Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

That sucks man. I remember going with somebody who was donating blood, and they had questions like
Have you slept with anybody who is gay/lesbian?
Have you slept with anybody in Africa?
Have you slept with anybody in Asia?
Have you slept with anybody in tropical regions?
Have you slept with anybody in international waters?
Have you slept with anybody who is African American? No, I'm not shitting you guys on this one.

my god, i'm shocked liberals, who are all about "tolerance", haven't kicked these people's asses to the curb.

but, an AIDS risk?! Oh come on, people. gays are not the only people that get AIDS. if they aren't letting gays (or bisexuals, in this case) through, what about people from those places in Africa that have all the AIDS? Like sevenseize said, they screen the blood anyway.

At 11/17/07 10:42 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: lulz nope seems their empty

care to reword this so that it makes sense?

their or they're (as in 'they are')?

Couldn't they give you a blood test to check if you're AIDS positive, and if you're not you're good to go?

At 11/17/07 09:45 PM, OrbitalDebris wrote:

At 11/17/07 09:37 PM, shatterspike1 wrote: Gay people are born Gay, they do not choose to be Gay.

Eh, the jury is still out on that. I actually fear the day that its proven that people are born gay because the next step is finding the gay gene and then we have sexuality-risk abortions and 'cures.' It'd be like X-Men, without the powers... and a lot more latex. ;-)

Every Gay person I've ever talked to has said they did not choose this, they did not want this. The jury is in, and the verdict is Gay people are born.

Hey brother... gay here to--
I've written about this on NG.

My post at the university newspaper (my name an year all wrong...)

The response of Sara O'Brien, American Red Cross' Northern California regiont chief executive officer.

At 11/18/07 01:22 AM, shatterspike1 wrote:

At 11/17/07 09:45 PM, OrbitalDebris wrote:

At 11/17/07 09:37 PM, shatterspike1 wrote: Gay people are born Gay, they do not choose to be Gay.

Eh, the jury is still out on that. I actually fear the day that its proven that people are born gay because the next step is finding the gay gene and then we have sexuality-risk abortions and 'cures.' It'd be like X-Men, without the powers... and a lot more latex. ;-)

Every Gay person I've ever talked to has said they did not choose this, they did not want this. The jury is in, and the verdict is Gay people are born.

Not being able to choose =/= being born that way. I've got a mental disorder, which I was not born with, but that don't mean I want it.
Scientifically speaking, it seems that both environmental and genetic aspects affect the "risk" of becoming homosexual. However, they haven't found out exactly WHAT in the environment and the genetics that affect this.

On topic though, yes, it is silly.

First of all I would like to say I am a libertarian and I like as little government interference in my life as possible but I understand why they have such hard to pass screenings because there is an aids epidemic in the world and they just want to take out the people with the most statical probability of having aids and test from there and more people die from having aids then not having blood I assure you I am sorry you fell discriminated ageist but for every 10 of you I am sure there are people of all of the category denied in the screening taht have aids and don't even know it I am sorry you could not help with the blood drive

At 11/17/07 09:00 PM, OrbitalDebris wrote: So here I am, Newgrounds. My government just told me that I have AIDs because I'm sexually attracted to men and that my blood's no good. My government just told me the other day that they still think that AIDs is a problem only for gay men and that everyone with AIDs is a gay male.

All they said is that the statistical AIDS rates for homosexual men is such that it does not warrant the cost of testing the blood for AIDS. Apparently they can get it cheaper with programs that target straight men. It's a business/economics thing.

A higher percentage of the gay community have AID's then in the heterosexual community.
Getting blood costs money, not only what they give donors, but testing and screening costs alot for the lab work. So they're going to be a bit picky.
Let's say 10% straights have aids and 20% gays have aids. Totally made up numbers mind you, but good for example.
If you take blood from ten straight people you have 9 good bags and one bad for let's say a $500 investment.
If you take blood from ten gay people you have 8 good bags and 2 bad for the same $500 investment.
It's numbers not prejudace. I have a tattoo, got it from a clean shop, put in the same category with prisoners and heroin users when it comes to blood donation. Oh well.

That'll teach you to be honest.

