Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay men could be subject to five-year ban on blood donation

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So… to give blood, gay men are not allowed to have sex for five years, even if they’re in a stable relationship? Does this seem like anything approaching equality to anyone? Doesn’t seem like it to me. Heterosexual people are just as likely to have blood diseases as anyone else.

    And jumping into literary critic mode for a moment, at first glance, I thought this article accused people of having injected prostitutes. I wonder what it says about that practice in 1 Romans!

  2. Men and women who sleep around are likely to catch blood diseases it doesn’t matter what sex they sleep with. They should make everyone who has sex of any sort wait 5 years to be eligible. It is the only way to be sure. But then there would be no blood left because how many people haven’t had sex for five years apart from my ex and nuns? Gay men in stable relationships ought to be treated fairly. But I don’t expect you to agree, RobN. You argue with everyone just for the sake of arguing.

    As for ‘GRIDS’ well, the 1980s were a nice period of understanding and tolerance, weren’t they! The title GRIDS was insulting and reactionary and the cause of prejudice and misunderstanding.

    From Wikipedia

    Gay-related immune deficiency (GRID) (sometimes informally called the gay plague or GRIDS) was the 1982 name first proposed to describe what is now known as AIDS, after public health scientists noticed clusters of Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among gay males in San Francisco and New York City.

    During the early history of AIDS, an ad hoc organization called Gay Men’s Health Crisis was founded to combat what appeared to be a homosexual-only disease produced by sexual promiscuity, intravenous drug use, and/or usage of poppers. Soon after, clusters of Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia were also reported among Haitians recently entering the United States[3] and men with hemophilia, among female sexual partners of AIDS patients, and among blood transfusion recipients with no obvious risk factors.

    The term AIDS (for acquired immune deficiency syndrome) was proposed in 1982 by researchers concerned with the accuracy of the disease’s name. In this new name, scientists were supported by political figures who realized that the term “gay-related” did not accurately describe the demographic that the disease affected. On April 23, 1984, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary announced at a press conference that an American scientist, Dr. Robert Gallo, had discovered the probable cause of AIDS: the retrovirus subsequently named human immunodeficiency virus or HIV in 1986.

  3. What happened to RobN’s comment? I didn’t think it was THAT offensive. Annoying as usual, but not offensive.

  4. Vincent Poffley 28 Oct 2009, 11:21pm

    The blood ban is among the most outrageous pieces of stealth homophobia we have the misfortune to labour under. Currently an HIV-negative gay man, who has been in a monogamous relationship with another HIV-negative gay man for his entire life, and slept with nobody else, is unable to give blood. Conversely a straight man who sleeps with a different woman every night and never uses condoms is under no restriction whatsoever. This is completely ridiculous and utterly insulting.

    The standard HIV test does not detect HIV antibodies in the bloodstream until three months after infection. There is, however, a slightly more expensive test which detects the virus itself, not the antibodies, and can be used after only a week. This is the state of technology today. Now, if gay men are indeed at a higher risk of infection, why not say that if someone has had anal sex with another man (or, rather, has been the receptive partner in anal sex, because the insertive partner is at no greater risk than for vaginal sex) in the last FOUR months, he is not allowed to give blood. Otherwise simply do an HIV test. You could also allow HIV-negative men who are married to or in a monogamous long-term relationship other HIV-negative men to forego this testing if they wish.

    That would be a fair and practical solution, taking account of actual risky practices and attempting to minimise the degree of intrusion and discrimination into people’s lives. Instead we get more of the same barely-concealed hatred masquerading as science and medical ethics. I refuse to have my sexuality pathologized, or the assumption made that I am more likely to carry diseases than my straight counterparts, when in reality this is simply not the case.

  5. the only celibate gay man I can think of who qualifies is Cliff Richard (allegedly)

    I think this is more or an insult than what currently exists.

  6. You two put it better than I could.

  7. The whole ban is a nonsense. Banning men who’ve slept with another man from donating blood for ever or for 5 years is ridiculous.

    The ban should be on risky behaviour, IE having unprotected sex with persons of unknown HIV status (for males and females), for using a prostitute or intravenous drug use.

    Saying that because a man has sex with another man he is more likely to be HIV+ than a man who has sex with a woman is absurd. It’s not only bad science, it’s immoral.

    This stigmatises men who have ever slept with another man, even one of known HIV status, and those in a monogamous relationship.

    Lots of countries lifted the ban because it is simply wrong.

    Vincent Poffley, couldn’t agree more.

