View Full Version : Man rejected by blood bank for seeming gay.

July 18th, 2011, 4:03 PM
An Indiana man says a blood donation center rejected him as a donor because he appears to be gay--even though he isn't. Aaron Pace, 22, recently visited Bio-Blood Components Inc., in Gary, which pays up to $40 for blood and plasma donations. But during the interview process, he said, he was told he couldn't give blood because he seems gay.
Though Pace is "admittedly and noticeably effeminate," according to the Chicago Sun-Times, he says he's straight.
"It's not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can't," Pace told the paper. "And I'm not even a homosexual."
Even though the blood bank sounds like it is engaging in a discriminatory practice, it would only be following the law by rejecting Pace were he gay. In 1983, amid the early panic over AIDS, the Food and Drug Administration banned all men who had had sex with other men since 1977 from giving blood. At that time, there were no effective screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood.
Nowadays, all donated blood is tested for HIV and other infectious diseases before being given to hospitals. And a recent study found that the gay ban costs hospitals 219,000 pints of blood each year.
And yet, last year, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to maintain the policy--though an FDA committee called it "sub-optimal," and suggested that it would be better to develop a screening system based on individual behavior, not broad characteristics like sexuality.
Curt Ellis, the former director of The Aliveness Project of Northwest Indiana, an HIV education group, called the ban "unfair, outrageous and just plain stupid."
As for Pace, he's still mad about being rejected. "I was humiliated and embarrassed," he said. And just to be clear: He's not gay--not that there's anything wrong with it.

Original Source (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/man-says-rejected-blood-bank-seeming-gay-151627659.html)

Seriously? Being rejected by a blood bank for seeming gay? That's just wrong. Even if he was gay, it's still wrong. Being gay isn't a contagious thing, so I don't see how they would have a viable reason for them to reject him. What does everyone else feel about this?

Captain Fabio
July 18th, 2011, 4:09 PM
There have always been stories about this, it isn't new.
The reason is because homosexual intercourse has a high risk of HIV and AIDS.

But, this does seem like an old fashioned rule, they could just test for it...

Shining Raichu
July 18th, 2011, 4:55 PM
Wow. Just wow. I do see the reasoning behind the creation of that law back in the time it was made. Horrible things can come from panic, I understand that. But now it's just not OK. AIDS isn't even a 'gay' disease anymore, anybody can get it. And being rejected for even 'seeming' gay is... I don't even.

July 18th, 2011, 5:12 PM
The ban is stupid. Follow that logic, we should ban blood from African-decent people because there is a huge AIDs problem in Africa. :|

The reason is because homosexual intercourse has a high risk of HIV and AIDS.

Hate to break the news to you but the risk of contracting AIDs from homosexual intercourse is exactly the same as contracting it from heterosexual intercourse.

It's true that there is a greater concentration of AIDs in homosexual men than in heterosexual people, but that's only because back in the 80's when homosexuality was still greatly frowned upon, there was no dire consequences of not using a condom. Can't get pregnant, and nearly all STDs were curable. Then AIDs came around, and started the safe sex crusades.

In recent years, the rates of AIDs in homosexuals and heterosexuals have began to equalize, and in a little while there will be a higher concentration of AIDs in heterosexuals than in homosexuals (assuming the current rates continue). The reason for this is because there is this mindset in the straight community that sexually transitioned diseases can't happen to them.

Eliminator Jr.
July 18th, 2011, 5:13 PM
I understand why they wouldn't have wanted gay people to donate blood back in the 70s and 80s, but now blood is all tested individually before being sent off to hospitals so being gay shouldn't make a difference to whether somebody can donate blood or not. And I'm also very annoyed that the blood bank rejected the man because he 'seemed gay' - even if he does have stereotypical characteristics like the gay voice or a flamboyant personality they shouldn't be able to judge him like that.

He's not gay--not that there's anything wrong with it.

Did anybody think of Seinfeld? XD

July 18th, 2011, 5:43 PM
This isn't really a new occurrence - It's a pretty old story. There's no real debate here, seeing as banning people from giving blood based on sexual orientation is illegal, and the insistence that there should be a ban is extremely ignorant. So I'll lock this, I guess.