Anything can fail. Nothing is guaranteed.  However the chances now are extremely small.  Indeed, there is no guarantee that a hetero will not have HIV and it will be missed.  There is no way that a blood transfusion can be made risk free.  And the risk of a homosexual male donating tainted blood and it being missed is no greater than a heterosexual doing it.  And while 1 in 2.7 million may slip through, many thousands by the increase in the blood supply.  As with all things in life, there is a risk, but the reward far outweighs the risk.

Allowing homosexuals to donate is not advancing a cause.  There is no "reward" (Unless you think a glass of orange juice and a pack of nabs to be a reward) in donating, and there is no social registry of donors.  It is one of the last altruistic things left in today's society where everyone has to be proclaimed a winner with grandiose trophies.  No trophies, no society page lists.  Nothing.  Just the quiet satisfaction a donor gets knowing they did something with no gain to themselves. 

Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is immaterial.  They are people, and as Christians, we cannot condemn the person (just the sin, remember?), nor create a new type of species to pigeon hole someone who has perhaps erred in one aspect of their lives, but not in all.  Donating blood has nothing to do with sexuality as STDS can be carried by anyone, and often is.  There are dozens of reasons for not accepting blood, only one that is predominantly (and not exclusively) related to the issue of homosexuality.  To deny a healthy non-infected male the ability to donate is just another way of demeaning them as a person who wants to give - not take.  This is not about "taking" anything (like the Civil Rights Issue).  Nor does it entail anyone else "giving" to allow them to donate.  As I said, it is one of the last selfless acts a person can do - and no one cares, needs to know, or is rewarded for it.

Yes, indeed homosexualists use blood banks to promote their agenda which is to normalize and legitimize their lifestyle.  

Precisely because lives are at stake is why we in the USA should take a lesson from Canada where the movement to accept homosexuality as a normal, legitimate lifestyle has resulted in drastic legal changes to all aspects of Canadian society. The shift in accepting homosexuality as normal, even good, was accomplished by some in the medical and psychiatric communities as well as the media that has suppressed the medical evidence of the health risks of homosexuality.

After being hit with thousands of infections and billions in financial compensation, Canada came to its senses at least in the area of blood donations which are based on scientific evidence rather than on concerms of political correctness. Canada now has set it's national screening standards and has a lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with another man since 1977. 

And yes, the leftist libertines are agitating to drop all references to homosexuality on questionnairres as well as cutting the ban to one year, but in this case, Canada is taking its responsibility seriously and revising the policy even if the risk was only marginally increased.

Again this is about the duty of protecting the public from infected blood. The tests today are not 100% accurate and not good enough if you are that one that catches HIV.

Yes, of course donating blood has to do with sexuality. Rectal sex produces bacterioligical life and is an almost perfect way to transmit blood borne germs. People contract HIV, syphilis, malaria, Hepatitis C, etc. from donated blood of an infected person.  

In addition to blood testing, sexual behavioral screening questions are necessary and it can't be denied that homosexuals are a high risk group. Canada's blood banks know this.

Do not blood banks make millions of dollars every year selling blood?

The individual, who has not had sex with a male since 1977, nor engaged in illegal IV drug use, nor participated in prostitution, donating his blood is one thing, all well and good. But in this case we are talking about the big picture of homosexuality and the agenda of normalizing it making it respectable, acceptable and even good.  We are talking about the duty and responsibility of those in charge regarding sound health policies to protect the people from getting infected blood. And that duty necessarily involves identifying and excluding the people in high risk groups i.e. practicing homosexuals. Homosexualists do not want homosexuality to be singled out and those who practice it forbidden to donate blood. If they can get AMerica's blood centers to accept blood from those who practice homosexuality in the nations blood banks, a practice that has been forbidden for decades and rightly so, then they've won their cause.  

The answer is yes.

Oh situation ethics.

I can tell you that the Canadians who were tragically given the blood infected with HIV/AIDs are now dead. Blood tainted with HIV/AIDS is a death sentence.  

Furthermore, as far as I know there is no penalty for lying to a blood bank about one's sexual behavior and illegal IV use. I think since lives are at stake, Congress should make this offense a felony.

In the meantime, in order to achieve their goal of normalization, homosexualists are putting pressure on the ARC and other organizations to abandon decades of sound health policies.

Situation Ethics?  Who made you god?  ...{delete}...

Sorry, donating blood is not a homosexual activity,  it is not a sin.  It is not forbidden by any article of faith, tenet or creed.  Your faith teaches you to hate the sin and love the sinner.  You apparently are trying to do the opposite.

Donating blood is not advancing anything except the sanctity of life.  YOu seem to want to say that life is only sacred when it suits your purpose.  YOu are the one practicing situational ethics.

BTW:  Canada and the US BANNED blood from homosexual males (not females) at the same time (since the supplies intermingle at points).  There was no backtracking by Canada - yet.

Not ALL.  Nor are all AMERICANS given infected blood dead, but many are.

Shit happens.  Without the infected blood ALL would be dead now.  It does not grow on trees.

