BritPat Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 ...The ban had been questioned both on equality and medical grounds... The World has gone mad, questioned on medical grounds is fair enough but questioned on equality grounds ? The only relevant criteria are medical/scientific ones. How is anyone disadvantaged by being banned from donating blood? Being banned from receiving blood would of course be disadvantageous the same cannot be said for a ban on donation. The population as a whole should not be put at risk lest a sub-group suffers hurt feelings ! Children being adopted by same sex couples in order to make the adults feel better about their own peculiarities that prevent them from having their own families ! More foxes and wolves should be employed as shepherds lest the predators feel excluded ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 even the slightest risk of contracting aids has to be not worth the risk. Best stay away from Thailand then! John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There is a slightly increased risk from the type of sex gay men have - but the main increase in risk is simply because it got into the gay community first, and statistically gay men tend to have sex with other gay men. If it had got into heterosexuals first, then it would be more prevalent in straight men and women. Slightly? There's a hugely increased risk from anal sex which is the main sort of male homosexual sex. This is why lesbians are the lowest risk group of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There is an slightly increased risk from the type of sex gay men have - but the main increase in risk is simply because it got into the gay community first, and statistically gay men tend to have sex with other gay men. If it had got into heterosexuals first, then it would be more prevalent in straight men and women.That sounds made upon the spot, that's something I would come out with Think about what you have just put, reflect and don't do it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The World has gone mad, questioned on medical grounds is fair enough but questioned on equality grounds ? The only relevant criteria are medical/scientific ones. How is anyone disadvantaged by being banned from donating blood? Being banned from receiving blood would of course be disadvantageous the same cannot be said for a ban on donation. The population as a whole should not be put at risk lest a sub-group suffers hurt feelings ! Good job ignoring everything in the article about how the ban is being relaxed because the evidence doesn't support it: Committee member Prof Deirdre Kelly said the safety of the blood supply is "absolutely essential" and that any restrictions "must be based on the latest scientific evidence". She said there had been advances in the testing of donated blood which had significantly reduced the chance of errors and had reduced the size of the "window period". She said the data showed that "the risk from a 12-month deferral was equivalent to permanent deferral" so "the evidence does not support the maintenance of a permanent ban". Dr Lorna Williamson, medical and research director of NHS Blood and Transplant, said: "The change does not alter the estimated risk, therefore patients needing a transfusion can be sure blood is safe." You ignore all that and more to pretend that this change in policy is driven by something other than scientific evidence. Children being adopted by same sex couples in order to make the adults feel better about their own peculiarities that prevent them from having their own families ! Or maybe the law on adoption was changed because there are children languishing in the care system which the government itself acknowledges has "devastating" outcomes for children unlucky enough to be in it. In contrast children with same sex parents do the same as those with mixed sex parents. No doubt gay adoptive parents feel better on the whole than they did when they were childless, significantly their adoptive kids feel massively better and are given an even chance of a good life. More foxes and wolves should be employed as shepherds lest the predators feel excluded ? A disgusting inference, I would suggest you should be ashamed of it but I realise you're beyond shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Arr but do you? how could you? Just because my answer sounds stupid does not mean you should rule it out (although I just about did even as I was typing it, hence my second theory). I remember reading that you can get really drunk on a couple of shots of spirit if it is put up the rectal passage, something to do with it getting absorbed directly into the blood stream and the passages ability to absorb it easily. That's why it seemed logical that if sperm can transmit the disease it would be more dangerous than say swallowing it. Someone will be on to tell us the real reason but until then I am putting all my chips on this theory as its the most logical to me. Sorry if I sounded off key. If the alcohol bit is true it could be a great way to get wasted and not have a hangover or constant trips to the khazi............................................. ............now where's that bottle of JD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 It's laughable that a gay man in a stable relationship can't donate but a straight man who sleeps with a different women every week can. But hey, that's the world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 There's a hugely increased risk from anal sex which is the main sort of male homosexual sex. Believe it or not, straight people have anal sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Actually its probably more to do with the rectal passages ability to absorb things into the blood stream, pretty much as in if you stick a small amount of alcohol up there you can get smashed. Don't ask nice why to take opium too, I try'd it in nepal:) i've seen the natives in nepal take it as a suppositorie when they've got a bad case of the s..ts they told me it slows down the bug ,blocks you up a bit, plus a nice stone too ...better than what the chemists try and sell you:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Best stay away from Thailand then! John X now I know you'll proberly hit me with loads of stats ,but I've been going through thailand and bangkok for over 40 years and the prob's there is not aids, the girls there get them selves checked alot more than what they would in the west . you've got alot more chance of catching hepatitis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.