This is factually inaccurate. Common sense should lead any critical reader to dispute this exaggeration.
The 2005/6 research these misrepresentations are based on concluded that approx 1 in 8 (13.7% in Brighton) of SCENE USING men in a wide variety of gay venues had HIV.
This is not the same as all ‘UK gay men’. Scene using gay men in the major urban centres of major gay cities are a group likely to over represent people with HIV.
It’s worrying that supposed journalists in the gay media are so casual and/or sensationalist with their stories that they misrepresent significant facts like this.

A little more professionalism please PinkNews!

You presume wrongly then. The only tissue an MSM can’t donate is a retina – this is because far more reliable tissue biopsies can be taken from the organs (but not retinas) in order to confirm HIV-status.

No it doesn’t – because if a gay man had lived like a nun and never had sex he would be allowed to donate blood.

So your assertion is that gay men are less faithful than straight men?

No that isn’t my assertion – and only a complete cretin could interpret it as that. The fact remains that most supposedly monogamous relationships (gay or straight) have at least one episode of infidelity. FACT, so kindly give up this pathetic childish game you play of trying to twist words.

Weve all seen the emotive ads and what decent human being wouldnt want to help. I presume the same ban is in effect on organ donation. Is it?

Only 12 months? They should get a lifetime ban like a man who has slept with another man – an equally risky endeavour apparantly.

RobN, “you, me and all the other gay men on here are not worth putting millions of peoples lives at risk”

Sounds like you’d be more at home on the Daily Mail.

Harthacanute, “Monogamy is a state of mind, or a personal belief – not a physical certainty. You may think you are in a monogamous relationship, but your partner may have other ideas and you’d be amazed how many people (myself included) become infected with HIV when they are supposedly in a monogamous relationship with an HIV-negative partner.”

So your assertion is that gay men are less faithful than straight men?

Between you and RobN there is no need for indignent religious bigots wielding archane stereotypes.

RobN, “You don’t give a flying sh!t about who gets infected, just as long as you have your damn rights.”

My rights to not be automatically deemed a public health risk because of the way I was born?

The phrase “self-hatred” is quite apposite here.

Really? Have you ever taken the time to read the full exclusion criteria then? If you had you would know how wrong that statement is.

Name me *one*
I can name you loads of gay guys that have.

It’s called ‘statistics’, and it a very well-honed accurate science. Yes there may be those that don’t fit the norm, but we really don’t care about the odd fat little queen. It’s ‘the law of averages’ and it says that you, me and all the other gay men on here are not worth putting millions of peoples lives at risk.

My argument is this issue shouldn’t be saying “Who we are banning”, but more accurately “Who we ARE allowing”.

ie: No men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users, prostitutes, sub-Saharan Africans, many Asians, haemophiliacs, diabetics, anaemics, those having contracted Hepatitis, Malaria, Cholera, Typhoid and many other long-term diseases and deficiencies. Or would you rather we let them in too?

The available statistics show that gay and bisexual men are still at high risk of HIV. The vast majority of heterosexual transmissions have occurred from sexual contact abroad, which is why heterosexuals who have had sex with someone from a high risk area, such as Africa, are banned for 12 months. I do not believe that this should mean all Sub-Saharan African people living in Britain should be banned – after all, if you live here, you’re chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual intercourse is greatly reduced. It also has to be weighed up against the fact that ethnic minorities have much rarer blood types and there is a greater demand of their blood to treat Black and Asian patients.

Also, the technology is simply not advanced enough – there is still a three month window period for testing, which is a ridiculously long length of time so it is only right that additional safe guards are put in place.

I do think there need to be more stringent questions asked of heterosexuals with regards to their sexual activity, but again it comes down to risk assessment – will this lead to a decrease in potential donors as a result with no real benefit from the reduction of infection (and remember, this includes not just HIV but also Hepatitis B & C and syphilis).

Ultimately, the ban is based on available statistics (and the Sigma survey does make for depressing reading), so it needs to be the numbers that change before the ban can be reconsidered. Surely it would be far more productive and worthwhile if the energy put into fighting the ban was put into improving sex education for LGBT young people, improving testing rates and increasing condom use throughout the gay community?

Perhaps, in the real world, we should look at our own behaviour before bleating about prejudice and recinding the ban.

As far as I am concerned it is an issue of risk and has nothing to do with homophobia.

