2011: The Year for Gay Rights?

[pimpdave]

Okay, well, they are pretty widespread. Go to a city sometime.

[barackattack]

So, Player: are you saying that it should be enforced with an legal ban, rather than a mere request? Are we otherwise left open to the danger of men lying about their habits and donating infected blood?

Symmetry: what do you think about this? Should a legal ban be applied to blood donation by men who have sex with men? After all, no straight men will be affected be this ban.

[barackattack]

General Q: does the Red Cross pay for blood donations in the US?

[PLAYER57832]

General Q: does the Red Cross pay for blood donations in the US?

No. The users of blood have to pay a type of administration/handling fee, but the Red Cross itself is a non-profit. However, there ARE some issues raised with the administration, how much people are paid, and assorted other similar issues.

So, Player: are you saying that it should be enforced with an legal ban, rather than a mere request? Are we otherwise left open to the danger of men lying about their habits and donating infected blood?

No, I think it is illusion to think that voluntary answers to such questions will provide true safety. The best safety is in having a blood supply that is given voluntarily, because then, even though people can lie or just be mistaken, there is far less incentive to do so. (I mean, how many married individuals EXPECT that their spouse is cheating, for example?). All blood is, must be tested. But, even testing just is no gaurantee.

I believe that people who know they are healthy should give as much as possible.

Okay, well, they are pretty widespread. Go to a city sometime.

LOL.. I can almost gaurantee I have more such contacts than you. It is why I can be so sure that you are NOT talking about a widespread, nation-wide movement, despite what some in the homosexual community would like others to believe.... and many in the anti-homosexual movement as well want folks to believe.

[pimpdave]

All the more reason for homosexuals to stop bullying the Red Cross or boycotting blood drives. Player, why are you defending this practice of bullying the Red Cross?

[PLAYER57832]

All the more reason for homosexuals to stop bullying the Red Cross or boycotting blood drives. Player, why are you defending this practice of bullying the Red Cross?

Show me where I am "defending" those actions. I am saying they are not the huge, widespread movement that you claim and definitely not a reason to condemn the entire homosexual community. You are talking about a few idiots, not homosexuals in general, but seem unable to distinguish. THAT is what I am protesting.

[pimpdave]

Even if it's not as widespread as you think (from your provincial perspective), and it is, they're still doing so on behalf of all homosexuals. So since they have an impact on the local supply of blood, it's completely fair to say that unless homosexuals-at-large begin denouncing the practice, their silence implies consent.

[saxitoxin]

he claimed that there is a large homosexual movement to boycott the American Red Cross blood drives, referring as evidence to 2 colleges in PA and such

Below are the results of about 3 minutes of searching on bing-dot-com. How many results would I get if I spent just 30 minutes?

• 2003: Southern Oregon University - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... oddrive19m
  
  2003: University of Vermont - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/scho ... s-1.582542
  
  2007: Iowa State University - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... 5c2d9.html
  
  2008: Sonoma State University - homosexual faculty member proposes ban on blood drives
  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall
  
  2008: San Jose State University - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/02/06 ... ts_blo.php
  
  2009: UCLA - homosexual student group encourages protest of blood drive events on campus
  http://www.uclgbtia.org/kblood.html
  
  2010: Keene State College - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://www.keeneequinox.com/news/pride- ... -1.2187207
  
  2011: Queens College - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://www.free-press-release.com/news- ... 75220.html

That translates into a handful of protests across the country.

I've highlighted in red the relevant section in the post above that addressed your question before you even asked it. There doesn't seem to be any reason to provide an original reply at this point.

• BLOOD DONOR REQUIREMENTS, SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK
  DO NOT DONATE BLOOD IF YOU:
  - Have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test
  - Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
  - Are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
  - Have ever taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977
  - Have hemophilia or another blood clotting disorder and received clotting factor concentrate
  - Have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
  - Have had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months
  - In the last 12 months, have been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours
  - Have received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom from 1980 to the present
  
  http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/donate ... ONOTDONATE

I believe that is the old question form.

Do you see the beige-coloured text sequence that begins with the letters "http"? This indicates a hyperlink. A hyperlink is a reference to data that the reader can directly follow by clicking on the text in question. Perhaps you could click on that text and then come back and rephrase your statement "I believe that is the old question form?"