No, it is not a situational ethics case.  But it is a prejudiced case.  As I stated, donating blood is not advancing a cause.  Except life.  Your attitude is reminiscent of the old myth of getting "black blood".  Here's a shocker for all the bigots out there - blood comes in only one color - red.  And it does not matter if you are black, white, pink, green or purple.  It does not matter if you are gay, straight, hermaphrodite, eunuch, spayed or three toed.  It is all red.  What does matter is your blood type and RH factor.  None of which have anything to do with the aforementioned differences between individual PEOPLE.

You are trying to sub-humanize a group of people.  No one has stated here that the homosexual LIFESTYLE is acceptable.  But then neither is a life of crime.  Yet I do not see you demanding that thieves not donate.  Why?  They are in a high risk group too, and they have done things immoral.  They have SINNED.  Yet apparently some sins are worse than others?  i guess that is the same as "2 legs better than 4" as well.

And it has everything to do with God Almighty.  At least if you believe in God and the teachings of the Church.  Even the most vile villain in Church Teaching is STILL a human being, endowed with all the natural rights that God has granted us.  And entitled  to the same respect AS human beings as the most sainted among us.  The situation ethics issue is your (or the person asking you the question) attempt to dehumanize a person because you do not like their life style.  You are not trying to stop the life style choice - since donating blood has nothing to do with that - but depriving them of any ability or capacity to do any good.  Like the lepers in ancient Israel that Jesus embraced!  That is the sad part.  As part of your jihad against the sin, you are trying to cut out not only the cancer, but the entire body.  The only logical extension of your thinking is to simply kill the host since it is not fit for anything else.  Sounds real Christian now doesn't it?

You keep asserting that donating blood has nothing to do with the person's sexual behavior...but refuse to acknowledge the plain fact that before giving blood all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977 and those who say they have are permanently banned from donating.

This isn't my policy, but that of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration. Check it out their website below.  

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

Here is a cut and paste from the website:

What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.

........................

For making this decision of excluding those men who have sex with other men since 1977 from donating their blood, will you also accuse the FDA of trying to sub-humanize a group of people?

Well, you are wrong. Read the website.... it turns out it does matter to the Dept. of HHS and the FDA if the male has/is practicing homosexuality.

There are 10 very good reasons why the FDA doesn't allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood.

Again a cut and paste from the website:

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

• Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
• Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
• Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
• Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called "window period". The "window period" is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.
• FDA's MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the "window period" of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.
• Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
• Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
• No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.
• Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA's first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
• Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

This article from the AMerican Society for the defense of Tradition, Family and Property goes directly to the discussion....

Written by John Horvat II

Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:00

How much is the life of an American soldier worth? When does a soldier become expendable? Those are the questions we need to ask in the coming days. A wounded soldier in Afghanistan will find himself airlifted half way around the world for treatment within hours. In this, we see the admirable care and great value given to American lives. However, such solicitude on the battleground is not shown off the battlefield. It seems there are times where the American solider becomes expendable. Of course, we are referring to the raging debate over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy inside the military. Everything is centered on a December 1 report which the military will release analyzing the impact of the repeal on the Armed Forces. The results of this “analysis” can be guessed. It seems almost senseless to go through the trouble to release it. Everything seems to indicate that it will discuss how to repeal, not if we should repeal, the ban on homosexuality in the military. It will conclude that inclusion of open homosexuals in the military will not have significant adverse effects. It will conclude that the soldier is expendable. He can be used for social experiments. He can be penalized for the religious values he holds. He can be deprived of the very freedom for which he fights. A joint Color Guard posts the colors during a Veterans Day ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington, Virginia. DOD photo by Cherie Cullen. The findings will be completely politically correct because a higher command than the Joint Chiefs of Staff has decreed that the American soldier is expendable. Judges, liberal pundits and legislators are all clamoring for the repeal with an urgency that defies the imagination. A single judge assumes almost dictatorial powers. Advocates cannot even wait for the December 1 “study” to validate their opinions. They must have the repeal now even if it appears to be rammed down the throats of the American people…even if it means making the American solider expendable. One might argue that it has not been proven that the entry of open homosexuals (which also includes bisexuals and the “transgendered”) into the military would make soldiers expendable. That is not the point right now. It is proven the advocates of repeal simply do not care to know one way or the other. They cannot even wait for a report to rubberstamp a decision that has already been made. At the same time, there is no doubt that it will affect the military. That military profession that demands decisiveness in action must now open its doors to the ambiguous bisexual and “transgendered” soldier. There are reports that higher military authorities have already informed officers that they must accept the decision or be labeled bigots and face expulsion. Added to the stress of combat, our soldiers will soon be forced to take extreme care to avoid any act, gesture or comment that might be construed to be “discrimatory” toward the new privileged class of homosexuals who will enter the military ready to report any “bigotry.” Chaplains face major problems since they must deal with the sin of homosexual acts. The service generals have all expressed major reservations about the move and its effect on morale. All of this to accommodate a tiny sliver of a minute minority that demands entry into the military. All of this treats honor, tradition, and distinctions between virtue and vice; truth and error; good and evil, so inherent to the military condition, as if they are irrelevant. Even the more practical matter of the danger of introducing into the battlefield a major category of men who cannot donate blood because of the risks of disease does not move repeal advocates. Soldiers of the 61st Calvary Regiment, U.S. Army patrol the Towr Gahr Pass, Nangarhar province, Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Matson. The mixture of bloods on the battlefield does endanger the lives of soldiers. That soldier, that is taken with so much care off the battleground in Afghanistan to our hospitals in Germany, now runs the danger of being infected by his own comrades in arms by judicial and legislative fiat. No life is threatened by keeping the ban. As long as one soldier feels threatened by the climate created by repealing the ban, as long as one life might be at risk by tainted blood, as long as the soldier maintains a sense of honor, we should keep the ban. Indeed we must ask: When does a soldier become expendable?