  8. I don’t think any of you have actually read the restrictions placed on people who donate blood.

    It is far wider than gay men.

    This is not an issue of homophobia. The happy little images of homo couples only sleeping with each other does still not change the fact that gay men continue to be over represented in the number of people living with HIV.

  9. Charles, the restrictions are well known: any man who’s had a sexual relationship with another man, any woman who’s had sex with either of the lifelong carriers of disease (whether or not they are infected with STDs), prostitutes or IV drug users.

    It IS an issue of homophobia. You can’t keep out every man who’s had sex with another man just because he’s had sex with another man. RISKY sex yes, but that should apply to both genders.

    Rose makes a good point about GRIDS.

    Even if they changed the ban to 5 years, that is homophobic. Is it the case that only when a man has sex with another man, it takes 5 years for HIV to manifest itself?

    No?

    Then why a 5 year ban?

    The only reason can be there are fuddy duddies making up these rules as they go along and think that if a man sleeps with another man, there is something seriously wrong with him, so he mustbe a liar and needs 5 years of abstinence to prove he’s over the gay thing.

    OR it will in effect keep EVERY gay man out of the blood donor system, just like it does now.

    the ban or proposed ban of 5 years is reminiscent of the Church.

    It’s ok to be gay as long as you’re not practising.

    But the blood suckers go further, as they don’t even allow you to repent – except maybe after 5 years of sitting on the naughty step f*ing women.

    Scandalous.

  10. Rose: It offended the editor because I made a pop at her…

  11. Well, don’t do that again, RobN. Popping editors is as bad as injecting prostitutes.

    Worst of all, the wording of these things implies that a gay man living in monogamous relationship and doing no more than I did for 16 years when married to a man is the same as prostitutes and drug users. Nice to know where you stand in the social scale, isn’t it!

  12. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 10:35am

    Voidal keeps repeating this myth:

    Saying that because a man has sex with another man he is more likely to be HIV+ than a man who has sex with a woman is absurd. It’s not only bad science, it’s immoral.

    No – it is actually both very hard fact and very good science.

    Half of newly diagnosed HIV infections may very well be heterosexual, but 75% are amongst people who became infected overseas.

    You can bury your head in the sand and deny the evidence for as long as you like; but the unpalatable truth will still remain and be that around 5% of the population account for more than 80% of the new and difficult to detect HIV transmissions taking place in THIS country today.

    It is also a hard fact that, in urban areas, more than 40% of that part of the 5% who are HIV-positive don’t even know that they are HIV-positive and are, as likely as they are not to be, engaging in unprotected anal sex with multiple partners of unknown HIV-status.

    HIV prevalence in the heterosexual population is less than 0.25%.
    HIV prevalence is the MSM population is rapidly approaching 10% (Brighton 13.7%, London 12.3%, Manchester 8.6%, Edinburgh 5.5%, Glasgow is 4%)

    … which, no matter how desperately you try to spin it, makes a man-who-has-sex-with-men almost 40 times more likely to be HIV-positive.

    Lots of countries lifted the ban because it is simply wrong.

    Wrong again – a very small handful of countries, with very different prevalence profiles, have lifted the ban, and there isn’t a single one of them where HIV infected blood and/or organs haven’t entered the supply chain and resulted in the recipients becoming infected as a direct result of the ban being removed.

    The fact that the argument for lifting the ban can’t be made without constantly relying deliberate propagandist misrepresentations of the truth is very revealing.

  13. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 10:49am

    As for Peter Tatchell’s bizarre claim that lifting the ban will create another couple of million blood donors. That relies totally on the unattainable dream that the proportion of MSMs donating blood will be massively higher than the proportion of the population as a whole … and also the absurd assumption that no MSM:

    – is a Type 1 diabetic
    – has ever had serious illness or major surgery
    – has ever had blood transfusion
    – has haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder
    – has injected themselves with drugs
    – has taken medication
    – has had syphilis, HTVL or hepatitis B or C
    – has had malaria
    – has recently had unprotected sex
    – has been to Canada or the United States
    – has been to a malarial area
    – has been to Central and/or South America
    – has had sex in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common
    – has had sex with a prostitute
    – has had sex with anyone who has ever injected themselves with drugs
    – has had sex with anyone who has haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder
    – has had sex with anyone who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS/HIV is very common
    …. and the list goes on and on and on.

  14. Aussie Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 29 Oct 2009, 10:57am

    This policy is flawed because it is OK for a heterosexual male to have unsafe sex with hookers or engage in dangerous promiscous behaviuor as many times as he wished, he can donate as much blood as possible even when he is HIV positive – but a gay men who continually practiced monogamus safe sex over and over again and is HIV NEGATIVE or has not got any sort of disease is BANNED?????

    I just don’t get this 1970 outdated policy!!!!

  15. Aussie Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 29 Oct 2009, 10:59am

    We have this stupid policy in down under (Australia) as well!!!!!

  16. Aussie Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 29 Oct 2009, 11:01am

    80 percent of people who are HIV [all over the world] are heterosexual – NOT homosexual, get your facts right people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. Aussie Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 29 Oct 2009, 11:02am

    [after HIV in the sentence] – add “positive”.

  18. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 11:04am

    This policy is flawed because it is OK for a heterosexual male to have unsafe sex with hookers or engage in dangerous promiscous behaviuor as many times as he wished, he can donate as much blood as possible even when he is HIV positive

    Another one who hasn’t bothered to read the exclusion criteria before forming his opinion.

  19. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 11:06am

    80 percent of people who are HIV [all over the world] are heterosexual – NOT homosexual, get your facts right people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We are talking about the UK – not the rest of the world.

  20. As I stated in a previous comment, anal sex is far riskier and likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex. That is the single bigeest reason why there are a higher proportion of HIV+ gay men in UK than straight ones. Yes, straights do have anal sex, but they have a choice, we don’t.

    The reason Africa is so high is because African men will only marry ‘virgins’, but anal sex is not considered losing one’s virginity, so they do that instead. To compound this, condoms are viewed as ‘unmanly’.

  21. even if true, that doesn’t justify demonising ALL gay men, even those in stable, clean relationshps.

  22. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 1:20pm

    The reason Africa is so high is because African men will only marry ‘virgins’, but anal sex is not considered losing one’s virginity, so they do that instead

    I find that one a bit hard to swallow. Nothing, in any of all the thousands of peer-reviewed HIV studies I have seen, suggests any such thing .. in fact every study I have read suggests that it is to do with the tendency for men in warmer climates to have more moisture (which is an HIV-friendly environment) beneath the foreskin. Hence the drive to increase circumcision rates in such countries.

  23. “Harthacanute”… Interesting choice of name. A Danish king, I believe, from the 11th century. You remind me of someone who used to frequent this site who also used names of kings as his ID, and spouted the same tired GRIDS rhetorical nonsense. Interesting.

    Oh, and your “logic” is flawed, by the way.

    If you say “half of newly diagnosed HIV infections may very well be heterosexual, but 75% are amongst people who became infected overseas”, then we should ban all heterosexuals who have sex overseas as well, no? The four major routes of transmission are unsafe sex, contaminated needles, breast milk, and transmission from an infected mother to her baby at birth. But of course, people like you seems to focus on gay men being historically the blame for this disease.

    The REALITY is that more heterosexuals than gay & bisexual men are now estimated to be living with HIV in the UK:- Heterosexual 52%, Gay & Bisexual men 43% [This information is based on the Health Protection Agency’s figures for the numbers of HIV positive people who were accessing HIV care in the UK in 2007].

    If you wish to ban high risk groups from donating blood, then it should be equally across the board, not at one target group. Keeping in mind that the overall proportion of people with HIV in the UK is estimated to be just over 0.12%, or 1 in 830, and yet people undiagnosed account for approx 31% of this [same Health Protection Agency Study].

    As heterosexual people account for 90% of the population (roughly), and they have the largest infection rates, then it stands to reason they are the biggest risk…. numerically speaking, 90% of gay men is less in numbers then just 10% of the straight population. If majority of new diagnoses relating to sexual contact are now among heterosexual people, but because the population is smaller, gay & bisexual men remain proportionally more affected. They are not the majority. Simple math.

    That’s a lot of heterosexuals infected, in the UK alone. And on the increase, about 9% on each year.

    In essence, banning gay people as a group will do f*** all to minimise the risk to recipients of blood products, which I’m SURE is your intention.

    OH, and quote your sources, by the way, otherwise you are just another ranting bigot with an anti-gay agenda…. hardly unusual here.

  24. Rose, thanks for yours stigmatising comment that a relationship where HIV is present isn’t ‘clean.’ Really shows what stigmatising attitudes you have towards the virus.

    The blood ban makes sound epidemiological and scientific sense.

