![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolate_chipI've been meaning to start a rant series for a while now, but was too lazy to make a page for them on my site. But now that I have LJ, I can just put it behind the cut!
My mother'sChristian Republican ass-kissing "news" magazine has found a new level of blatantly idiotic homophobia. This week's topic: Gays Can't Donate Blood, Therefore We Shouldn't Allow Them To Marry. If you enjoy getting pissed off and are willing to log in, you can read the whole article here.
Now, whether or not the Red Cross should change their policy about accepting donations from gay men is not the subject of this rant. Whether you agree or disagree with the Red Cross, the rampant homophobia and stupidity of this article should be obvious. Background: our esteemed author, in order to prove that good, normal Americans don't like gay people, was just utterly thrilled when he went to donate blood and realized that the Red Cross discriminates against homos. Therefore, this article.
But here's the point that leaped off "the clipboard" with startling clarity: Under the heading, "Who can not be a blood donor," was disqualification No. 7: "If you are a male, [and have] had sex even once with another male since 1977." In other words, no honest practicing male homosexual can be part of the blood-donor system in our culture.
So careful is the Red Cross on this issue that through the rest of the process, they ask you repeatedly whether maybe you misspoke or forgot. They even offer you a little sticker to put on your form at the last minute that lets you discreetly admit after you leave, "I lied. Maybe you should throw away my blood after all." And finally, they give you a phone number to call when you get home just in case a bit of honest remorse overtakes you.
Misrepresentation of Truth #1: AIDS is mentioned absolutely nowhere in this article. We are expected to believe that this discrimination is based solely on sexuality, when in fact, it has nothing to do with sexuality, but with being part of a group that is perceived to be at a high risk for AIDS. Misrepresentation of Truth #2: It isn't "this issue" that Red Cross is careful about; it's all the questions. The phone number, etc. is in case you think you may have answered any question incorrectly. But thanks for taking the opportunity to insinuate that gay people are liars who get a kick out of fooling normal people into accepting their tainted gay blood.
Granted, "the clipboard" also makes it clear that others may not give blood. A friend of mine who was treated for cancer a couple of years ago was deferred the same morning I was allowed. If I'd had malaria or hepatitis in the last few years, or if I'd traveled in certain tropical countries, or if I'd been on certain medications over the previous week, I could not have been a donor this past Saturday. But not a single one of those conditions involves a conscious lifestyle choice like that exercised by homosexuals.
Okay, first of all, having sex is (or at least should be) a conscious choice. Being gay is not. Also, "not a single one"? The last time I checked, taking medications and deciding to travel to tropical countries were conscious choices. I've never heard of anyone who woke up one morning to find they were suddenly in Tahiti swilling Pravachol.
Two other groups are excluded by the Red Cross as donors, both identified on the basis of their lifestyle choices. Neither prostitutes nor drug users, if they tell the truth about their habits, can give their blood. But neither prostitutes nor drug users—at least so far—have lined up to ask the courts of America to give them special privileges to marry and enjoy the rights and benefits society has traditionally given to married people.
And hellooooo, stupid. Prostitutes and drug users don't need to ask the courts for special permission to marry, because they CAN ALREADY GET MARRIED.
And now for some facts. The Red Cross does allow gay people to donate blood. The Red Cross does not allow men who have had sex with men since 1977 (or women who have had sex with men who have had sex with men since 1977) to donate blood. The issue is not homosexuality, but AIDS. Now, as for what this has to do with marriage, I have no idea. If we're using common sense (which this author obviously isn't), then this article is saying that everyone who is not allowed to donate blood should not be allowed to marry. So, sorry to all you IV drug users, people on blood thinning medication, and anyone who has spent more than 6 months out of the country. Lesbians are OK though, so I guess WORLD Magazine thinks they should be allowed to marry.
My mother's
Now, whether or not the Red Cross should change their policy about accepting donations from gay men is not the subject of this rant. Whether you agree or disagree with the Red Cross, the rampant homophobia and stupidity of this article should be obvious. Background: our esteemed author, in order to prove that good, normal Americans don't like gay people, was just utterly thrilled when he went to donate blood and realized that the Red Cross discriminates against homos. Therefore, this article.
But here's the point that leaped off "the clipboard" with startling clarity: Under the heading, "Who can not be a blood donor," was disqualification No. 7: "If you are a male, [and have] had sex even once with another male since 1977." In other words, no honest practicing male homosexual can be part of the blood-donor system in our culture.
So careful is the Red Cross on this issue that through the rest of the process, they ask you repeatedly whether maybe you misspoke or forgot. They even offer you a little sticker to put on your form at the last minute that lets you discreetly admit after you leave, "I lied. Maybe you should throw away my blood after all." And finally, they give you a phone number to call when you get home just in case a bit of honest remorse overtakes you.
