CreateDebate


Debate Info

66
55
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:121
Arguments:119
Total Votes:124
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (58)
 
 Disagree (51)

Debate Creator

Akulakhan(2985) pic



Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.

The FDA has had a long lasting perma-ban on accepting gay men for blood donations since 1977. The stigma that gay men are more likely infected by sexually transmitted disease than straight men has plagued homosexuals since the onset of the AIDS epidemic. Heterosexual males can and do get all of the same diseases as easily, and of all the people and institutions we should expect to know that, the FDA is right on top. The American Red Cross and other blood centers don't exactly agree with the FDA, but the FDA is the law, so they are legally obligated to deny homosexual donors. It's time we get rid of this ban and allow people to donate blood without prejudice based on orientation. Besides, if our vampiric underlords are shorted one more year, the repercussions will be substantial.

Agree

Side Score: 66
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 55
4 points

They test all the blood that gets donated to prevent it from being used, if you test positive you are banned from ever donating anywhere in the US, so I don't see a problem with letting everyone donate.

Side: Agree
2 points

Exactly! It's not like the doctor draws your blood then swivels around and injects it right into someone else!

Side: Agree
BigOats(1423) Disputed
1 point

There is a false-negative probability of these tests, which is so small that the overall chance of infecting someone through donated blood, is insignificant.

However, when we know that a certain group has a much higher probability of being infected, then the for them the overall probability to infect someone by donating blood can be unacceptably high.

Side: Disagree
Stryker(849) Disputed
1 point

However, when we know that a certain group has a much higher probability of being infected, then the for them the overall probability to infect someone by donating blood can be unacceptably high.

Okay, give me a number, at what point does the ratio of total donors to false negative tests become unacceptably high?

Side: Agree
2 points

While the risk of transmitting HIV would increase a small amount, that is vastly outweighed by the benefit of increased blood donations.

For first time blood donations the percentage of false negatives is:

Heterosexual Men: 0.036 per 100,000 (0.000036%)

Homosexual Men: 1.584 per 100,000 (0.001584%)

The false negative rate for HIV positive people is 0.3%

Once someone has tested positive for HIV, they are banned from donating blood in the US, this means that only 3 people with HIV our of every 200,000 male homosexuals will be able to donate blood more than once, and of those, only 0.009 will be able to donate a third time. Preventing those who test positive largely negates any risk of male homosexual donation as the ratio of false negatives to total donations will always be trending towards zero.

Another benefit of allowing homosexual men to donate blood is it will alert more men to the fact that they have HIV, as it is unlikely that someone who knows they have HIV will donate blood (at least where they don't pay you for it). That means for every 100,000 homosexual men, 520 will learn that they have HIV, this knowledge can help stop the spreading of HIV, as well as help these men get treatment for a disease they didn't know they had.

Over all the benefit in both volume of blood donated, as well as the benefit of slowing the spread of HIV are two very good reasons to allow homosexual men to donate blood. If people are really worried about it we can just test male homosexual blood twice, which reduces the chance of false negative to less than that of single tested heterosexual men.

Supporting Evidence: Wikipedia (check the sources if you want, I did.) (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Agree
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

That is all fine and dandy, but I would be upset to know that when I wake up I have HIV from contaminated blood. How many people will get HIV from false positives? I think personally the faction itself should live a better sexual life then attempt to donate blood versus just getting up and donating it.

Side: Disagree
Stryker(849) Disputed
1 point

All you are trying to do is appeal to emotion, yeah, it would suck to get HIV from a blood donation, but the math I provided show that risk is extremely minimal especially when compared to the risk to people who need blood when there isn't enough to go around. Double testing male homosexual blood reduces the rate of a false negatives to less than that of single tested heterosexual blood. There is no argument to be made against this, all anyone can express is a personal distaste for homosexuals.

Side: Agree
1 point

Beggars can't be choosers. Besides, society as a whole needs a lot more gay.

Side: Agree

Given the current population and growth rate, I'm actually going to have to agree that society needs more gay.

Side: Agree
1 point

And let's admit it, the sooner there's more gay, the sooner everyone can get over themselves and just live their own lives.

