|
|
#21 |
|
Banned
|
I don't see why gay people have a higher percentage of aids/std's than straight people. I don't think being gay encourages unprotected sex.
Last edited by kommisar[os]; 10-9-2008 at 08:36 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
kommisar: I guess this is my few years of age on you which makes me know this, but AIDS was originally a disease that only gay people got, or so was commonly 'known'. There was a huge stigma in that you had to have had gay sex at some point if you had AIDS. The 'official' story I've heard is that the AIDS epidemic started by some gay Europeans or Americans who picked it up in Africa, and so it spread to the gay community first. None of this I know for fact, but just what I've heard from the media at some point in my life. If this is actually true, it would make sense with the other tidbit of information that the lesbian population has a low percentage of AIDS.
As far as being gay encouraging unprotected sex, I would say that they're more likely to engage in sex, proportionally, than heterosexuals, particularly for the younger ages. This means more opportunities for sexual diseases to be spread, regardless of protection. There's firstly no pregnancy fear, which would also knocks out some people who would otherwise use condoms. (Why? Because people lie about their sexual past all the time, saying they don't have any STD's because they can't, and why would you need protection if there's nothing to worry about?) Religiously, you're already damned for being gay, so I can't imagine there's a lot of open gays who have strong reasons to practice abstinence either. There's another thing which is just me musing really, but there's not as many fish in the sea to choose from, so to speak, being gay. If I were gay, personally, I think I'd jump on opportunities for sex much more than I do now. Also, if you're gay, there's not an expectation from society, friends or family to settle down and have a family and kids. There's probably (I'm assuming) proportionally way more gay people who are unmarried/not in common-law relationships than heterosexuals, and I'd assume they're having sex with many more people than 'settled' people are. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
No, but he is misinterpreting statistics to conclude things that the statistics don't support.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Banned
|
It has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that it is a federal regulation. Because of Food and Drug Administration regulations, sexually active, healthy, gay males are ineligible to donate blood. The regulation states that a male who has had sexual contact with another male since 1977, cannot donate. When the policy was installed in 1983, it was necessary in the eyes of the FDA, because at the time AIDS was thought to be most prevalent in that community.
Therefore, gay men banned from blood donation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
Banned
|
Quote:
rather than simply rejecting you for gay sexual activity perhaps you could bring proof you've been tested? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Makes sense to me kommisar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
The Chill Keeper
|
I don't think this is an issue. It is simply to protect the people who receive your blood. DOn't take offense.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|