    Those advocating its repeal have a scant understanding of gay men’s real sexual behaviour, the limitations of HIV testing technology, that many other groups are banned from giving blood temporarily or permanently, that heterosexual HIV incidence (rather than prevalence) in the UK is tiny and that even by the most conservative estimates, lifting the ban would lead to a five-fold increase in the risk of HIV infected blood entering the blood supply.

    The campaign to lift the blood ban is student politics at its worst.

    Far from combatting homophobia, it re-inforces stigma against gay men who have sex and have any risk of HIV. So sorry if this scientifically sound blood ban offends those who are so eager to define themselves as ‘good gays’ as opposed to the rest of us who live in the real word. It smacks of the worst kind of homophobia and HIV-phobia of the early epidemic.

  25. David North 29 Oct 2009, 2:04pm

    #20 – Not all gay men have anal sex.

  26. #25 – Neither do all straight men. However, proportionally, the incidence is still proven to be considerably higher in gay men.

    Straw-man arguments are the resort of the feeble.

  27. “that heterosexual HIV incidence (rather than prevalence) in the UK is tiny”

    I think I have already explained the difference between prevalence and incidence… its why proportionality figures being bantered about here actually hide the growth of HIV among the heterosexual community. If you want to reduce the risk in a blood transfusion, ban heterosexuals as well. A ban on gay men sexual habits makes no mathematical sense when compared to the rise in incidents of infection among heterosexuals.

  28. ok, wrong choice of word there. apologies if that offends anyone. but the rest of the point still stands.

  29. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 3:43pm

    Will, you remind me of a guy who frequents these forums, using all sorts of different names, accusing anyone he doesn’t agree with of being someone called ‘Monkeychops’.

    Oh, and your “logic” is flawed, by the way.

    It is a shame that nothing you have said actually demonstrates that then – especially the banal drivel about the difference between prevalence and incidence.

    then we should ban all heterosexuals who have sex overseas as well, no?

    Which is exactly what we do – if you bothered to read the exclusion criteria.

    OH, and quote your sources, by the way, otherwise you are just another ranting bigot with an anti-gay agenda…. hardly unusual here.

    My sources for prevalence numbers are: National AIDS Trust, Aidsmap, Dodds JP et al. A tale of three cities: persisting high HIV prevalence, risk behaviour and undiagnosed infection in community samples of men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect, 2007 and Williamson L et al. HIV prevalence and undiagnosed infection among community samples of gay men in the United Kingdom: five city comparison. Sixteenth International AIDS Conference, Toronto, abstract MoPe0517, 2006.

    .. and your sources .. or do you just make your stuff up on the fly?

  30. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 3:58pm

    I think I have already explained the difference between prevalence and incidence… its why proportionality figures being bantered about here actually hide the growth of HIV among the heterosexual community.

    Except you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the fact that HIV isn’t spreading in the heterosexual community at anything like the rate you are making out with your distortion of the figures.

  31. Well, didn’t deny your that muppet Tiglathpileser, I see. Still, lets move away from that for the moment, your argument is dazzling in its complexity.

    I already gave my source, your lack of understanding in science not withstanding, you seem unable to read? Please, try address the issues at hand, and not the “I’m great” lark, it proves nothing. All I can see is someone who doesn’t understand the figures, and prefers to attack people rather then try. Well done.

  32. Tiglathpileser. I remember him. Hmmmm.

  33. There is some really bad maths going on here. Yes, there are a few more straight people with HIV than there are gay people in total. But there are also a lot more straight people than gay people. What matters is that the chance of a randomly selected gay person being infected is far higher than the chance of a randomly selected straight person being infected. It’s called Bayes’ Theorem, look it up.

    Note also that straight men /are/ banned from giving blood if they’ve had sex with someone sexually active in a country with high HIV prevalence in the last 12 months, or had sex with someone who “is or may be” HIV-positive in the last 12 months. So a lot of the straw men being thrown around here can’t actually happen. (Although I would be very interested to see stats on how many straight men actually abide by that last criterion.)

    That said, the ban as it stands is still appalling. The only fair and sensible criterion is along the lines of “if your chances of having contracted HIV sufficiently recently that it cannot be tested for are greater than x%, then you cannot donate blood” where x is low. To take an extreme case, gay men who have been in stable monogamous relationships with HIV-negative men for long periods have an astronomically low probability of having contracted HIV recently, but are still banned from giving blood. This is homophobia, plain and simple.

    Well, now I’ve got both sides pissed at me I’ll just go and hide in a corner shall I?

  34. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 4:15pm

    Please, try address the issues at hand, and not the “I’m great” lark, it proves nothing. All I can see is someone who doesn’t understand the figures, and prefers to attack people rather then try. Well done.