Side: Agree
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

Um, no.

Ever heard of a demographic dividend? A declining population would mean more older people in the long run combined with an increase in life expectancy will sap our resources by shifting the mean age higher.

Side: Disagree
1 point

I don't want gay blood it'll turn me gay, I only want parts of straight manly men inside me.

Side: Agree
BigOats(1423) Disputed
2 points

So you're opposed to having blood transfer from a woman?

You're an anti - woman chauvinist!

Side: Disagree
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

I'm not at all anti women I think their great but a woman's blood might taint my manly blood making me less manly

Side: Agree
1 point

It's like when straight men intentionally pursue heterosexual porn with well-hung men and don't admit to being a tad gay, hilarious.

Side: Agree
Intangible(4933) Disputed
1 point

Lmao. That statement is a hilarious contradiction......You funny

Side: Disagree

If they're not infected with anything, why the hell not? Blood is blood.

Side: Agree
1 point

WHAT?! I had never heard of this " lets not accept blood from homosexual" thing. This is outrageous I mean what the hell is with people? "If he's a homosexual, he simply must have AIDS..."

Side: Agree
1 point

Yeah, it is pretty insane. When you donate blood in America it asks if you have had sexual encounters with someone of the same sex. If you write yes they are supposed to deny you.

Side: Agree
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

They also ask you if you have been to another country or had a positive TB test... the nerve... don't they know that is personal information?

Side: Disagree

We should be testing the blood regardless of who, it comes from.

Side: Agree

They test all the blood that gets donated to prevent it from being used, if you test positive you are banned from ever donating anywhere in the US, so I don't see a problem with letting everyone donate.

Side: Agree

I didn't know this was a law! And I am surprised about it. The blood is tested.. I don't see how this law is even needed. I get it, that in the 70's and early 80's HIV and AIDS was called GRAVES disease and was thought to be a gay born illness, but we now know this is not true. In any form, we should do something about this law and have it over turned.

Side: Agree
1 point

It isn't a law. It is from rules that the FDA put out. The FDA makes rules that aren't governed by laws.

Side: Agree

They should not be singled out. The ban should be lifted.

Side: Agree
4 points

According to a survey made by CDC in 2010, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

Side: Disagree
1 point

The rate is largely immaterial.

The heterosexual community has a larger than 0% rate of STDs.

The homosexual community has a smaller than 100% rate of STDs.

It's not like we're taking blood and just injecting it into another person without looking at it. The blood is analyzed, typed, checked for infectious agents, etc.

We have no business discriminating against potential donors when there is still a need for donors. Sort them based on whats ACTUALLY IN THEIR BLOOD- not what you THINK MIGHT BE IN THEIR BLOOD.

Side: Agree
1 point

I completely agree. Even the demographics with the lowest risk factors STILL contain people with STIs.

Side: Agree
BigOats(1423) Disputed
1 point

The rate is largely immaterial.

1. OK, dude. Here's a math test:

Suppose the overall male population is N, total number of men with AIDS is aN, the number of gays is gN, and the chance that a gay man has AIDS is c.

Suppose that the chance of a straight man to have AIDS is p1, and the chance of a gay man to have AIDS is p2.

What is the rate p2/p1?

2. Have you noticed the domain of that site?

It's not like we're taking blood and just injecting it into another person without looking at it.

Gays have also alarming rates of other diseases, staphylococcus and typhoid are an example. Those deceases are very rare among the majority of the population, so the relevant tests are not done. Should we start testing donor blood for everything?

And also, the AIDS test, and almost every other test, has a false - negative probability. Even if it's 0,5%, then for gays as a group the overall chance to transmit AIDS through blood donation would be unacceptably high.

Side: Disagree
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
1 point

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.

The issue is, they use data from 2007 from walk-in tests. Heterosexual men RARELY get tested, while it is EXPECTED of homosexuals. That alone invalidates the legitimacy of the data.

-

Also this was funny...

Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.

30-34% of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and of those couples that cohabit, 45-48%, and those numbers are on the rise. Compare that to homosexual and bisexual men: Anal intercourse occurred among less than half of participants (37.2%) and was most common among men ages 18–24 (42.7%).