We are trying to have a discussion about facts, not a discussion about Player's beliefs. Thanks.

[PLAYER57832]

he claimed that there is a large homosexual movement to boycott the American Red Cross blood drives, referring as evidence to 2 colleges in PA and such

Below are the results of about 3 minutes of searching on bing-dot-com. How many results would I get if I spent just 30 minutes?

• 2003: Southern Oregon University - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... oddrive19m
  
  2003: University of Vermont - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/scho ... s-1.582542
  
  2007: Iowa State University - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... 5c2d9.html
  
  2008: Sonoma State University - homosexual faculty member proposes ban on blood drives
  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall
  
  2008: San Jose State University - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/02/06 ... ts_blo.php
  
  2009: UCLA - homosexual student group encourages protest of blood drive events on campus
  http://www.uclgbtia.org/kblood.html
  
  2010: Keene State College - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://www.keeneequinox.com/news/pride- ... -1.2187207
  
  2011: Queens College - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://www.free-press-release.com/news- ... 75220.html

That translates into a handful of protests across the country.

I've highlighted in red the relevant section in the post above that addressed your question before you even asked it. There doesn't seem to be any reason to provide an original reply at this point.

IF this were a WIDESPREAD problem, then you would find more than 10 or so incident spread out over 9 years, and largely all associated with colleges. Fact is, if I googled ANY controversial idea, just about, I would find at least as many protests on college campuses around the country.

You provided proof of my point. Thank you kindly!

• BLOOD DONOR REQUIREMENTS, SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK
  DO NOT DONATE BLOOD IF YOU:
  - Have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test
  - Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
  - Are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
  - Have ever taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977
  - Have hemophilia or another blood clotting disorder and received clotting factor concentrate
  - Have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
  - Have had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months
  - In the last 12 months, have been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours
  - Have received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom from 1980 to the present
  
  http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/donate ... ONOTDONATE

I believe that is the old question form.

Do you see the beige-coloured text sequence that begins with the letters "http"? This indicates a hyperlink. A hyperlink is a reference to data that the reader can directly follow by clicking on the text in question. Perhaps you could click on that text and then come back and rephrase your statement "I believe that is the old question form?"

I see,well my "uniformed data" is not based on some random internet link, it is based no the real questions I have had to ask for the past several years whenever I donate blood through the Red Cross. IN fairness, there could be some variability in localities, but the questions you mentioned is what was asked a few years ago, for sure.

We are trying to have a discussion about facts, not a discussion about Player's beliefs. Thanks.

Exactly, and not Saxi's or Pimdave's beliefs, either.

ALSO, none of you acknowledge the fact that there are many private, local non-profits that do a very good job, often better than the American Red Cross, which sends blood everywhere and uses it for many, many things.

[saxitoxin]

he claimed that there is a large homosexual movement to boycott the American Red Cross blood drives, referring as evidence to 2 colleges in PA and such

Below are the results of about 3 minutes of searching on bing-dot-com. How many results would I get if I spent just 30 minutes?

• 2003: Southern Oregon University - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... oddrive19m
  
  2003: University of Vermont - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/scho ... s-1.582542
  
  2007: Iowa State University - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... 5c2d9.html
  
  2008: Sonoma State University - homosexual faculty member proposes ban on blood drives
  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall
  
  2008: San Jose State University - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/02/06 ... ts_blo.php
  
  2009: UCLA - homosexual student group encourages protest of blood drive events on campus
  http://www.uclgbtia.org/kblood.html
  
  2010: Keene State College - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://www.keeneequinox.com/news/pride- ... -1.2187207
  
  2011: Queens College - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://www.free-press-release.com/news- ... 75220.html

That translates into a handful of protests across the country.

I've highlighted in red the relevant section in the post above that addressed your question before you even asked it. There doesn't seem to be any reason to provide an original reply at this point.

• BLOOD DONOR REQUIREMENTS, SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK
  DO NOT DONATE BLOOD IF YOU:
  - Have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test
  - Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
  - Are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
  - Have ever taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977
  - Have hemophilia or another blood clotting disorder and received clotting factor concentrate
  - Have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
  - Have had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months
  - In the last 12 months, have been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours
  - Have received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom from 1980 to the present
  
  http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/donate ... ONOTDONATE

I believe that is the old question form.

