"These regulations are discriminatory because anyone who doesn't practice safe sex falls in the high-risk group, not just gays," he said. "They equate AIDS with being gay, doing nothing to help AIDS prevention."
"Furthermore, how do you know if somebody is gay or not? I might be gay today and love women tomorrow," Lai said, referring to the regulations' possible implementation problems.
"The Taiwanese requirements follow blood-donation regulations of countries such as the US and Canada, which ban homosexuals from donating blood," Chang said in response to the protests.
The US regulations were made in 1983, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended donor-screening procedures to exclude individuals at increased risk for transmitting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
In addition, the FDA stated that "although a potential individual donor may practice safe sex, persons who have participated in high-risk behaviors are, as a group, still considered to be at increased risk of transmitting HIV." The FDA also said that "safe sex reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of AIDS transmission."
Studies have also shown that many people who believe they are practicing safe sex are actually not doing so, either because of poor technique (ie, incorrect use of condoms) or lack of consistency (ie, proper safe-sex practices are not used in every sexual encounter), according to the FDA.
However, Ashley Wu spoke of two countries that changed their policies and lifted the ban on blood donations by gays: Italy and South Africa.
"Italy, a Catholic country that had long discriminated against gays, started allowing blood and organ donations by gays in 2000. South Africa decided that such a ban was against constitutional and human rights and changed its regulations in 2000," he said. "Taiwan does not see the changes and improvements in other countries. That's why some things have remained the same here."
The debate continues, with adamant arguments on both sides. Perhaps this is a problem beyond the issue of discrimination, but instead touching on safe-sex and AIDS education in Taiwan.
In Taiwan, sex is not a subject that is easily broached. Teachers shy away from such a topic at school and teenagers are left with incomplete or incorrect knowledge and perceptions about sex.
- 哈士奇Lv 61 decade agoBest Answer
歧視 "這些章程是差別對待的,因為任何人不實踐安全性交下坐落在高風險成群, 不僅是男同性戀," 他說。"他們視同愛滋病以為是男同性戀, 對幫助愛滋病預防沒有貢獻。" "此外, 如果某人是快樂的您怎麼知道? 我也許是快樂今天並且愛婦女, "Lai 認為, 明天可能提到章程的實施問題。 "臺灣要求遵守國家的血液捐贈章程譬如美國和加拿大, 取締同性戀者從捐贈的血液," Chang 說以回應抗議。 1983 年美國章程被做了, 當美國糧食與藥物管理局(糧食與藥物管理局) 推薦捐款人掩護規程排除個體在增加的風險為傳送HIV, 導致愛滋病的病毒。 另外, 糧食與藥物管理局聲明那"雖然一個潛在的單獨捐款人也許實踐安全性交, 參加了高風險行為, 作為小組, 仍然被認為是在傳送HIV 增加的風險的人。" 糧食與藥物管理局並且認為, "安全性交減少, 但不消滅, 愛滋病傳輸風險。" 研究並且表示, 相信的許多人他們實踐安全性交實際上做□不如此, 或由於粗劣的技術(ie, 對避孕套的不正確用途) 或缺乏一貫性(ie, 適當的安全性實踐不被使用在每性遭遇), 根據糧食與藥物管理局。 但是, 改變他們的政策和取消對獻血的禁令由男同性戀二個國家的Ashley 吳輪幅: 義大利和南非。 "義大利, 長期歧視了反對男同性戀, 2000 年由男同性戀開始允許血液和捐獻器官的一個寬容國家。南非決定, 這樣禁令是反對憲法和人權2000 年並且改變了它的章程, "他說。"臺灣不看變化和改善在其它國家上。所以一些事依然是同樣這裡。" 辯論繼續, 通過堅定論據在雙方。或許這是一個問題在歧視, 但是反而接觸之外的問題在安全性和愛滋病教育在臺灣。 在臺灣, 性不是容易地被提的一個主題。老師避開從這樣題目在學校並且少年被留下以殘缺不全或不正確知識和悟性關於性。
- Anonymous5 years ago
- Anonymous6 years ago
- Anonymous6 years ago
介紹一個超優質 男同 視訊交友網站！！
看那裡的帥哥主播如何挑逗視覺 ~~ 超OVER猛男趴 !
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago