Go ahead and sue. Some people seem to think they have a right.
It’s not a right, it’s a public service, and if the authorities deem that gay men are a high risk and they don’t want it, it’s their prerogative.
Selfish bastards would rather get their penny-worth of gay-rights equality and risk infecting innocent people with terminal diseases. Until gay men can learn to be safe, and God forbid, keep their dicks in their pants a bit more, then they will have to put up with a little social exclusion.
The man is doing a right thing for the LGBT community in China; a place with zero to none gay rights whatsoever. If you are not from China then stfu.
“Mr Wang has filed a case against the centre for discrimination …”, well, if you are going to call yourself “The Centre for Discrimination” then you are just asking for trouble. But then if you call yourself Mr Wang …
“Until gay men can learn to be safe, and God forbid, keep their dicks in their pants a bit more” – oh yeah, cause straight men and women are all ‘good’ people who only have sex once in their life. U fukcin idiot, uve obviously not been out on a saturday night recently, or been onto a straight sex website. The authorities used to ‘deem’ that gay men couldn’t even exist, so i suppose by your reckonin, we should have just let them tell us we shouldn’t exist cause the authorities ‘deemed’ it? And we wonder why we still dont have equality and freedom? its cause spanners like u make and think comments like that.
Spanner: “and if the authorities deem that gay men are high risk”
The German Authorities used to deem us fit for gassing.
Doesn’t make it right does it.
As an adjunct. A spanner is a TOOL. How apt.
And Spanner needs to watch his mouth – I know you and you are not exactly in a position to preach are you…..
Wait, is there a ban on homosexuals and bisexuals specifically because at this moment I’m still able to give blood in the UK. This said, the laws should be less discrimative but at the same time it shouldn’t put the acceptor of the blood in risk.
Dave: The average straight man has 15 sexual partners in a lifetime. I know gay men that have more than that in a month.
Stop acting in denial, men are naturally promiscuous, that’s their job. it’s just women that prevent the straight ones from doing it all the more.
All this bollocks about swingers parties and dogging pale into mere insignificance when compared to gay men. Check out Gaydar as an example; and please don’t say they aren’t typical, 85% of gay men in the UK have a Gaydar profile…
JohnD: I suggest it is YOU who watches his mouth before issuing threats and accusations. I don’t know you from Adam.
To Spanner, so we are all supposed to be promiscuous? I am a bisexual and a virgin, my only interest is a commited relationship. Of course the percentages are fairly high against this but it is still discrimatory to not account for the ones who stay in commited relationships.
Blondie: Laws are designed to be applicable to the majority of people, but there are always those that are going to fall between two stools. It is unfortunate, but that’s the way democracy works, better a virgin can’t donate than a promiscuous person infect the blood banks.
Please, give me a comeback, some sort of logical argument or something I can reply to. The statement “Laws are designed to be applicable to the majority of people” is often used by those trying to justify their point of view that they have no reasonable argument about.
I know some of us will refuse to listen for the only reason is that they think something is discrimination and they think that makes it immediately wrong but I am at uni, training to be a doctor, I think logically and I want to save people from diseases, I would not give blood if I thought it had a chance of harming someone.
Now I am not asking doctors to put their patients at risk, I am asking that they spent a little more on paper to make a longer form to get a better idea of whether the person donating is actually entering into risky behaviour or not. Not only this but what about questions about the risky behaviour of straight people, straight people can engage in a life of one night stands and/or even the same type of sex as homosexuals. Now the laws are there but there is nothing to stop people lieing, wouldn’t people be less likely to lie if they were treated with some more respect and not treated as if they were disease ridden?
Blondie: A classic example of a law is the age of consent: You may have some very mature 14yo’s that would be quite responsible having sex, but equally, you may have 20yo’s that act very immaturely. Both of those cases though are not the norm, and a law has to cater for the greatest number of people. I’m not using it as any kind of argument, it’s a simple fact of life. No law can be all-encompassing. As a medical trainee, you would know that drugs do not work on everyone, so they are targeted where they will do the most good. This is much the same principle.
By your standards, it would end up like a magistrates court asking people about their sexual proclivities. “How many partners did you have in the last year, and did you perform anal sex?”
Do you REALLY want that? Not to mention, we neither have the time, the resources or the money to interview people, and they could just as easily lie then too.
Additionally to this, it is thought that up to 50% of HIV+ gay men are unaware of their status, so this ruling, harsh though it may seem, is a practical way of eliminating those in a stroke.
My example regarding this would be, would you practice unprotected sex with a stranger just because he says he doesn’t sleep around?
No. So why should you expect doctors be any different?
I know that people dont stop at one drug, they create many, so that a drug will be avaliable in all instances, some made very specifically because even though they wouldn’t be used alot, drugs have less side effects with more specificity. I think this metaphor has now turned towards my argument.
Now you make a very good point that if we start taking this too far, doctors are going to have to waste resources trying to dive into people’s personal lifes but how about the people who started long commited relationships which they were tested for HIV at the start or how about two people who were virgins when they started their relationship. It seems right not recording an accurate description of people’s sex lifes but it also seems right to ask a few more specific question so we don’t just rule out all gay people.
Well I wouldn’t have any sex with a stranger but I suppose that point aside, if I were to have sex with a stranger, yes I would wear protection, no matter the gender. But this is because I don’t trust them but the doctors already expect a degree of trust of the people giving blood not lieing to begin with, if they expect someone not to lie with one set of question, they will expect someone to not lie with another set of questions.
Blondie: I used a basic drugs metaphor as that is your line of work. However, you are trying to expand it by saying we should have lots of laws to cover every eventuality. That is very bad governance, and is open to all kinds of loopholes and manipulation. One law for everyone. If you are one of the small percentage to which it doesn’t apply, sorry, but tough. Sh!t happens.
“Doctors already expect a degree of trust of the people giving blood not lieing to begin with.”
That is complete bull. Many gay men on here have admitted to lying so they could give blood. You are saying you wouldn’t trust them, but you expect the doctors to? If that isn’t hypocritical, I don’t know what is. By your same yardstick then, you would be willing to have a blood transfusion from any gay man that claims he is HIV- ? No, I thought not.
I expanded on the metaphor by the fact they try to make as many drugs as possible but I don’t know much on laws but just saying tough is poor, should we tell black people that and enslave them again? If laws become a problem then change them but if they don’t then I see no reason why we can’t allow them.
It’s bull? I have been on the official website when I applied to give blood while I still legally can and they said themself that they expect a degree of trust from the donator. If I am going to have sex with a stranger, one thing I can gather from this situation is that, that person is not in a commited relationship, not to mention it would kill the mood trying to ask questions.
Depends, their are false positives to take into account and so I would be cautious as the doctors should be, if he also says he doesn’t participate in risky behaviour (depending on his definition of risky behaviour) then yes I would. I would also not have blood off a straight person who says they participate in risky behaviour.
Blonie: I’m afraid your lack of experience in the relationship field only demonstrates your complete naivety when dealing with people in general, and gay men in particular. Treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent. Taking people’s word for something is simply not enough. It may sound a cynical perspective, but it’s one that keeps you alive.
You can call me naive but you do need a degree of trust to accept blood of someone, you can hardly expect them to undergo experiments to ensure they are straight and then God knows what other type of experiments so that you know their life is a safe one. And the doctors know this and that is why they do expect some trust from the donators, I am just wishing they extend that trust to a slightly wider range of people which would show more respect and would probably lead to more honesty from the donator.