Letter: No such thing as 'gay blood'
Thursday, October 2nd, 2008
I am not lesbian, but I am in no way “freaked out” by the gay community. Gays should have equal rights. After I read this heart-breaking, touching article, I was completely appalled and a feeling of sadness overwhelmed me (Column: “Why won’t the Red Cross take my blood?” Sept. 29).
Getting tested for HIV not only shows that the writer cares about his well being, but it also showed that he tested negative. Yet, when he was asked one of the billion questions asked by the nurses, he was no longer allowed to give his blood because he stated that he is a "male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977.”
Really now?!
The statistics prove that anyone who is not protecting themselves correctly can increase the risk of catching an infection, including HIV. Does Red Cross still live in a stereotypical world? America has gone through some tough times: black rights, women’s rights and gay and lesbian rights.
We have an African-American running for president. Women are highly paid executors, but we can't get over a stereotype that was big in the 1970s? Giving your blood to a sick child, a dying elder or a victim of a tragic accident is one of the best things to do to better your country. The majority of us doesn’t even realize how helpful we truly are being by doing this simple task.
Matt Hirschfeld, the columnist, clearly felt compelled to help in any way he could, and he was turned down even though he has clean blood. I am O-positive, and I know blood banks have been dangerously low of this type. What if he, or any other gay person, had this uncommon blood type but couldn't give and help people because of sexual orientation? Forget that his blood is infection-free and can save a life.
Red Cross needs to take a second look at the questions it asks its donors and consider changing them.
To Hirschfeld and any other gay person out there, don't give up trying because you, like everyone else, should be treated as an equal and not looked down upon just because of a stereotype.
Blood is blood, no matter what race, ethnicity or sexual orientation it comes from. As long as it's healthy, infection-free blood, it can still save a life.
— Ashley DeSandre is a sophomore from Pocono Lake, Pa.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
another pointless gay rights agenda piece. (shocker). there must be some sort of mandate concerning how many gay human interest stories the UKD must publish every year, becuase it turns these balls of fluff out with amazing consistency.
the only tangible result that i am aware of is that i now am steadfastly against gay rights. i used not have any opinion about the gay rights and just assumed that eventually homosexuals would assimilate all of the rights that heterosexuals enjoy through a lengthy procession of court cases, and the topic would slowly taper out of the public focus. but now, after observing a never ending push of this niche agenda, i think that i will become active in blocking gay rights. not because i believe that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights, but because after reading so many ineptly written, pointless pages of blathering tripe, i could never in good conscience allow myself to ally these authors. the UDK has persuaded me to a course of action. how ironic.
todd1007, your response is one of the most immature and intellectually vacant rants i've seen in some time.
While I don't consider giving blood a "right" I do think it is a little excessive to turn away someone because of that rule. The way it is worded basically assumes every man has HIV/AIDS if having "sexual contact with another male even once" makes the blood inelligible to donate. I was reading an article this morning on MSN about how giving blood can actually be healthy for the donor. The article also said that it is estimated that less than 10% of people who can donate do, maybe it's because they turn so many people away for rules like this...?
"the only tangible result that i am aware of is that i now am steadfastly against gay rights. i used not have any opinion about the gay rights and just assumed that eventually homosexuals would assimilate all of the rights that heterosexuals enjoy through a lengthy procession of court cases, and the topic would slowly taper out of the public focus."
I was hoping it would "slowly taper out of the public focus" as well. I'm sure my gay friends "like" being in the public spotlight. They "like" pushing their "gay agenda" because it makes you angry and pushes you to make comments like that. The truth is many people want the same rights you and I have as heterosexuals, they want to live freely in a society that does not discriminate against them because of their race, gender or sexual orientation. However, the only way change comes about in this country is by being loud and persistent over a long, long period of time. Until all people enjoy the same rights, privelages, and civil liberties you will continue to hear people fighting for their basic rights, such as civil unions, visitation, shared finances, societal acceptance, and yes, the ability to give blood. Please, todd1007, realize the only agenda that the gay community has is to have the same rights and privelages as you and I, not more rights and privelages or special treatment.
With that being said, I hope Matt Hirschfeld or some other gay guy takes the Red Cross to court. Even if you don't like needles, you should still have the right to help other people out.
Well said, Sam!
Listen, the Red Cross is not discriminating against him because he is gay, they are discriminating against his blood because his blood's carrier has had sex with another person of the same gender. The Red Cross doesn't discriminate against people, just blood. Gay blood. In the butt.
(please use the kansan.com comments feature maturely. srsly u guise)
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.