    What a cripplingly rank hypocrite you are. You try to smear me the implication that I am someone who used to come here talking about GRID, and repeat it, and then talk about addressing the issues at hand? Not only that, you attack me personally, rather than what I say about HIV, and then have the two-faced audacity to accuse me of attacking people?

    I can read perfectly well thanks. I can also read the HPA website and the figures I see there don’t seem to match what you are claiming they say. Anyway, come back when you’ve done your adult education course in adult literacy.

  35. My, my. Quite a hissy fit there Harthacanute. Usually in lieu of a valid argument too. Well done, if this was a histrionic contest you beat me fair and square, well done indeed!

    The figures I got are very clearly outlined on the Health Protection Agency’s site. Get a science degree instead of a diva crown and you’re away!

  36. Tom & George 29 Oct 2009, 4:49pm

    The only fair and sensible criterion is along the lines of “if your chances of having contracted HIV sufficiently recently that it cannot be tested for are greater than x%, then you cannot donate blood” where x is low.

    Well said, Anon, you make a fine argument there, but I’m guessing that’s what Will was really getting at anyway. And Harthacanute, please get off your high and mighty horse and learn some manners theres a good chap! I find your comments lacking more in decency than in substance, and that’s saying much given most of what you said so far are crude insults.

  37. My stance is similar to yours Anon, though I’m not as willing to stamp the ban as “homophobic”. As I’ve said it before, the issue is really based on the available evidence, which regardless of what some people on here have said, quite clearly shows that men who have sex with men are the highest risk group for HIV infection within the UK and that the vast majority of UK heterosexual cases are actually a result of sexual activity outside of the UK – that is why there are bans on certain heterosexual sexual activities. The main reason the blood transfusion service is less keen to adopt a more in-depth screening programme is that it has not worked overly well in countries that have attempted it. In Sweden, donations actually decreased while the number of infected blood products remained unchanged after a trial of a more rigorous and in-depth screening programme – low risk donors were put off by the number and intimacy of the questions asked. The blood transfusion services in the UK already have a hard enough time as it is getting enough eligible potential donors to donate blood without having to introduce screening programmes which would really only benefit a small proportion of gay men (who only make up less than 4% of the population, if you go by the standard 6-7% of the population being LGB) and could potentially reduce donor numbers even further.

    As I’ve stated before, if groups like the NUS put as much energy into improving sex education for LGBT people, increasing condom use and tackling unsafe sex practices within the gay community as they do into trying to repeal this ban, they would be far more likely to succeed by improving the statistics in our favour.

    But that would involve far more work that just screaming “discrimination”, wouldn’t it?

  38. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 4:55pm

    If majority of new diagnoses relating to sexual contact are now among heterosexual people, but because the population is smaller, gay & bisexual men remain proportionally more affected.

    The HPA figures for 2007 clearly show that there were 1,090 heterosexual infections diagnosed as acquired in the UK, versus 2,830 homosexual infections .. so no matter how you try to spin it, Will, the 5% of the population who are MSMs still account for getting on for three times as many infections as the 90% who are heterosexuals. You are wilfully including people who acquired HIV abroad in order to make the rate of heterosexual spread in the UK look a lot worse than it is.

    The figures I got are very clearly outlined on the Health Protection Agency’s site.

    Did I deny the numbers? I was pointing out that they don’t say what you are misrepresenting them as saying.

    My, my. Quite a hissy fit there Harthacanute. Usually in lieu of a valid argument too.

    Pots and kettles.

    Get a science degree instead of a diva crown and you’re away!

    See, you are still there with your cheap quips and still totally devoid of rational arguments .. and I have two science degrees, thanks, which is probably two more than you, but nice try.

  39. Harthacanute, less bitch, more pitch.

  40. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 4:56pm

    Tom & George

    Did I start the personal attacks? No – so kindly direct your banal comments at the cretin who did.

  41. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 4:57pm

    Ditto to you, Linda

  42. Tom & George 29 Oct 2009, 5:01pm

    We did. You. Manners are the realm of the evolved. You could do well to improve yours.

  43. “and I have two science degrees, thanks, which is probably two more than you, but nice try.”

    Got that wrong for starters. I do have more, sorry.

    I will not argue science with someone who clearly has more dispensation to hissy fits than intellect.

    Linda is right, you are a bitch. Believe what you want, I don’t care.

  44. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 5:04pm

    Sorry, Ton & George, I didn’t realised you were blind.