“To say that every gay man is highly likely to be HIV+ is pejoratively discriminatory”
The article states between 4% and 10% of gay men are registered HIV+, and the chances are there are many more who are not yet diagnosed.

You obviously haven’t read my comment (22) properly, because you can see a direct correlation to having unsafe sex which is identical to the risk of donating infected blood. You wouldn’t be willing to shag anyone without a condom, but you expect the general public to effectively do the same.

Additionally, gay men are more likely to contract HIV due to anal sex, which is far more risky than vaginal sex. (and please don’t give me that straw-man argument about straights having anal sex – they have a choice, we don’t.)

There are none so blind as those that *will* not see.

Really? Monogamy is a state of mind, or a personal belief – not a physical certainty. You may think you are in a monogamous relationship, but your partner may have other ideas and you’d be amazed how many people (myself included) become infected with HIV when they are supposedly in a monogamous relationship with an HIV-negative partner.

You truth, unpalatable as it may be to some sensitive souls, is that you can make sworn declarations about your own behaviour, but can you really make sworn declarations about your partner’s behaviour .. and whether it was protected?

And when you say protected sex – does that include oral sex? I very much doubt it; but have you stopped to consider that although it may be rare , oral sex is actually a perfectly viable route for HIV transmission?

What we do know is that well over 70% of those heterosexuals who are diagnosed HIV-positive acquired HIV whilst overseas, which is why anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is common (including all countries in Africa) are excluded from donating for 12 months).

This is so laughable. The obvious counter argument is that since blood donation relies upon the charitable goodwill of donors and is not a requirement, it is much kinder for everyone that no one’s feeling are injured in the name of ‘public health’, and therefore all donation should be stopped until such time that a fair and unjust system of donation can exist that does not hurt individuals. Hurting individuals goes against the Hippocratic Oath and is not worthy of any nurse, doctor or medical professional.

Blood donation is a conscious free choice of kindness, it is not a market commodity that can be traded, rejected or stockpiled as required, and is not subject to the demand of those who benefit from donated blood

How anyone can espouse the view that a man who had sex with another man 15 years ago should be forbidden from ever donating blood is wanton insanity.

Asserting that all men who have sex with other men, even protected, monogamous sex, should be banned from donating blood is an absurd prejudice.

The ban is ineffective anyway, as all one has to do to circumvent the restrictions os tick the box “I AM HETERO” (or words to that effect) and let the little rascals in the blood van suck away.

All blood is screened anyway, so the continuation of this ban that relies on form-filling is ludicrous

RobN, if you wish to plunder dictionaries in a foolhardy attempt to reinforce your bizarre logic, perhaps you should look at further definitions other than the very first one you happen upon: “The making of distinctions prejudicial to people of a different race or colour from oneself; racial discrimination” is but one other example, hence discrimination can be prejudicial rather than merely discernable.

To say that every gay man is highly likely to be HIV+ is pejoratively discriminatory, as it confers upon gay men a social behaviour distinct from their individuality; in other words, it presupposes that by the mere happenstance of one being gay and male, one is hard-wired to be promiscuous, hedonistic, brazen and unconcerned with deadly infections. This is unabashed homophobic prejudice – or, if you will, anti-gay discrimination.

The point you meekly attempt to rescue yourself with – “This isn’t a matter of sexuality, merely sexual contact” – is spurious: gay men are, ipso facto, only concerned with having sex with other gay men; the language used is a poor attempt to sound as non-prejudiced as possible.

It is abhorrent that every gay man is forbidden from donating blood because some gay men are lotharios. The argument that lifting the ban will lead to an increase in HIV infections is patently false: presumably a ban on HIV+ persons donating blood shall continue to be enforced, therefore any person who is infected or has been engaged in risky behaviour will simply have to lie and be able to donate. The only possible way to prevent all gay men from donating is to test for homosexuality – a clear invasion of privacy and would lead to clear prejudiced discrimination. One supposes that HIV screening will be commonplace before homosexuality screening emerges.

Unless I have woken up in Stalinist Russia, I am still a free Englishman, and as such do not deserve to be discriminated against and told that because I was born gay, I am a filthy, hedonistic pervert with no regard for my own or others’ safety – least of all by the state or its orifices.

The arguments against the ban are numerous and persuasive, and I have yet to see any logic that should allow the ban’s continuation.