Peace: "I'm a firefighter. When we handle ANYone who's bleeding, we wear gloves (latex) to both protect the patient AND ourselves from pathogens spread by blood (Hep B, HIV, et.al.). Just got a page"

Yes, and was standardized in the early 80's. Before that, one could go to a doctor, or dentist, and they would not..But you are correct.
I happen to be in UCLA, Hospital(Westwood) at the time when, the first, yes, the FIRST, exam was going to given to a patient(outpatient), who had something that no one had a bulletin on yet. It was called AIDS/HIV, but there was absolutely nothing released about the disease yet, and three of the doctors we're afraid, at that time (1982), to administer the physical, and were debating how, who, and what to do, as a precautionary measure. They (two) finally performed it wearing environmental suits! Within two weeks of that time, more information came out about this new, and strange disease. Since that time, the standard operating procedure, was to wear gloves, patient to patient. Later that year, the dentists, at UCLA, were refusing to work on patients with either, Hep, or AIDS. Saw it with my own eyes! Heard it with my own ears. Any one here can remember, not that long ago, when the doctor would merely wash his hands, but not wear gloves, except for certain things.

Don T.: "I would have thought that it deserved an honest answer then.
On what evidence do you base your assertion that the homosexual minority make up the MAJORITY of HIV/AIDS carriers....

Don, If Akenaton hasn't posted enough on that yet, then you ain't reading!

"HV/AIDS is linked with sexuality, hetero and homo varieties, or are you suggesting that the heterosexual millions of victims have been having unprotected sex with random gays?"

Another stupid question, Bi-sexuals, promiscuity, etc etc...(ohhh ye-a-a-ahh, I forgot..)

"(If, as you so desperately need to believe, homosexuality is not genetic in origin,....Blah blah blah" Here, watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNdPnd-c_Q

"In which case, notwithstanding which group is in the majority, the argument IS simply about equal rights in law."

Behavior is not covered the same as ethnicity etc. etc.

You can't have it both ways, you know.)
Neither can you! re-read my post on the civil rights,regarding real civil rights..its just a little scroll away!
Now 79% of blacks opposed Prop 8 in Calif....Ever wonder why????
Maybe they have a better clue about what civil rights is really about, ok?? Oh, Obama does not support it either..pretty far out, for the leftist of the left!(Voting record in the Senate)

So, if it not genetic, which it isn't, not ethnic, not about age(YET), or born with gender, or religious, what the fuck is your basis for harping about it being a civil right????
I've already stated, a bazzillion times, that all should be equal under the law, and all rights are endowed by our creator, etc etc(not by the state), and not based on what genital you put where!..and trying to get acceptance of that behavior, for whim's sake. If two guys, women, goats, pigs, amoebas, etc etc want to live together, fine! They do all the time. If they want to put their sex organs up each others nose, that's their business. I hope they conceive a lot of snot, but to turn this into a Civil Rights issue, of entitlement, and use it to further a political agenda, is ridiculous. Marriage it is not.
Maybe your parents forgot to explain why you are you, how you got here, and what they had in mind, when they got together.

Don First, Yours is coming..set it aside, just for you!
GfS