  45. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 5:05pm

    I will not argue science with someone who clearly has more dispensation to hissy fits than intellect.

    Meaning you don’t have the knowledge to argue it – which is why you have to use personal smears in order to try to discredit :)

  46. Harthacanute is that all you’re capable of? No one here believes a word out of your offensive little mouth, so please, do us all a favour and go get a life. Tom and George are quite right, you lack manners and decorum, and as such, you arguments cannot be believed as anything but a bitchfest.

    Will, you’re right to ignore him, he’s a gimp. Doubt he’s even gay, just another nut with an attitude problem.

  47. Harthacanute = Bigot masquerading as a gay man with so called information. Yawn.

  48. My God, Will, you really are a nasty piece of work and quite the most obnoxious, arrogant, ill-informed and illiterate oaf I have ever seen in this forum. Grow up and get your facts straight before you start selectively quoting numbers that you clearly don’t even understand.

    Also, had it escaped your notice that the very report you are so selectively quoting form is entitled New HIV diagnoses show burden continuing in gay men

    Your fabricated arguments are typical of the type of egocentric person who puts a bit of community pride ahead the safety of others. If this ban is really as homophobic as you claim, how come the very same agency is so happy to receive organ donations from gay men? Answer: Because the technology when they are dealing with tissue, rather than blood, allows them to be confident about HIV-status.

    There is nothing remotely homophobic about the ban and anyone who says there is needs a big dose of sanity.

  49. Tom & George 29 Oct 2009, 5:21pm

    A very small man indeed.

    It is not us who is the blind here harthacanute, alas.

  50. Harthacanute 29 Oct 2009, 5:21pm

    Harthacanute = Bigot masquerading as a gay man with so called information. Yawn.

    Oh yes, because the majority of gay men who support the ban are all bigots. Pathetic, Andy – truly pathetic.

  51. “My God, Will, you really are a nasty piece of work and quite the most obnoxious, arrogant, ill-informed and illiterate oaf I have ever seen in this forum”

    Well, when you open an argument like that, what can I say other then you’re no better then that unmitigated fool Harthacanute .

    Not worth the effort, sorry.

  52. Well, when you open an argument like that

    Exactly the way you opened your attack on Harthacanute, only in this case it is true. You are nothing but a sad little troll using multiple identities.

  53. Ah, yes, of course, the “multiple personality” argument… the recourse of the stupid. Accuse others of multiple personalities, rather than accept Occam’s Razor that you are an offensive twat. Well done.

  54. Mark and Harthacanute, so many anger issues. You MUST be the same person, the style is almost identical.

  55. Opps. Just saw Will’s post! I never said they were the same person, just a suggestion :)

  56. Ah, yes, of course, the “multiple personality” argument…

    Ah yes, Will, and since you introduced the multiple personality argument with the vile accusations you made about Harthacanute, just what does that say about you? Hoist by your own petard *bows*

  57. Jean-Paul Bentham 29 Oct 2009, 5:34pm

    What about organ transplants?

  58. Jesus guys, give it a rest. Harthacanute, whats you problem mate? Say something that doesn’t involve an queenie cat insult, or just **** off.

    Can someone get back to the topic at hand?

  59. Mark, I only suggested a similarity. You need to stay off the bitch pills, you’re not even that good at being offensive.

    I’m sick of this, you two are truly pathetic. All diva frock and no brains. Neither of you can make a valid argument, and I’m not the only person that fool Harthacanute thinks throwing an insult at makes him right. What a loser.

    But you Mr. H, for supporting him, are a buffoon.

  60. Yes you are pathetic, Will. Whilst you now disingenuously claim that you only suggested a similarity, the implication was clear to anyone with an ounce of common-sense that you meant for people to think that he was that person and that he shared that person’s believes.

    You were the one that started throwing insults. Deny it all you like, but understand that in doing so you are painting yourself as a barefaced liar.

  61. Tom & George 29 Oct 2009, 5:44pm

    But you Mr. H, for supporting him, are a buffoon.

    Couldn’t have put it better myself. Mark and Harthacanute are incapable of civilised recourse. Quite distasteful individuals.

  62. Oh god, let to go. On, and on, and on…. OCD, is it?

  63. Linda O'Brien 29 Oct 2009, 5:49pm

    LOL@Will! OCD. Classic.

  64. Jean-Paul Bentham 29 Oct 2009, 5:51pm

    Mark & Hart:

    You are way out of your league.

    Please don’t take that the wrong way; what I mean is please stay away from my death bed, Fred.

