Comments on: Gay Men May Soon Gain the Right to Give Blood

By: JJ

JJ — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:13:37 +0000

…and not just AIDS, hepatitis is a problem too.

By: scribbler

scribbler — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:03:33 +0000

The science is that AIDS is transmitted by blood…

Should people be prejudiced against AIDS infected blood?

I think they should…

By: onetokenhetero

onetokenhetero — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:11:24 +0000

how is it possible that in this modern age of technology, innovation, and information, anyone with an internet connection and the ability to read remains ignorant to simple scientific truth? blood is not capable of being perverse in its own right. furthermore, if you honestly believe that homosexual tendencies are such a scourge and weight upon humanity, you might start supporting your beliefs by examining the lives of your most popular political pundits and deciding for yourself whether or not they are any kind of reliable source. tenacity and perseverance are so different from stubborn closedmindedness. so many lives could be saved if you just faced the truth. what makes you think you are so special, to be able to choose who saves lives? what kind of f***ed-up thinking leads to the conclusion that only heterosexuals are worthy of this? there is nothing physically different between homos and heteros. you’re not gonna catch the gay from a transfusion.

the middle ages were a long time ago. you should really consider bringing your morals up to date.

[Moderator's note: Edited the cuss word.]

By: Hyoscine

Hyoscine — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:51:25 +0000

cgray…

Conservative heterosexual here, earnestly hoping you bleed to death sometime soon.

By: sanud002

sanud002 — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:38:02 +0000

I can’t believe there is even a rule against this. At least it is on it’s way to not being anymore.

By: JJ

JJ — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:14:05 +0000

cgray, I’m certainly not a Democrat (I’m Libertarian), and I don’t have a problem with lifting this ban. Although, having a set time frame is a good idea, but 1 year since the last encounter seems unrealistic. How is being gay perverted by the way? My aunt and cousin are lesbians; and 2 of my friends are gay, they’re hardly perverted. In my experience, straight folks are more perverted, especially those “red-necks”.

However, I will agree with you on the point that Discover blogs have been very much left-wing lately, or at least anti-Republican. I’d rather not see such politics meshed into a science blog, but the bloggers have the right to post what they want on their blogs. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

By: Albert Bakker

Albert Bakker — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:04:28 +0000

Dear #5 that’s just the point: no special treatment. Not for you, not for them.

Many married overtly heterosexual men have sex with other men. For some, not really well understood reason especially respectable Republican men, even those publicly well known for promoting somewhat orthodox Christian (and) “family values” seem to get caught disproportionally often. To be fair, maybe that is just a feature of the glaring hypocrisy than anything else. In any case many are slipping through the nets and go on with their happy lives with wife and kids and dangerous hobby.

Now my question dear mr. cgray (for some reason I suspect you are male) if in your ideal world openly gay people are excluded and someday – I hope not – are going to need blood (I’m even going to grant you the choice between Rep and Dem blood in this hypothetical scheme) how are you going to know you won’t get secretly perverse blood?

Maybe then you should you opt for shock just to be on the safe side.

By: cgray

cgray — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:04:21 +0000

Why not just change the name to “Democrat Discover magazine”? I certainly don’t want the blood of some disgusting gay pervert, and that’s exactly what gays are–perverts. Homosexuality is nothing more than deviant sexual behavior, and should be treated as such. No pervert deserves special treatment. P.S.– You sicko Democrats lost–9 to 6. Ha.

By: ranggaw0636

ranggaw0636 — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:36:46 +0000

I don’t even know they have this kind of rule LOL

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:07:16 +0000

“The Red Cross, American Medical Association, and American Association of Blood Banks all want the lifetime ban to go away, though the Red Cross supports in its stead a single-year donation ban dating back to the last sexual encounter.”

So, this means that a gay guy has to not have sex for a year before they can donate blood? Doesn’t make a shred of sense, might as well be a lifetime ban…

By: James E

James E — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:57:39 +0000

@1 Ellen K.
I think what he is trying to say is that they want to change the ban to “you are banned for one year if you have had sex with a same sex partner” instead of a life time ban. not you are banned if you have had sex in the past year.

By: Ellen K.

Ellen K. — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:12:41 +0000

There are adults who’ve never been sexually active. A definite minority, but not unheard of. I do agree the end on the ban is a good thing. But I’m disappointed that your article equals sexual activity with sexual orientation.