What do you mean by making this statement? I don't think the population that was most afflicted when the disease surfaced is in question; it's more about the lack of scientifically justifiable reasoning as to why current technology wouldn't work well to screen homosexuals who are positive just like it currently…

This is a non-sequitor- every unit of donated blood is already tested for HIV.

The weird thing is, and I just looked over a questionnaire to remind myself what is asked, there are questions about who you have sex with, but not about risk factors that make your sex more risky. It would make more sense to ask if the potential donor had unprotected sex within a certain period of time before…

30 years ago. Science has marched on since then. The AMA is trying to tell you this. Blood can now be screened for all kinds of stuff that they couldn't screen for in the 80s.

What are you on about? Yes, diagnostic tests are used. From the American Red Cross:

It's the same in Canada and I have not donated blood because of it. I have also written letters explaining my stance.
Also, huh. I guess by the requirement you mentioned I wouldn't be eligible in the US, since my partner is MSM. Too bad I have a rare blood type you won't get now, Red Cross. *shrugs.*

Actually, it's a little known fact that Gay Male blood is the only true cure for vampirism. If it weren't for the ban on Gay Male blood, we'd be free of vampires forever.

But all donated blood is tested for HIV, so why ban people who might be HIV+?

Your point would be more acceptable if we still lived in a time when there was no reliable test for the presence of HIV in donated blood... but as it happens, we current have extremely reliable tests, which ALL donated blood currently are screened for. And why is all blood screened for HIV now (despite the ban on…

The AMA and even the fucking Red Cross disagree with you, Burner-Troll.

Homosexuality ≠ AIDs

I went to give recently and forgot that I have a fresh tattoo. As I was leaving they were like "oh yeah, that's not a thing anymore, you can totally give". Is it really a stretch to assume that gay men are becoming just as proactive as tattoo parlors in regards to transmitting diseases? I have seen some nasty tat…

Because all gay men have AIDS, or we lack a reliable test to screen for HIV in donated blood? And apparently condoms aren't a thing?

The ban also includes women who've had sex with MSM within the past year.

Canada just (in the last year or so) changed the policy from barring men who have had sex with men (MSM) "even once from 1977 to the present" to barring MSM who've had sex with men within the last 5 years. Still seems discriminatory (straight people don't get HIV dontchaknow?) - but better then a lifetime ban.

In addition, the donor form also designates whether you've had sex with a man, who has in his past has sex with another man. Thus putting into question the donation options of persons whose male partner has had a same sex relationship in the past.

I've always found the ban on "gay blood" so fucking ridiculous. It's all about our cultural obsession to conflate homosexuality with disease.

Let's just say that if it's the SWAT team, they're going to be making sounds extremely different to a normal burglar. But then again, I'm not some loon who just sits around surrounded by firearms.

Uh, no. You'd have 16 rounds in your chest because you basically decided to play Rambo.