• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Disease-Tainted Gay Blood Threatens Our Troops

Why do they ignore the arguably more frightening possibility that the tainted blood might turn an otherwise normal soldier gay?
 
*sigh*

You know, I used to get upset at this sort of thing, but now I just feel really really sad for these people. The level of irrational fear they must live with every second of every day must be ridiculously high -- how can they possibly enjoy life with these sorts of thoughts hanging over them?
 
Why do they ignore the arguably more frightening possibility that the tainted blood might turn an otherwise normal soldier gay?



I'd rather have a transfusion from a gay soldier than a christian one; it might turn me christian. The horror...The horror...
 
Originally Posted by Cliff Kincaid, Christian News Wire

Only he's not. The CWN is reporting on something created by America's Survival. CNW may be as loopy, but they don't seem to take a stance on it, rather just report what Kincaid has claimed.
 
Jebus Cripes Almighty.

Is it true that male homosexuals are banned from giving blood (in the USA)?

Don't they screen donors?
 
Jebus Cripes Almighty.

Is it true that male homosexuals are banned from giving blood (in the USA)?

Don't they screen donors?


Yes, yes, and yes.

The really sad part is the third yes. Yes #2 is part of that screening.

I think we've had a thread discussing that, recently. It's a poor reflection on institutionalized homophobia in the U.S. But, for that matter so is DADT in the first place.

One thought I had from the OP was that if that one blood donor screening restriction was sufficient cause to disqualify for military service then so should all of the other restrictions be. I wonder why they weren't mentioned?
 
Last edited:
Jebus Cripes Almighty.

Is it true that male homosexuals are banned from giving blood (in the USA)?
Yes. In a recent review, the national panel continue to uphold the ban for blood donations from anyone who is actively homosexual despite a major outcry.
Don't they screen donors?
Yes but it can still be missed. The screen is not 100% effective.
 
My god.

*removes glasses*

This is worse than we thought.
2013
US field military hospital somewhere in Afghanistan

Doctor: I'm sorry, son. You're not going to make it.

Patient: I'm gunna die?!

Doctor: No, son. It's worse than that. You're going to live, but it will require a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, the only blood we have on hand is gay, son. Really gay. Fabulously gay. And there's not enough goddamn time to wait for straighter blood. We have to proceed. You will live, son, but you will no longer yearn for female companionship.

Patient: [tears welling in eyes] T-tell my w-wife I l-loved her, Doc...
 
Jebus Cripes Almighty.

Is it true that male homosexuals are banned from giving blood (in the USA)?

Don't they screen donors?

I recommend checking out the recent discussion about it. It's far from a simple issue, of course, but there are some fairly (if arguably) good reasons for rejecting homosexuals as blood donors, and those reasons have little to do with homophobia.

The example in this thread is a case of ridiculous phobia, of course. I wonder what the prevalence of HIV is among the straight US troops, especially those stationed in countries with low standards of healthcare?
 
What IS a metonym?
Metonymy is a figure of speech in which something is called not by its own name, but something closely associated with it. The classic example is, "Lend me your ears", in which it is attention, not anyone's actual ears that is being asked for.
 
I was given lesbian blood one time. I didn't get aids from it, but it did make me want to do it with 2 women.
 

Back
Top Bottom