this is not scientifically accurate:

On a purely scientific level, the gay blood donation ban is utterly illogical—just ask the American Medical Association. It is true that, in the very early days of AIDS, scientists struggled to detect the virus and did not develop a speedy and accurate test for several years. Thus, when AIDS was not detectable and considered a “homosexual disorder,” the ban had a certain measure of logic. Today, though, that logic has been entirely erased by advances in HIV testing. All donated blood goes through two tests: an immunoassay, which can detect HIV-related antibodies 15 to 25 days after infection, and a highly accurate RNA test, which essentially detects HIV at the moment of infectiousness. This rigorous, high-tech testing effectively ensures that HIV-infected blood will never be transmitted through donations.

Moreover, the FDA’s decision to set aside gay men as the primary carriers of HIV is based on the noxious myth that HIV is exclusively a gay problem. It isn’t: The virus affects virtually every realm of society, and while it may target some groups more than others, this doesn’t justify a population-specific ban. As my colleague William Saletan pointed out in 2010, gay men may be somewhat more likely to have HIV—but so are black people, by a significant margin. Does this mean the FDA should ban blood donations from black people? Of course not: It merely means that blood donation centers should assess donors as individuals, not as groups. In fact, the FDA already does this with at-risk straight people: A heterosexual who has had sex with a prostitute, used IV drugs, or had unprotected sex with an HIV-positive opposite-sex partner more than a year earlier is welcome to donate blood. But a drug-free gay man in a monogamous relationship for 30 years? His blood is banned for life.

Also, The American Medical Association Opposes FDA Ban For Gay Men

Ban the ban: A scientific and cultural analysis of the FDA’s ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men from the Columbia Medical Review

And when the FDA first lifted the lifetime ban, instead allowing for 12 month abstinence before donating (which is still ridiculous, even for men in monogamous, long term relationships), "During the change in Australia from an indefinite blood donor deferral policy, essentially a ban, to a 12-month deferral, studies evaluating more than 8 million units of donated blood were performed using a national blood surveillance system, the FDA said. "These published studies document no change in risk to the blood supply with use of the 12-month deferral," the agency said."

If there was no change in risk by allowing some gay men to donate and more than 8 million units of blood were studied, and the American Medical Association is in favor, than it makes sense to continue changing the rules.