I strongly doubt Canadian Blood Services would maintain a policy that limits blood donations unless there was a scientific basis for it. Particularly not on grounds of sexual orientation. I've always understood it to be limitations on testing / risk analysis.
The last time I gave, they still asked questions regarding aexual orientation. I can't remember exactly when it was, but it was right after I signed up to be a potential marrow donor when Tom Kostopolous was a Flame.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I regularly give according to a schedule - multiple times a year. The sexual orientation questions are part of a battery of perhaps 300 questions. If you lived in Nigeria for a year, you are barred from giving.
I sympathize very much with your community. I can't imagine how this makes basically anyone who publicly identifies as LGBT - probably something a magnitude larger than terrified.
These acts - heinous and daunting as they are - are still outliers. Most of this society cares for the dignity, and individual worth of LGBT person.
I really don't know how to understand what has just happened though. Really don't.
From spending most of my life hanging out with gay friends I can say while this level of violence is an outlier low level homophobia isn't, it's a constant threat if you are a gay male or female, the threat comes from never knowing when the prick that calls you a *** will then take a swing at you, but if your openly gay you will be called a *** fairly regularly.
Speechless. The plea for some basic humanity starting around 3:45 is just heartbreaking.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Let's not let rational sensibility get in the way of sentimental posturing.
I don't want to derail the thread any further so I'm just going to post the FDA guidelines. There is absolutely nothing in there about promiscuous straight people, whereas the rule requiring gay men to be celibate for over a year seems unnecessary if they've been only been with one partner during that time, and especially if they've been using protection.
I don't want to derail the thread any further so I'm just going to post the FDA guidelines. There is absolutely nothing in there about promiscuous straight people, whereas the rule requiring gay men to be celibate for over a year seems unnecessary if they've been only been with one partner during that time, and especially if they've been using protection.
Take some time to read about HIV and the blood banks, and you will understand a bit more about why this decision was made, and why it continues to be upheld.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Absolutely shocking that this would tie in to gun control. Not that it was the absolute first thing that crossed my mind.
I should have been more clear - because yes of course gun control is an issue, but it should not be the rallying cry from this tragedy. Neither should gay rights.
The actual cause needs to be discussed. The hatred, the intolerance, and the evil needs to be attacked.
The Following User Says Thank You to ComixZone For This Useful Post:
From spending most of my life hanging out with gay friends I can say while this level of violence is an outlier low level homophobia isn't, it's a constant threat if you are a gay male or female, the threat comes from never knowing when the prick that calls you a *** will then take a swing at you, but if your openly gay you will be called a *** fairly regularly.
Yep, I have plenty of gay friends who won't be openly affectionate with their partners in public because it just causes too much anxiety, which is why I think one of the most eyeroll-inducing comments anyone can ever say is "I don't understand the need for Pride. Why isn't there a straight pride day?"
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Have they determined the provenance of the firearm used yet? Until they come out and say it was legally purchased, it can't be determined if the regulations in place work.
He had a firearms license because his work, he bought the glock 2 weeks ago, this is a guy who could have had high security clearance in places like government buildings and even airports yet he was on the terrorist watch list.
Sorry all, my comment was over the top.. was a pre-emptive strike on what I could see peter12 using this incident for :-(
He unfortunately likes to troll a lot and disingenuously use threads for fun to try to get responses out of people. It's too bad because he's a great poster with an excellent sense of humor when he's just participating in the community like a regular person.
I had stated that nothing in the US makes me blink an eye anymore, but this is certainly above that. I can't even fathom a shooting of this magnitude carried out by a single person just kind of driving over to the club.
I mean, I know there's posters in here who don't seem to want to make it about guns, but that's pretty incredible that a single shooter can legally pick up enough firepower to walk in and massacre a night club. Jesus Christ.
The ability to get guns and more importantly ammo is disgusting.
I can understand the notion of wanting to have the ability to have a gun if you want. However there should at the very minimum be a limit on the amount of ammo that a person is allowed to buy and that they have to go to specific places to go to buy it.
If someone buys a ton of bullets like this, it should be a red flag. If you want that much ammo, you can buy it on location of a shooting range to be used at the shooting range.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
The ability to get guns and more importantly ammo is disgusting.
I can understand the notion of wanting to have the ability to have a gun if you want. However there should at the very minimum be a limit on the amount of ammo that a person is allowed to buy and that they have to go to specific places to go to buy it.
If someone buys a ton of bullets like this, it should be a red flag. If you want that much ammo, you can buy it on location of a shooting range to be used at the shooting range.
There's unfortunately narratives that the US will go down, terrorism is a true narrative, but will always be the first and quickest because it fits in with "the bad guys who aren't like us!!". Gun culture and ease of access is the constant in mass shootings, but that narrative is quickly squashed out in favor of other "issues" due to the money behind guns.
Despite the high casualty rate and the unbelievable ease with which the tragedy was carried out this will be an easy one for the gun backers as it has the "the bad guys" angle, and unfortunately it will just be Muslim Americans that pay for this.
The closest the US gun backers came to squirming from a mass shooting was Sandy Hook, as it didn't have the easy narratives to get away from guns AND it had 20+ kids dead and a fuming population. They got through that, now they can get through anything.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