Data:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02438.x/abstract

Side: Agree
BigOats(1423) Disputed
1 point

The issue is, they use data from 2007 from walk-in tests.

Now, where did you get that from? Here's a quote from CDC on how they gather their data:

"CDC’S National HIV Surveillance System is the primary source for monitoring HIV trends in the United States. CDC funds and assists state and local health departments to collect the information."

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/index.html

Side: Disagree
JacobJones(4) Disputed
1 point

Black women account for 67% of all HIV/AIDS cases that are diagnosed. Why doesn't the FDA exclude them? Because their rights are more established. I am gay and donate blood. The rule isn't enforceable anyways. Being gay is a self appointed identity, just appoint yourself straight for an hour.

Side: Agree
1 point

Its a fact that AIDS first appeared in homosexuals. So I can see why they do not want to take homosexual's blood.

Side: Disagree
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

It's a fact that AIDS appeared in heterosexual blood as well. They test all the blood they get now.

Side: Agree
DevinSeay(1120) Disputed
1 point

If you read again, I said it first appeared in homosexuals. So therefore I believe they just are very cautious of blood.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Alright, my argument is this: if this was an attack on sexual orientation then they would simply bar females in same sex relations too. The FDA's purpose is to reduce the risk of transmitted diseases in relations to blood: HIV, Hepatitis B and A, etc. etc. etc.

Currently, the chance of getting HIV from blood is 1:2000000. That means from the 30000000 transfusions a year(2006), statistically speaking 15 will get HIV from direct blood transfusions.

Seems quite reasonable doesn't it?

Let us add in homosexual males now.

MSM constitutes for 52% of the HIV population. here are approximately 1.2 million people with HIV. So 624000 MSM have HIV.

How many don't know they have HIV? It is 1 for every 5, so about 124800 don't know.

There is no percentage of men who are gay that give blood, so for the sake of argument, I will use the percentage of current donors in the U.S. and equate them to MSM. 3% of American's give blood yearly. So let's just say for argument sake 3% of MSM give blood. 124800*3% is 18720. 18720 HIV positive males will be donors. How many will pass the screening? If it is 1 in 2 million get HIV from contaminated blood now, then that means right now, if I were to give blood and were HIV positive I would have a 0.00005% chance of transferring HIV to another person If I were a homosexual male with HIV and didn't know, then I would have an 0.00005% chance of passing the screening and giving the HIV to someone else. As it is now, only 15 people get HIV from blood transfusions. Adding homosexual males to the group, would push the number to 16 for every 30000000 and that is an approximate increase in contractions of HIV alone. If I am right, the FDA has more than reason. 1 for every 18720 MSM person will pass screening, that is far greater in terms of percentage than the current arrangement. America has a stable blood supply too, so not having 18720 does not affect them negatively.

Side: Disagree
JacobJones(4) Disputed
1 point

According to the CDC, black women make up 67% of ALL HIV/AIDs cases that are diagnosed. If this is not an attack on sexuality, why are black women allowed to give blood?

Side: Agree
timber113(796) Disputed
1 point

That doesnt make sense. 52%+67% is not 100%. And gay black males and black females are not overlapping demographics.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Fags shouldnt LOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL

Side: Disagree
1 point

I love when the gay agenda picks up this debate, it really exposes their disconnect with reality.

Side: Disagree
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Disconnect with reality? You would rather let someone die than accept gay blood.

Side: Agree
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

That is not a situation I do, or ever will face...........................

Side: Disagree
1 point

Just did some fun calculations. Found a source that says about 2% of men are gay... so there are 313.9M Americans which means 3.139M male homosexuals. According to the CDC there are 440,408 gay men who are living with a HIV diagnosis (since 2010, and I'm working with 2014 population numbers, giving homosexuals an error in their favor). 440K/3.13M is about .14... so roughly 14 percent of gay men have HIV. 14%... holy crap... the typical homosexual has hundreds of partners in their lives...