Do you see the beige-coloured text sequence that begins with the letters "http"? This indicates a hyperlink. A hyperlink is a reference to data that the reader can directly follow by clicking on the text in question. Perhaps you could click on that text and then come back and rephrase your statement "I believe that is the old question form?"

We are trying to have a discussion about facts, not a discussion about Player's beliefs. Thanks.

Exactly, and not Saxi's or Pimdave's beliefs, either. IF this were a WIDESPREAD problem, then you would find more than 10 or so incident spread out over 9 years

Since you apparently didn't scroll up to read it, I'll post it down here:

Below are the results of about 3 minutes of searching on bing-dot-com. How many results would I get if I spent just 30 minutes?

*knock* *knock* Is anybody home up there?

[Phatscotty]

he claimed that there is a large homosexual movement to boycott the American Red Cross blood drives, referring as evidence to 2 colleges in PA and such

Below are the results of about 3 minutes of searching on bing-dot-com. How many results would I get if I spent just 30 minutes?

• 2003: Southern Oregon University - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... oddrive19m
  
  2003: University of Vermont - blood drive cancelled by homosexual protest
  http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/scho ... s-1.582542
  
  2007: Iowa State University - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/artic ... 5c2d9.html
  
  2008: Sonoma State University - homosexual faculty member proposes ban on blood drives
  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... l&tc=pgall
  
  2008: San Jose State University - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/02/06 ... ts_blo.php
  
  2009: UCLA - homosexual student group encourages protest of blood drive events on campus
  http://www.uclgbtia.org/kblood.html
  
  2010: Keene State College - blood drive picketed by homosexual student group
  http://www.keeneequinox.com/news/pride- ... -1.2187207
  
  2011: Queens College - university bans blood drives at request of homosexual student group
  http://www.free-press-release.com/news- ... 75220.html

there just is no ban on homosexuals giving blood

• BLOOD DONOR REQUIREMENTS, SAN DIEGO BLOOD BANK
  DO NOT DONATE BLOOD IF YOU:
  - Have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test
  - Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor
  - Are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
  - Have ever taken money, drugs, or other payment for sex since 1977
  - Have hemophilia or another blood clotting disorder and received clotting factor concentrate
  - Have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above
  - Have had syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 12 months
  - In the last 12 months, have been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail, or prison for more than 72 hours
  - Have received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom from 1980 to the present
  
  http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/donate ... ONOTDONATE

Wow

[Neoteny]

You guys, I think this is an FDA thing and not one necessarily fully supported by the Red Cross etc. Homosexuals boycott the drives because a dude can slut around with forty women and give blood in gouts shot from his overused, syphilitic (as yet undiagnosed) penis, and a homosexual can be in one monogomous relationship and still be turned down because his inherent sexuality is "high risk." That is generally viewed as discriminatory by those who know what the word means. Consider: blacks are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS. Should they be restricted from blood donation?

In b4 thug culture increases my insurance premium.

[PLAYER57832]

You guys, I think this is an FDA thing and not one necessarily fully supported by the Red Cross etc. Homosexuals boycott the drives because a dude can slut around with forty women and give blood in gouts shot from his overused, syphilitic (as yet undiagnosed) penis, and a homosexual can be in one monogomous relationship and still be turned down because his inherent sexuality is "high risk." That is generally viewed as discriminatory by those who know what the word means. Consider: blacks are at higher risk for HIV/AIDS. Should they be restricted from blood donation?

In b4 thug culture increases my insurance premium.

You hit on part of the point I was making, but, in fact, you have it backwards. Right now, the ones slepping around with 40 others are being asked to refrain (mostly because they might be ill, but have levels too low to be detected by the tests). They ARE actually backing off a tad from the male-male sex issue.

But, again, this has never really been a big issue. Its been a few protests here and there consistantly, which are certainly irritating, perhaps even cutting back some on donations in those localized areas. However, it is not contributing to the national problems with blood donations. AND, these protests are targeting the American Red Cross specifically, but in many, many areas (including saxi's location, much of PA, etc) rely on other sources for blood. (non profits mostly, though there are a few for profit blood centers around still).

I can get into a LOT of reasons why people don't like the American Blood cross in general and their blood donations specifically (begin with folks saying its not cost-effective, taking too much for administration, to improper testing -- either too stringent in some cases or not stringent enough in others, etc.). The homosexuals don't like it bit is really not a big factor, given the whole.

