is correct. The reasons are very sound. It is an uniformed knee jerk reaction to assume that the rules are unfair or based in prejudice. I would suggest you read this discussion, and in particular his contribution to the thread. http://www.realjock.com/topic/75414/
I would pay very close attention to his description of the actual testing procedures and how it is possible for things to slip through the cracks.
Also read up on this http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/health/13cnd-organ.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin
It does not state that the donor in question was gay or straight or having unprotected sex, but this incident and ones like would naturally lead the Red Cross to continue barring the most likely vector from donating.
It also occurs to me that the majority of voices, especially in the last thread on this topic, that are so dead set against this policy are also members of the age group where new HIV infections are on the sharpest rise. The most laughable argument I've ever heard is "But I don't have unprotected sex". Why would the Red Cross take your word for it? Could they really afford to? None of you that have problem with the policy seem to take into account the gap between infection and detection. You can test negative and still be infected . I hate to use a Chuckyism, but what happened to a little critical thinking?
What truly disturbs me are those that proudly boast that they lie about their sexual history in order to donate blood. You might think you're being a hero, but it is in reality a selfish self indulgent act.