Anyways, the infection rate for everyone else is .28% ... So A homosexual man is about 50X as likely of having HIV than everyone else. This matches some other estimates I have seen, granted I don't have access to the best information, etc. etc....

Who the hell really wants them in the nation's blood supply? If I was gay I wouldn't want myself to donate blood. The prospect of killing someone, even if it is rare after testing, is still killing someone for what... a half of 1% increase in the donor pool (male homosexuals who don't have a positive HIV test)???

Side: Disagree
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Then test them first. It's easy.

Side: Agree
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Pretty much every lab test has a chance of producing a false negative. It might be one in 10,100,1000, or 100,000. It does happen. Those who administer the test have to balance the dangers and odds of a false negative with a related probability and expense of false positives.

In addition, what they test for isn't the actual HIV virus, but instead they have to look for the anti-bodies that develop weeks after someone is infected. Homosexuals typically have a lot of partners and have open relationships. A heterosexual has lower odds of changing/acquiring a new mate in a random month.

Side: Disagree
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
1 point

Found a source that says about 2% of men are gay...

I'd like these sources.

-

so there are 313.9M Americans which means 3.139M male homosexuals

...that are openly gay, open to the point of writing it on a census or study or wherever you found your statistics.

-

According to the CDC there are 440,408 gay men who are living with a HIV diagnosis (since 2010, and I'm working with 2014 population numbers, giving homosexuals an error in their favor).

Four years is a long time to embellish and project statistics for medical records.

-

440K/3.13M is about .14... so roughly 14 percent of gay men have HIV. 14%... holy crap...

  &

Anyways, the infection rate for everyone else is .28% ... So A homosexual man is about 50X as likely of having HIV than everyone else.

First, you've failed to address the likelihood of error in testing, (which is a lot greater than you might suspect) but more importantly, you've also not taken into account the probability of an average american getting tested compared to that of a homosexual male. Due to the stigma that lies on homosexual males, gay men are expected to get tested very regularly. Compare this to the entire demographic spectrum of the U.S, and it's easy to see how more people have HIV/AIDS than is calculable. Consider also that, as listed from your source, gay men only account for 1% of Americans; rendering a comparison of infection rates as inconclusive at best.

-

the typical homosexual has hundreds of partners in their lives...

This is a complete and utter fallacy created by homophobes to demonize gay culture as some sort of biblical Sodom-esque culture. Just because your gay doesn't mean you get a lot of action. In fact if anything, the inverse would be true due to the infrequent chance of first finding another gay man, and secondly finding one that would have sex with you. All of the challenges and complications of hetero relationships still exist, ergo there is no insta-sex for being gay.

Who the hell really wants them in the nation's blood supply?

Any person dying and in need of a transfusion.

-

If I was gay I wouldn't want myself to donate blood.

Your blood is no different whether or not you're gay.

-

The prospect of killing someone, even if it is rare after testing, is still killing someone for what... a half of 1% increase in the donor pool (male homosexuals who don't have a positive HIV test)???

The prospect of killing someone IS NOT AFFECTED by your sexual orientation AT ALL. The odds of any of the multitudes of tests done on blood samples failing is equally probable among gay and straight men. An AIDS/HIV test will fail just as frequently for a gay man as much as a straight man, infected or otherwise.

Side: Agree
BigOats(1423) Disputed
1 point

First, you've failed to address the likelihood of error in testing, (which is a lot greater than you might suspect) but more importantly, you've also not taken into account the probability of an average american getting tested compared to that of a homosexual male. Due to the stigma that lies on homosexual males, gay men are expected to get tested very regularly. Compare this to the entire demographic spectrum of the U.S, and it's easy to see how more people have HIV/AIDS than is calculable.

I've already answered those claims in this very debate.

The CDC gathered their statistics from test results on 100000 homosexuals males, 100000 heterosexual males, and 100000 heterosexual females. This means that the samles were of equal quantity, so your "stigma" argument is irrelevant.

Side: Disagree
JacobJones(4) Clarified
1 point

2% of men admitted being gay. I'd say it's much higher than that so your percentages will be inflated.

Side: Agree
1 point

no because the blood could have aids and it could be murder.

Side: Disagree