So it's not that I'm assumed to be a monster intentionally trying to infect people because of my sexuality, it's that I/my partner are assumed to be cheating whores until proven otherwise when this is never relevant one way or the other to heterosexual individuals who could just as easily be cheating (and indeed, due to the greater number of heterosexual individuals, statistically more likely to do so, like way more), including with one of the two secretly being in a MSM relationship on the side, but nevermind that if their stated orientation is straight? Yeah, no duh I'm not exactly going to be comfortable with the implication there either and it somehow coming back to just the gays, the gays, the gays where people suddenly have these concerns. Like, seriously, what are the chances of someone actually cheating just because they're gay? Why's that suddenly matter, when it's not even a thought at all when those donating are straight? What actually justifies that, what research, what anything at all to even bring that up when it's not otherwise?
And to cut this off at the chase before it even goes there, I'm not a fan of how these arguments tend to magically shift between rather it's minimizing the risk as much as possible, no matter what that involves, that matters most, to, when something like the above is brought up that ultimately boils down to if people are going to lie about this stuff they're likely to just lie regardless so why not just ban men entirely or something if that's suuuuuch a concern, to suddenly, no, no, no, then it's the quantity of blood that matters and that minimizing the risk of infection stuff people were blabbering on about beforehand? Disappears as quickly as it appeared in the first place, as if that was never truly the concern to begin and the arguments just effortlessly flip back and forth, back and forth, always just magically settling on whatever just-so-happens to be most restrictive to MSM donations. Either people are committed to minimizing the risk of HIV infections, whatever the cost involved may be, however many donations need to be turned down to do that, or you're committed to increasing the amount of donations and accepting some (minimal) degree of risk to do so and just assuming the best of people (and the best of people willing to do something like donate blood in the first place, which, frankly, most people aren't for one reason or another). Wish people would pick one in these discussions, but alas.
Because the TL;DR version of all this is imagine this scenario. A happily-married heterosexual woman decides to donate blood after some form of tragedy happens near where she lives. However, unbeknownst to her, her husband is secretly cheating on her with another man. Statistically, due to number of heterosexual relationships out there, this type of scenario if anything is even more common than homosexual individuals in committed relationships cheating on each other, especially in too many areas where homophobic attitudes linger and it's not acceptable to be in an openly-homosexual relationship, resulting in homosexual men pretending to be straight and winding up in those exact kind of situations.
The point being, regardless of what question she's asked, she would answer "No" as she has no knowledge of her husband's affair.
But yet! But yet, despite that surely being a thing, it doesn't seem to cause any particular issues for our system, whatsoever. So any concerns about "opening the floodgates" for MSM donations just seems really misguided, particularly because of how few donations we're talking about, so how could that possibly cause any additional burden on the system, when scenarios like that don't? How can people simultaneously talk out both sides of their mouth, admitting that we're in the end not talking about a significant number of donations to begin with because of the percentage of homosexual individuals in the population, and thus try to use that to argue why it's not worth the risk or whatever, but yet just as effortlessly switch to arguing that despite that, "if the floodgates were opened" that suddenly it would nonetheless magically overwhelm the system or be too costly or whatever? Huh? Are we talking about a low number of donations, or aren't we? Is it huge, is it tiny? It seems to switch at well.
I see no actual evidence that that would be a significant problem, anywhere, instead of just homophobic assumption after assumption after assumption that this or that just MUST, simply naturally must be the case, without any actual evidence to back it. And so I'm not going to be cool with that, or at least that's how I feel, if that makes sense and helps to clear up my personal position at all.