Baht Simpson

Quite. And I think it's important to note that all that's requested is that screening is done by risk behaviour rather than by sexual orientation. This would equalise everyone.

Your link seems much more official than my search so I concede your point. The eligibility criteria on the same site shows no restrictions based on sexual orientation though, which is what we are discussing. Neither does it show UK living restrictions strangely.

"People who lived in the UK between 1980 and 1996 were once banned from donating blood in Finland due to concerns about Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) (the human form of mad cow disease). While the risk was considered minimal, Finland, like other countries, imposed a permanent ban as a precautionary measure. However, this policy is now outdated; the Finnish Red Cross had already lifted the ban, following updated risk assessments and changes in other countries like the U.S." Source: simple Google search

"However, due to new scientific evidence, these bans have been lifted in countries like the US, Australia, and Spain in recent years, making previously ineligible individuals able to donate." Source: simple Google search.

At that price my concern wouldn't be value but build quality and longevity. But like all these cheap goods if something goes wrong at least you haven't lost much. It's just the draw of a card.

I think he just horse and carted out some spurious information. 🙂

Anybody can refuse medical attention for whatever reason. That's not the issue here.

You're totally missing the point. It's not about finding some way to pretend not to be gay so that you can donate, it's about being treated equally so that you can donate if you wish, like everyone else. Equality is just that, everyone treated the same. It shouldn't be something that gay people have to get around somehow. Why is that concept so difficult?

You manage it whilst you're still here. Lol

Live or die is hardly a tough decision to be honest.

So, you're on your deathbed needing an urgent blood transfusion or you'll die and the only blood available is fully tested blood from a gay person. You'd refuse it and die?

You do realize there's no such thing as "gay blood". Yet bigoted minds do exist.

True. I wish there was a test for bigotry. Plenty here would be positive.

Or Trumpmenistan. What a clown show it has all become.

Lol. I don't think those worrying about frozen pensions are going to have huge sums in cryptocurrency.

I was gorgeous at 17. 😀

Why? Because that particular Bible verse is evil but Kirk thought it was the word of God. I would have thought that was obvious. If you're going in to bat for God at all levels you've got to be prepared to defend all the evil stuff. You could get away with it in ancient times by instilling fear in people but it doesn't wash today. It's no good saying ah well, those were the laws of the day when you proclaim it's God's law in the Bible. You can't have it both ways. There are some Christians who believe that the Bible wasn't innerrant but not Kirk. Thats why he and others try to skirt around the dodgy bits by deflection. If Kirk wants to say that homosexuality is an abomination then that's up to him; its just a viewpoint but murdering them for it is different. As I stated earlier I don't think Kirk wanted gays to be put to death or at least he knew you couldn't get away with it now, but I do think he thought of them as something that needed fixing (he called homosexuality an error) and therefore he saw them as unequal. In response to the title of this thread I think Kirk was an inherently good man but he espoused some vile religious views. He was the one who needed fixing, but not in that way God rest his soul.

Can u give us a quote or a video where he explicitly condemned Leviticus 20:13 which states that homosexuals should be put to death? As it's such a heinous passage I'm sure he would have been anxious to denounce this clearly stated word of God to clear up any assumption that he agreed with it. Personally I doubt that he did want gays murdered, just converted and made celibate. I don't know which is worse. 🙂

I quoted his exact words. How is that lying? And you would applaud Charlie Kirk's assasination if he expressed an extreme opinion? I wouldn't, whatever he said. God's aloft you are everything you criticize. And no I haven't listened to him for tens of hours but I did see his debate at the Oxford Union and have seen a number clips since his assasination, but they're irrelevant to this one topic.

Sorry, I didn't get what you were saying but I do now.

Totally missing the point.

Is that all you've got? Calling me a hater because of my assessment of what Kirk said? Are you not doing exactly what you condemn in others? For your information I did not hate Charlie Kirk. I'm British so I haven't been as exposed to him as the Americans here and just thought him another Christian apologist until the shooting, which I thought was cruel and unnecessary. If I could click my fingers and get him back instantly I would, like any decent person. I consider myself far-centre politically and have no tribal axe to grind., so I speak as I find.

In this case it's true. Gays should be stoned to death in one passage but you should love your fellow man in another.

Oh come on. One would imagine he thought that all God's laws were immutable so why would he think that this one,which is crystal clear isn't? It's no good trying to provide so-called context with other bible passages to try to deflect what was actually said. That's something Christian apologists are extremely fond of but it won't wash.

"Necessarily" ? Chris almighty, he was fond of quoting Leviticus 20:13 which states that homosexuals should be put to death and that it was “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” It's crystal clear what he said and what he was inferring. Homosexuals don't deserve to be killed either but that's the divine law he quoted when questioned.