Antithesis, if all you say is true, then those members of the gay community that wish to donate their blood, would do well to wait til the policy changes.

OD

Yes or no, junior...

Do all viruses and infections show up in blood immediately?

Another Yes or No question:

Does the American Red Cross have THE latest technology available to them for testing all blood?


HINT: The answer to both questions is NO. Get it? NO

I won't argue, but I will point out your hypocrisy. Yes or no, you accused somebody of malicious intent to spread disease, which was both unfounded and unprovoked. Answer: YES

And don't call me "junior." I'm more mature than you are. At least I don't personally attack people until they warrant it.

Nice cop-out, JUNIOR.

You refused to answer the questions that you KNOW would make your whole argument completely wrong.

You ALSO refused to answer my question as to whether you would knowingly choose to accept blood from a blood bank that draws exclusively from homosexuals. But in NOT answering, you answered. And in that little evasive attempt you're proving your hypocrisy!

The HIV/AIDS virus is NOT immediately detectable in blood, IS IT? In fact, it was admitted - not too long ago - that it could go undetected for up to 2 years.

Get it?
Do you understand that?

Figure out what it means, JUNIOR.

Trista - and his ilk - are putting untold thousands of people at HIGH RISK because of their stupid, deceitful behavior.

Did you even answer my question, or are you COPPING OUT??? What proof do you have of Tristan's infection? If you don't have it, then fine, just say it. No, HIV isn't immediately detectable, but it is in a few WEEKS, and THAT is why you are asked to remain abstinent for a certain period of time. If it can go undetected for a period as long as two years, why are we allowed to donate having had unprotected sex with somebody within that time constraint? How do we know that a person in a monogamous relationship didn't have their partner cheat and then both, unbeknownst to each other, had contracted HIV? Why isn't the statistic significantly higher?

I'm arguing against the law and arguing that though it isn't particularly good to lie on a form and give blood, there was no harm done, and furthermore, that the whole policy is based on prejudice because when it was created, back in the mid '80s, people were still using "AIDS: Kills Fags Dead" as a slogan and proclaiming it to be a gay disease.

That's all I'm saying, no more, no less. I have nothing to say to you which you will not brush off, and thus, I feel that my time would be better spent elsewhere.

Let's just get back to topic. I get the feeling that Jefferson is gonna come back with another rant, and we already wasted three pages dealing with him. Know what? Let's just not respond when he tries to personally attacks people. Seems like more an argument out of desperation anyway.

Okay, I am sorry I pulled a misnomer, Tristan, but I do believe if you go back and peruse my posts today in this thread, you shall see that I did also say policy instead of law in at least one instance.

Regardless, I believe that if the policy is based on a false premise, there would be a legal way and of course with medical proof, a persuasive way to overturn the policy. And that without the rebelliion that does , in my estimation, distance you from the goals for the gay community.

OD

There is no legal way to change the policy. The Red Cross is a private organization, and they can make the eligibility rules as they please. Though gay rights organizations have been dealing with it for over fifteen years now, the Religious Right Wing Extremists in this country simply fight harder and harder, using all the hysterical rhetoric and untrue "statistics and facts" that alias and Jefferson use on this forum. It all goes to who screams the loudest. It shouldnt' be a big secret that the Religious Right can scream louder than a roomful of two-year-olds at three in the afternoon without a nap. The gay community has tried to find a way to "scream" louder - and in a way that makes their point clear.

Though I completely understand your point of view - and there are many who agree with you - I don't agree with it. The equality of gay citizens in the USA has been going on for almost a century. I think the time period for being polite about it is just about used up. There are some gay extremists who advocate actual violence - riots, bombings, etc. I DON'T agree with them. I believe there's room in the middle for civil disobedience, protests and visibility events without resorting to either violence OR becoming invisible (again). Unfortunately, we live in a country where nobody listens to you or cares what you have to say until you say it in a way that actually personally affects them. I feel the civil disobedience that is being committed in regards to donating clean, untainted blood falls in that middle ground.
However, many people disagree with making waves. Don't forget, there were MANY black organizations that did NOT agree with lunch counter sit-in's and bus boycotts, etc. They wanted everything to be more civil and acceptable...and in a way that wouldn't cause 'backlash.'