AND.. saxis own data does rather show that, if you just think about the numbers his post/ links show.

[barackattack]

I would point out that 'a male who has had sexual contact with another male since 1977' does not exclude all homosexuals.

It allows homosexuals who have not had sexual contact with another male since 1977 to donate blood.

Therefore this is not a ban on homosexuals.

[Neoteny]

*insert trite reasonable response to trite bigot talking point here*

[barackattack]

Shrugging off my comment, shouting 'homophobe' and thereby reassuring yourself that you are not a homophobe might be the easiest path available to you, but in the long run it would've been more valuable for you to take a moment, breathe and think hard about the merits of this knee-jerk, unengaged response.

I imagine that, had you done that, you would have been able to see that I said nothing bigoted in my post.

[Neoteny]

No, really, nearly letter for letter, that exact post has been posted approximately 5 to 6 bajillion times to justify any number of discriminations against homosexuals. Perhaps you aren't a bigot. Don't give a shit. But that exact sentiment is used by an awful lot of people to justify their homophobia. It's myopic and, I repeat, trite. You are going to be perceived as possessing the traits reflecting whatever nonsense you post here.

[barackattack]

It's not my fault you refuse to engage.

'This is not a blanket ban on homosexuals'. That statement is a fact.

It is important to establish this. As this ban only affects certain homosexuals, we must deduce from this that their homosexuality is not the issue. If it was then all homosexuals would be banned. As the rules stand, the problem is not homosexuality but a certain behaviour. Therefore it seems silly that this ban was even applied to a discussion of gay rights.

[Neoteny]

It's not my fault you refuse to engage.

'This is not a blanket ban on homosexuals'. That statement is a fact.

It is important to establish this. As this ban only affects certain homosexuals, we must deduce from this that their homosexuality is not the issue. If it was then all homosexuals would be banned. As the rules stand, the problem is not homosexuality but a certain behaviour. Therefore it seems silly that this ban was even applied to a discussion of gay rights.

It's less a refusal to engage and more a disinterest in the lack of content. Look, there are certain things one can say that are factual.

AIDS affects a larger percentage of the homosexual population than heterosexual population (at least in the US).
The HIV virus is very easily transmitted via blood contact.
Blood collectors recognize the homosexual population as a higher risk population for HIV.
As a direct response to those factors, people who engage in male homosexual sex, aka male homosexuals, are actively discriminated against to reduce the risk of infected blood.
There are non-homosexual men that have had homosexual contact. These men are also discriminated against, as are women that have had sexual contact with these men. All of these are being discriminated against.

The following are accurate discriptors of these facts:

Sexually active homosexuals are, by definition, being discriminated against by blood collectors, and, vicariously, the FDA.
Sexually active bisexuals and their partners are being discriminated against by the above organizations.

You can argue, based on all the above, that the descrimination is a good thing. You can argue that it's bad, but necessary. You cannot argue that since some homosexuals don't engage in buttsex, the restriction is not targeted at, and especially not unrelated to, homosexuals and homosexual rights. Homosexuals are being discriminated against, and trying to massage the language to paint the restriction as non-discriminatory is dishonest, misleading, and on the top of the very first page of the homophobe playbook.

There, I engaged, and I feel like I wasted my time. Feel better?

[barackattack]

I feel like you clearly didn't read the rest of the thread before posting that, but okay.

[Neoteny]

I feel like you clearly didn't read the rest of the thread before posting that, but okay.

The majority of it was you riding pimpdave's coattails in a quasi-trolling "lol you can't pinpoint my position because I'm being vague and ironic," during which you continuously avoided engaging Symmetry.

Then I gave you a bit of the vague, self-referential irony (I'm sure you can find someone I've called a bigot before), and then you, amusingly, asked me to engage. When I did, you copped out.

So I did waste my time.

[barackattack]

It's difficult to engage with people who are wrong.

[Neoteny]

It's actually not. But that is something someone compensating for a lack of novel, or even basic, well-thought-out ideas would say.

[barackattack]

I'm not the one who thinks that 'more gay people affected by a policy' = 'gay people being discriminated against'.

[Phatscotty]

2011, the year for special rights