John Kerry calls for the blood of gay men

[garbon]

I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?

[Strix]

While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.

Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?

Sir? 

Yes, a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing the same activity with males. This has been statistically proven.

[Jaron]

Well I guess it's a fair point. But this just shows that the policy of charging young people more for insurance is unfair and discriminatory.

That being said, it's a fucking non issue. I wonder why people even bother with it. It's not like gay people are prevented from living their life to the fullest because they don't get milk, cookies and a couple of bucks for their blood.

Meh. I'm nonplused.

NO!

As a gay person, as a minority you need to wage war tirelessly to gain full rights to every aspect of your life.

Give them one victory and they will yearn for more.

[Jaron]

While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.

Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?

Sir? 

Yes, a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing the same activity with males. This has been statistically proven.

Back your shit up, Strix. I need to see something fairly recent though because as I mentioned data from the 80s is invalid due to changing attitudes and lifestyles.

[Faeelin]

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

This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.

I mean, fuck you? What the hell have you ever done, other than come out once you got a job in Brussels, that bastion of homophobia?

[garbon]

Gaydar

Which fails constantly.

And it isn't like straight people have it.

[Strix]

Yes, the screening of blood is critical. That is why it's better to exclude a high risk group from the process because it reduces the chances of an error.

Except that you can't really ever exclude them. We don't wear pink triangles.

You can ask them to do the responsible thing and not give blood. Opps, my bad. If many of those in your high risk group did the responsible thing and wore condoms than this probably wouldn't even be an issue.

[Jaron]

I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?

This will probably be a popular idea with many Languish posters. We might as well be a damn subsidiary of Stormfront

[Faeelin]

I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?

We do 

[Martinus]

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

This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.

I mean, fuck you? What the hell have you ever done, other than come out once you got a job in Brussels, that bastion of homophobia?

Uhm, you know that I came out after I had come back to Warsaw following my secondment to Brussels? I also donate to gay causes and march in gay rights marches. I'm not a "professional activist" but I think I'm doing my due.

[The Brain]

I wonder if we should exclude blacks from many occupations (and perhaps society), seeing as how they are over-represented in prisons. Why take the risk?

Another self-hating black man. This is part of the fucking problem, don't you see?

[Jaron]

Well.

Faeelin does wear kilts to parties so I guess he is representing in his own way.

[garbon]

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

This is so a propos Jaron's post about self-hating homos in the other thread.

I mean, fuck you? What the hell have you ever done, other than come out once you got a job in Brussels, that bastion of homophobia?

Well, I join in on Marti's chorus as I was thinking the same thing about your earlier post.

[garbon]

Another self-hating black man. This is part of the fucking problem, don't you see?

[Strix]

While true, such a risk is minimal. You are no more likely to be infected with HIV by a gay persons blood than with a heterosexuals.

Or, would you say that a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night (as is quite common in college culture) is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing this very activity?

Sir? 

Yes, a straight man who whores himself around and has sex with a random woman every night is less likely to infect you with HIV than a gay man pursuing the same activity with males. This has been statistically proven.

Back your shit up, Strix. I need to see something fairly recent though because as I mentioned data from the 80s is invalid due to changing attitudes and lifestyles.

Jaron, you need to back YOUR shit up for a change. It's common knowledge that HIV is transmitted by high risk groups. The main high risk groups are homosexual males, intravenous drug users, and prostitutes.  It is rare for woman on woman or man on woman sex to spread HIV. It happens but mainly as a result of a bisexual or drug user getting HIV from male on male sex or a dirty needle.

If you have proof that this has changed than please share. If not than continue being your ignorant self.