  65. Jean-Paul, don’t take this the wrong way, but: LOL

    Will is so deluded and short on facts that a kid of ten could demolish his ‘arguments’.

    As for the rest of the choir who are so lost for an opinion of their own that all they can do is join in Will’s outrageous personal attacks …. TRAGIC!

  66. Jean Paul Bentham, Will, and Martin, you are right. This is a serious issue, enough to ignore those two trolls and get talking about the ban in real terms.

    A lot of people have made some good points. Mark and H-whats-his-name I don’t include you both as you have been quite rude. But I do see a conflict between the need to provide safe blood wit the need to be realistic about HIV infections among straights. If blood is banned from gay men, or men who have sex with men, then surely this should apply to straights who have had more than one partner in the last year or whatever? I do agree this is discriminatory and a throwback to the days when it was a gay disease. And I don’t need to read a lot of HIV statistics to believe that.

  67. Jean-Paul Bentham 29 Oct 2009, 5:59pm

    Mark & Hart:

    You are way out of your league.

    Please don’t take that the wrong way; what I mean is please stay away from my death bed, Daffy Duck.

  68. “Jean-Paul, don’t take this the wrong way, but: LOL”

    WTF????

    Er, hello…. bitch. Noting to “LOL” about there.

  69. Can we PLEASE get back to the discussion. Seriously, Mark. If you can’t contribute, then f*** off. You’re a petty bitch, and no one is interested any longer. Grow up. Move on.

    Bubble, I agree. But how do you enforce a ban on promiscuous heterosexuals? If that was the case they woudl have no blood. But I see your point, to isolate one section of society as a risk above another which is also a risk, is discriminatory.

  70. Jean-Paul Bentham 29 Oct 2009, 6:11pm

    Martin:

    Good man; now you’re talking scientifically.

  71. Jean-Paul Bentham 29 Oct 2009, 6:25pm

    “Since 1985, there have only been two cases of patients contracting HIV through a blood transfusion.”

    – ‘Public meeting to be held today on gay blood ban’ by Jessica Geen, Oct 27, 2009.

  72. Martin, I suppose that its a case as said for blood donation screening according to their individual behaviour, rather than basing specifications on whole groups. It may seem impracticable to some, but at least its bot discriminatory towards one sector of the population who’s infection rate increase (correct me if I’m wrong) is not as steep as with straights worldwide.

  73. It’s clear that only those who are pathologically inclined to hate themselves, in the manner of other minorities who suffer self-hatred, are in favour of the ban.

    Defending this ban or a 5 year ban is madness. Risky behaviour of either gender and practise (male-male, male-female, female-female) should be banned in line with the current deferral of 12 months, so any STDs can be picked up.

    Banning a man who has sex with another man for 5 years for giving blood is crazy. Why 5 years?

    Bigotry is the answer.

  74. It’s homophobia plain and simple. Saying a man who has ever had sex – protected or otherwise, monogamously or not – with another man can never give blood can only be based on a hatred or loathing of male gay sex.

    This fits in with the stereotypical view of gays as immoral, sinful, unclean contaminants who are liable to infect the rest of society with their dirty sodomizing ways.

    The mere act of having gay sex is, to those of an anti-gay inclination, the source of all evil: hence just by engaging in male-male sex, you are banned for life from donating blood.

    Or maybe now for a mere 5 years!

    A 5 year ban still keeps out practising gays – surely the goal of those who draw up these rules.

    It comes down to classifying all gays as evil and filthy, instead of individuals engaging in risky behaviour.

    The distinction is important and damaging to self-respecting gay men who do not partake in orgies, do not have sex with a different stranger every day, do not go cottaging, do not meet in toilets for anonymous sex, and do not wish to have any part in the unethically false stereotype of the predatorial, hedonistic gay monster.

    The majority of gay men are normal people. Being gay doesn’t automatically make you a sex crazed lunatic, screwing everyone in sight without any regard to your own safety.

    But that’s the impression this blood ban gives off.

    It could have been written by the Pope himself.

  75. Jean-Paul Bentham 29 Oct 2009, 7:58pm

    I never thought of that!

  76. Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, what bloody mess?!

  77. Have you ever noticed that on SKY their is 2 gay channels and dozens of “Dirty Wife Swap”, “Red Hot Amateurs” “Red Hot Wifes”, “Bad Wives 3: Dirty Threesomes” etc channels.

    I’ve just checked, and there is.

    Whereby lies the filthy dirty unclean gays.

