Since my step son is gay, as in over the top gay.........I'll comment.
Most of his friends are very descent people, they care for others BUT, there are some that are sociopathic enough to pollute the blood supply just to satisfy their collective disgust for the human race.
We had better screen all the blood.
Thank you for the reply. Giving innuendo that people (gays or government) as a group try to spread HIV to anyone is beyond what I’d consider civil. It’s such thing that gives conservatives bad names.
I would guess all blood is tested and all blood is screened.
The screening process applies successive independent checks to attempt to prevent any bad blood getting out.
Any that would suggest that testing will prevent all bad blood from getting out knows nothing about quality assurance and human error.
Any that suggest since there is testing that 'unfair' discriminatory screening are completely clueless as to why successive screening and testing together with random auditing is employed.
Intentionally adding potentially bad blood into the supply will result in more bad blood. It is that simple. More bad in, more bad out.
Additionally, the ban has never been about being 'gay' and has always been about unhealthy activities.
If there is ever proven a 'gay' species with immutable characteristics exists THEN I would suggest that abstaining from sex for 10 years would not make such a member of such a species any less 'gayer'.
As far as nice 'gays' versus bad 'gays' -they are human beings that come in all varieties and it is their humanity that must be respected and as well is the root of their humanity. Homosexual sex is at the root of misery and not a premises for anything good.
These 'gays' are human beings that just happen to suffer from a self destructive disorder that is abnormal. Accepting them does not mean accepting the activity which can and should be legitimately discriminated against as in blood screening.