Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nephythys
I'm not ignoring anyone- and I certainly do not have you on ignore.
It's all such a battle of semantics. I say I think when it comes to blood, offense be damned, ban anyone at risk. I can't donate! Due to the cancer....I am out for another 2 years. I've been fine for over 2 years but they have a rule...and so I accept it.
|
But how do you define "at risk"? Defining "gay people" as an "at risk group" is about as scientifically accurate as defining "people" as an at risk group. If you're going to ban gay people regardless of whether they are in a monogamous relationships, than by the same logic, you have to ban all heterosexual people as well, because the risk factor is the same. "Gay people are more likely to have AIDs" is a myth in today's world and having the FDA regulate based on myths is scary and puts us all at far greater risk.
The approach needs to be intelligent. Risky behaviors such as promiscuity, drug use, and unprotected sex are prevelant among ALL people, regardless of sexuality. They should be screening based on risky behavior, not poorly correlated sub-groups of the population.