    All those who seek thrills in clubs pubs and public toilets, gay or straight. Exercise some self control.

    Just stop tarring the rest of us with your own brush.

  78. Lucius Malfoy 30 Oct 2009, 12:16am

    This is more sickening homophobia. Statistically black people in the U.S. are at higher rate for HIV than whites, so since viruses are not “politically correct” as Dr. Richard Tedder says, they ought to ban black people from donating blood in the U.S.
    These people are also out of touch with reality if they think that closeted straight men who have unprotected sex with men on the downlow aren’t donating blood. To heed the warning they would be admitting to themselves that they’ve been having sex with men, and thus aren’t likely to be honest.
    This is just another case of people justifying their homophobia and we have to wait until the current generation of doctors dies out before we’ll get any change.

  79. BastiaanStuifzand_Holland 30 Oct 2009, 3:13am

    I still do not understand the gay men discrimination.. it sucks. In the Netherlands gay men were banned from donating as well. don’t know if it still is like that. What about all men and woman who have multiple partners but keep that secret, I think that can be a higher risk then the few gay men that really are practicing unprotected sex and should want to donate blood.. They better start arguing about testing all blood donors in advance men and women,.. then they have security now its just a enormous waste of time and waste of healthy blood also from gay men..

  80. the statistics are flawed; a gay man only goes down to the GUM clinic/doc’s surgery if they think/know they’ve got the disease. and as everyone is assumed hetero until they say otherwise, the only gay people on the records will be people with the disease, or the few who thought they had it but don’t. a gay man who knows he doesnt have the disease (via abstinence etc) isn’t going to go to the docs to say “i’m gay, just for the record”.

    if 10 gay men think they have hiv, and 9 actually do, thats 90% infection rate. if 10 str8s think they do, and because eberyone is assumed str8 until they say otherwise, that’ll add up to 0.0000000000000000000002% infection rate.

  81. Jean-Paul Bentham 30 Oct 2009, 10:34am

    “Since 1985, there have only been two cases of patients contracting HIV through a blood transfusion.”

    – PinkNews:’Public meeting to be held today on gay blood ban’ by Jessica Geen, Oct 27, 2009.

    More people are die in car accidents in a week than from tainted blood in 25 years. Cars should be banned for 5 years.

    Then there are domestic terrorists, e.g. homophobes.

  82. Yeah Stevie C, that’s exactly how the HIV infection rates are worked out. Asking people if they think they have it. . .

  83. I’m not really informed about these things but isn’t all donated blood tested before being given to the recipient therefore it wouldn’t matter if it was infected it would be screened anyway?

  84. Jean-Paul Bentham 1 Nov 2009, 9:23pm

    Daniel:

    Dah. I think so!

    “Since 1985, there have only been two cases of patients contracting HIV through a blood transfusion.”

    – PinkNews:’Public meeting to be held today on gay blood ban’ by Jessica Geen, Oct 27, 2009.”

    The phrase, “Much ado about nothing” comes to mind.

  85. Brighton John 5 Jan 2010, 2:56pm

    There are currently well over 90 viruses classified as HIV. Which is tested for?
    Each time a patient turns up with AIDS and the test shows HIV negative, they serach for another and dub it a mutation. There are millions of viruses out there, so it’s no big problem and how could he have AIDS without having “the virus”?
    Gay men are constantly exhorted to get tested for HIV. Gay publications are full of ads for this. Well-funded trusts exist with the sole aim of battling HIV and helping people found to be positive. Do you think the officers of these foundations want to lose their jobs and the perquisites that go with them?
    This scare means far more gay men get tested than any other group, so, accordingly, more or them are found to be HIV positive. I am convinced that if nuns were thus targeted and persuaded to be tested they would form a large “risk group”, because in my opinion the retroviruses are pretty evenly distributed throughout the population, but who is testing housewives, nuns, fathers of families?
    I seem to remember that one of the first people to contract AIDS in the US was indeed a nun. One of the first in Germany was the wife of a farmer who insisted she never even visited the nearest city, being too busy with the farm, here she had charge of … wait for it … the pesticides and fertilizers, i.e. nitrates. You gay men, does that word sound familiar?
    This whole thing is a phoney construct, a nephew of mine in South Africa went to donate blood one day and was asked whether he was homosexual. He said he was, whereupon he was told he could not donate. Next in line was a black woman. No questions were asked. Yet HIV is supposedly more prevalent among black women there than among gay white males.
    This tells me something about what the whole thing is about. I think John Lauritsen (google him) gets pretty near the truth.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all