Misrepresentation of Truth #1: AIDS is mentioned absolutely nowhere in this article. We are expected to believe that this discrimination is based solely on sexuality, when in fact, it has nothing to do with sexuality, but with being part of a group that is perceived to be at a high risk for AIDS. Misrepresentation of Truth #2: It isn't "this issue" that Red Cross is careful about; it's all the questions. The phone number, etc. is in case you think you may have answered any question incorrectly. But thanks for taking the opportunity to insinuate that gay people are liars who get a kick out of fooling normal people into accepting their tainted gay blood.
Granted, "the clipboard" also makes it clear that others may not give blood. A friend of mine who was treated for cancer a couple of years ago was deferred the same morning I was allowed. If I'd had malaria or hepatitis in the last few years, or if I'd traveled in certain tropical countries, or if I'd been on certain medications over the previous week, I could not have been a donor this past Saturday. But not a single one of those conditions involves a conscious lifestyle choice like that exercised by homosexuals.
Okay, first of all, having sex is (or at least should be) a conscious choice. Being gay is not. Also, "not a single one"? The last time I checked, taking medications and deciding to travel to tropical countries were conscious choices. I've never heard of anyone who woke up one morning to find they were suddenly in Tahiti swilling Pravachol.
Two other groups are excluded by the Red Cross as donors, both identified on the basis of their lifestyle choices. Neither prostitutes nor drug users, if they tell the truth about their habits, can give their blood. But neither prostitutes nor drug users—at least so far—have lined up to ask the courts of America to give them special privileges to marry and enjoy the rights and benefits society has traditionally given to married people.
And hellooooo, stupid. Prostitutes and drug users don't need to ask the courts for special permission to marry, because they CAN ALREADY GET MARRIED.
And now for some facts. The Red Cross does allow gay people to donate blood. The Red Cross does not allow men who have had sex with men since 1977 (or women who have had sex with men who have had sex with men since 1977) to donate blood. The issue is not homosexuality, but AIDS. Now, as for what this has to do with marriage, I have no idea. If we're using common sense (which this author obviously isn't), then this article is saying that everyone who is not allowed to donate blood should not be allowed to marry. So, sorry to all you IV drug users, people on blood thinning medication, and anyone who has spent more than 6 months out of the country. Lesbians are OK though, so I guess WORLD Magazine thinks they should be allowed to marry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-21 01:36 pm (UTC)[...]Neither prostitutes nor drug users, if they tell the truth about their habits, can give their blood. But neither prostitutes nor drug users—at least so far—have lined up to ask the courts of America to give them special privileges to marry and enjoy the rights and benefits society has traditionally given to married people.
As you said: !!?!?!?!!! My brain is breaking! The person writing the article is the one doped up on the crack.
This makes my heard hurt from trying to think below my intelligence.
Date: 2003-12-21 09:27 pm (UTC)I find it hard to form coherent thoughts about this, because their logic is so far beyond my reach. Such backwards thinking is even lower than the logic of a five-year-old.
It's sort of like syaing, "All flamingos are pink. This sweater - an inanimate object - is pink. Therefore, this sweater is a flamingo." There is no way you can follow this logic! How the hell can they draw conclusions like that?
I suffer from migraines. While under the influence of the medicine I take - at night - I'm not to opperate heavy machinery, like drive my car. But I do drive, every single freakin' day. Now, because I shouldn't be able to drive, something teens can do in WV at fifteen, does that mean when I'm 21 (and should be able to drive), I can't purchase alcohol? According to this guy's round-about-make-it-say-what-I-want logic, no, I can not purchase alcohol when I'm 21 because I take medicine for my migraines. Now, if I didn't take my medicine at night, rather I took it in the morning, and highlight the AIDS concern in the above, and then you can draw a logical conclusion for why I should not drive and why gay men who have had sex since 1977 should not give blood. But, that still has nothing to do with my purchasing beer and gay men getting married.
*Shakes head.*
That whole point he was trying to make is something I say around my house to get a laugh, because it is just so stupid. "Salami is evil, because it starts with an 's', like Satan. Haha."
Now, can they donate sperm? 'Cause it's these sort of people that fear homosexuality might be hereditary. Why? If it is hereditary or is due to a certain gene, these a**holes will have to identify it as a "condition", rather than a "life style choice" and therefore would have to allow them marriage, just as mentally retarded individuals are allowed to marry. XP Take that, a**holes.
Re: This makes my heard hurt from trying to think below my intelligence.
Date: 2003-12-22 03:01 pm (UTC)You've got a good point there. I'm not aware of gay men being prevented from being sperm donors, and I'm pretty sure gay adoption is legal in 49 if not all 50 states. So it's okay for gay people to become parents. They just can't get married. Even though one of the main arguments against gay marriage is "Think of the children!" Yeah. That makes a hell of a lot of sense.