I have only read the OP and the last page here but Tova that was brilliant and the most sensible covering of the topic I have seen and I have read a lot on this topic.

This is very true. I've known folks like this over my 24 years of service, but I also didn't go around flashing them either. Their presence  during private moments would be uncomfortable to say the least. I always ask (other males) how would they feel if I showered with their mother, wife or girlfriend, or daughter, all in the name of duty of course. I suppose one may ask a woman if they mind if a large supply of "other women" showered with their husbands. That kind of puts it more into perspective. Just because the gay or lesbian has the "same equipment" they are often given a pass. If anyone can honestly say they are comfortable with that, then I guess they truly do support gays in the military. If not, they are not looking at the issue deeply enough IMO. It's easy to be for something that one doesn't have to deal with daily. One doesn't have to look far to see examples of supposedly straight relationships broken up by "circumstances". I'm sure in those cases problems were buried deep, but it happens, and it is ugly.

I just wonder what effect be "openly" gay will have over the current situation. Perhaps those lesbians you showered with would have been more "aggressive" if their careers weren't on the line. Whose to say. I go back to my let everyone shower/sleep in the same quarters scenario if it really isn't an issue. That would really save the taxpayers some dollars.

No right or wrong on anyone's opinion in my blogs. Just open dialog. How you feel is how you feel.

I'm all for that. Personally I don't believe blatant expression of sexuality has any place in the military, gay or straight.

Yeah, that bugs me too.

And I'm glad I no longer have to deal with things like this, too. It was bad enough with one set of sexual problems, that wasted time and caused lose of personnel during periods of being shorthanded. I would like those serving to make the call though.

Tova

Nitro

Re: the highlighted.

This is true and the way the military institution always was .....until politics much involved with the sexual revolution entered the scene. The radical left and their mainstream organs have since then publicly pushed for the freedom to publicly exercise themselves without restraint. Once society permits "anything goes" sexual license, it follows all its institutions will be sexual revolutionized.

Well if the US adapts the Canadian model, I suppose there will be a rush for those seeking sex changes. Why should they pay when the taxpayers can.

If cross dressing is allowed, the military will become a bizarre place indeed. More people that gravitate to that sort of thing  will become a large part of the force. That and the illegals the liberals are trying to give amnesty to by demanding military service. Strangely, a similar thing happened to ancient Rome. Not with gays of course, but with a largely foreign military (barbarians as they were called). Slowly regular Romans had no desire to serve in the military and the barbarians who now had the power just took it away. Well we see what happened to them. I wonder what our fate will be? Dependant on some guy that can barely speak English or has his pantie hose riding up to save us? Personally I hope the 2nd amendment stays in place, because I have a feeling it's going to be every man for themselves.

Yes, and imo a very imprudent slippery slope vote and sad day for America.

No long after the vote the rippling effect of attempting to legitimize and normalize homosexuality in other arenas began anew. Here's part of an article from AOL news.

The impact of today's Senate vote, which comes as the controversial issue of gay marriage moves through the legal system up to the U.S. Supreme Court, is certain to ripple beyond the armed forces.

"This is the linchpin for our movement," said Brad Luna, a former spokesman for the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign who now runs a media consulting firm. "Once you establish that, yes, gays and lesbians have the right to fight and die for their country, it opens up the door for so many other issues," such as marriage, adoption and the extension of federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Gay rights advocates heralded the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004, a move followed by other states. Yet the military repeal marks the first time gays have been granted "federal equality," Luna said.

That sets a precedent for tackling the federal Defense of Marriage Act, another Clinton-era law that allows states to refuse recognition to same-sex relationships legally sanctioned by other states. The Pentagon cites DOMA as a barrier to extending to same-sex couples certain benefits, such as housing allowances, that it gives married military personnel.

...........................

Mark this:

The repeal of DADT will make high risk homosexual sex diseases service connected and will result in a steady increase of in the number of the enlisted seeking health benefits to cover life threatening diseases already rampant in the civilian homosexual community.

For sure...That's one question that remains to be seen. Another is how long will it be before we see rainbow flags flying alongside the American one?