At 11/18/07 12:55 AM, Ranger2 wrote: Couldn't they give you a blood test to check if you're AIDS positive, and if you're not you're good to go?

durr..they don't test each blood donation manually. They take small samples from each donation and pool them together, then test that. Then, if there is a problem with the combined blood, they go back and test each donation individually. It's sves money that way. The problem with gay blood is that it fucks up the formula and makes it so that they can combine fewer samples together to get the same efficiency and have to do more testing overall. Hence, it costs more. They can get more bang for the buck by refusing those who are statistically more likely to have AIDS. I don't see why they should PAY MORE for political correctness.

At 11/18/07 06:12 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote:

Getting blood costs money, not only what they give donors, but testing and screening costs alot for the lab work. So they're going to be a bit picky.

Amen brother

At 11/18/07 01:22 AM, shatterspike1 wrote: Every Gay person I've ever talked to has said they did not choose this, they did not want this. The jury is in, and the verdict is Gay people are born.

so i guess just because you know some gay people it makes you an expert?

At 11/18/07 05:55 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 11/18/07 12:55 AM, Ranger2 wrote: Couldn't they give you a blood test to check if you're AIDS positive, and if you're not you're good to go?

sorry but that takes a while

oh so i guess they just take your word that you don't have AIDS, dipshit.

At 11/18/07 06:38 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/18/07 05:55 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 11/18/07 12:55 AM, Ranger2 wrote: Couldn't they give you a blood test to check if you're AIDS positive, and if you're not you're good to go?

sorry but that takes a while

oh so i guess they just take your word that you don't have AIDS, dipshit.

All blood is tested, but due to the manner in which it is tested, they save money by receiving less infected blood.

At 11/18/07 06:43 PM, Thread-Killer wrote: All blood is tested, but due to the manner in which it is tested, they save money by receiving less infected blood.

that is the fact Dante was ignoring.

Soll, your attacks againct Dante are a little on the unwarranted side. Sure, he's been an ass, but as long as he's putting in a serious voice, let him.

I can understand the cost side of it. I can even apreciate the historical side of it, but I still think its wrong and unwarranted. Gay men have been proven to have no higher incidence of AIDs than heterosexuals. The CDC has stated this on multiple occasions, but they jsut had a meeting 7 years ago where the opposite was stated.

Look, I don't have AIDs and I just wanna help people. Is it so bad that I'm sexually attracted to men?

At 11/18/07 08:07 PM, OrbitalDebris wrote: Soll, your attacks againct Dante are a little on the unwarranted side. Sure, he's been an ass, but as long as he's putting in a serious voice, let him.

nothing personal, have to reach a daily quota.

At 11/18/07 08:20 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: you know its kind of odd on how many things are RISKS when donating blood.

Well there are serious risks to the blood pool. Lots of diseases they have to check for, but the majority of the questionaires ask questions for the safty of the donator.

I don't see what the problem is if all of the samples go through a series of background checks on the medical history of the people using them. [I would think, and this might be nieve, but whether or not a person is actually hiv positive is more important than they're sexual orientation which could increase the risk of being hiv positive] plus actually checking the sample for diseases and the like.

Lets stop being so persnickity, medical technology does a better job at saying Jah and Ni to blood doners than our petty generalizations.

At 11/18/07 06:15 PM, Thread-Killer wrote: durr..they don't test each blood donation manually. They take small samples from each donation and pool them together, then test that. Then, if there is a problem with the combined blood, they go back and test each donation individually. It's sves money that way. The problem with gay blood is that it fucks up the formula and makes it so that they can combine fewer samples together to get the same efficiency and have to do more testing overall. Hence, it costs more. They can get more bang for the buck by refusing those who are statistically more likely to have AIDS. I don't see why they should PAY MORE for political correctness.

Wait a sec...
the rate for Blacks is about the same to gay men if I remember. Can't find that for now, nonetheless... let's assume for now it's correct.

Should we ban Blacks, then?
It's more cost efficient like that.

As long as you have enough donors better candidates should be at the front of the line/bus.

At 11/18/07 11:03 PM, fli wrote:
Should we ban Blacks, then?
It's more cost efficient like that.

Only if their not virgins :<)