that you have "medical evidence", but I have yet to see you post any.

Uhm, the part about the CDC and FDA saying you couldn't donate if you hand any homosexual activities.


Originally posted by rogerstigers
I also don't see any acknowledgement from you that heterosexual sex is also "risky".

That's not really a logical comparison. Eating food and breathing air have risks as well, but humans can't live without either. Please explain how heterosexual sex is less necessary for the human race than breathing and eating. Then continue to show the risk it creates to human life.









 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join