John Kerry calls for the blood of gay men

[derspiess]

I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.

  Classic Marty.

[Jaron]

In America the police don't collect and regulate blood supplies, Marcin..

[Martinus]

In America the police don't collect and regulate blood supplies, Marcin..

[Strix]

Oh, so suddenly it's not "gay people" (as in derspiess' original post that I was responding it and that you took exception to) but "gay people who are male and who are young". I love a debate with moving targets.

No, you moron, It's called facts. Something you will want to avoid at all costs on this subject. Gay males are to HIV as blacks are to incarceration in America. They are both minority groups that are highly over represented in their respective issues in comparison to the majority.

If you are to stupid to understand that young gay males alone make up around 50% of those infected with HIV than you definitely won't be able to make the leap in understanding that adding in the older gay males only increases the overall percentage.

Gay males are the highest risk group for HIV period. That such a small group represents such a big proportion should be apparent even to someone like yourself.

[Martinus]

I already answered this question in a post Strix quoted. The reason concerns sexual habits, not sexual orientation. Such habits are, sadly, more prominent among gay men, but that does not make gay men a high risk group. This is a correlation, not a causation.

  Classic Marty.

Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.

[Strix]

Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.

Basing someone's life on the honesty of a person not lying about having had unprotected anal sex is not justified either.

It's better to err on the side of caution.

[Faeelin]

We are not a federal country, so we don't have different provinces giving people different rights (if we had, Warsaw probably would have had civil partnerships by now). Does your country have federal laws protecting gay people from being fired for being gay? Does your army allow gay people to serve openly?

So go fuck yourself with your ivory tower sense of superiority that would be put to a sore test in some parking lot in Wyoming.

So in other words you're saying a nation of 300 million people has regional differences.

I will note that unlike your pissant little country, our capital didn't try to ban a gay pride parade in 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4084324.stm, but it's really fun when you try to pull of this sophisticated schtick.

[The Brain]

I'm shocked that Mart throws reason out the window on a gay issue.

[Jaron]

Isn't what what all blood tests are though?

The person could just as easily put down they are straight.

The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.

The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.

[Martinus]

Gay males are to HIV as blacks are to incarceration in America.

See? This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You have two traits "A" and "B". Trait A correlates with trait B statistically, but it does not cause each other. Trait "C" is caused by "B". If you then make a policy in which if someone has trait "A", he or she is likely to have "C", this policy is unsound.

Children of Barrack Obama are not more likely to get incarcerated than children of any white family (and are much less likely to be incarcerated than children of a white trash family from Florida or Kentucky, for example). This means being black will not cause you to become a criminal - it's just that being black often statistically correlates with being poor, and poverty indeed causes crime.

The same goes for the gay / HIV correlation. A gay person who does not engage in unprotected anal sex is less likely to have HIV than for example a woman who engages in unprotected vaginal sex with a heterosexual or a bisexual guy. Being gay will not cause you to have HIV - it's just that being gay correlates statistically with engaging in unprotected anal sex, which is a cause of HIV spread.

[Faeelin]

Right, but why take a risk? A single error in screening could cause tons of people to be infected.

[Martinus]

Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.

Basing someone's life on the honesty of a person not lying about having had unprotected anal sex is not justified either.

It's better to err on the side of caution.

You are already basing this on the honesty of a person not lying about having sex with other men, you fucking idiot. There is no "central database of gay people".

[Jaron]

Gay males are to HIV as blacks are to incarceration in America.

See? This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You have two traits "A" and "B". Trait A correlates with trait B statistically, but it does not cause each other. Trait "C" is caused by "B". If you then make a policy in which if someone has trait "A", he or she is likely to have "C", this policy is unsound.

[Jaron]

Well that's my point. I'm gay. I don't do anal. I am NOT in a high risk group. So basing a policy on "having sex with other men" (unless by sex you mean only anal sex) is not justified.

Basing someone's life on the honesty of a person not lying about having had unprotected anal sex is not justified either.

It's better to err on the side of caution.

You are already basing this on the honesty of a person not lying about having sex with other men, you fucking idiot. There is no "central database of gay people".

Yet...

[Martinus]

Isn't what what all blood tests are though?

The person could just as easily put down they are straight.

The last time I gave blood I could have marked that I have no communicable diseases with a stroke of a pen.

The screening of blood is what is critical, not honesty. Your argument is flawed because we should not discredit gay people as liars while accepting the trustworthiness of straights based upon word alone. Let all who would donate give blood and screen the hell out of all of it.