« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/03/2014
No, FRC, my blood is not 'risky'
I have been in a monogamous marriage for twelve years. I don't use drugs of any kind, injectable or otherwise. I am negative for HIV and all sexually transmitted infections. No tattoos. No medical conditions. My vices are limited to things like red wine (yes, please!) and pie (yes! please!).
But according to the ridiculously hostile Family Research Council, I am inherently "risky" simply because of my sexual orientation:
[FRC]
There is nothing "risky" about my sex. Yet in the world FRC wants to create, I might as well be a heroin-using sex worker who believes condoms are only to be used for balloon animals. That's because they don't care about the rigorous screening of all blood donations, and they certainly don't care what being gay actually means in the year 2014. They prefer a blanket—one that stigmatizes us as a minority population. After all, nuance that fights true dangers and actual diseases rather than casts off human beings who do, in fact, have something valid to contribute would not be nearly as beneficial to their bottom line.
It's shocking how easily I can imagine an FRC fantasy world where nurses are forced by law to enter into our hospital rooms and write the word "RISKY" on any of our blood bags, the way they have depicted in the above screen shot. They have always operated with a Scarlet Letter mentality. It's a bloody awful disservice to reasoned debate.
***
**I will also remind you that the Peter Sprigg who testified to the FDA on behalf of FRC has openly called for gay people to be "exported" and met with criminal sanctions:
*SOURCE: Gays seek immigration reform [Medill Reports]
*SOURCE: MSNBC
**MORE: Peter Sprigg [GLAAD CAP]
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
