I will not be buying credits this season.

http://civilliberty....e-Donations.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn...d/#.TuvXW780-WU

http://www.gaybloodd...on.org/faq.html

Even the Red Cross's own website ( http://www.redcross....00030f3870aRCRD ) lists the ways in which EVERY UNIT OF BLOOD is tested. Gay men, I suppose, are just too dirty for even an HIV test to counter.



There are several other worthwhile and in-need charities that IRE could have selected that are much less discriminatory in its practices and theories. Why pick the one that perpetuates the anti-gay hegemony?

As an out and proud gay man in my "real" life (reality is /so/ subjective), I like to keep myself informed - and the Red Cross has long been opposed to gay blood donation bans.

It is not a decision they make - it's a federal law banning blood donations from men who have sex with men, individuals who have had sex with a member of the same sex, and a number of other restrictions related to overseas travel and the like.

As far as charities go, the Red Cross is a very good organization. They've strongly supported the appeal of the law restricting donations, and, as someone who has no knowledge of the decision nor say in it, I'm glad to see the donation going to an organization like the Red Cross. They have no say in this matter that's upset you (reasonably, I add!), but still do a lot of good throughout our country and beyond.

I sit as an individual who is fairly well informed regarding major "charities" and where money I and my family donate goes, and the Red Cross stands fairly strongly on the side of in favour of gay rights. Moreso than many organizations (even Equality organizations at the state level refuse to openly support programs like the Trevor Project, because they don't feel there's enough 'proof' that it supports their interests within their state), "gay" related or not. It wasn't too long ago when an employee fired off a complaint to higher ups in the company about the company openly embracing and celebrating June as "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month", that the company decided to terminate his employment (his complaint was that people in the company were bowing to the special interests of a select few gay men and women in the corporate hierarchy). Were they allowed to, by federal law, accept donations from gay men and women, I know many people would be very happy to set up drives at Pride events. And I know many, many people who await the day they can donate (myself included!).

I'd be right there with you if we were talking about something like the Salvation Army, who donate pretty heavily to anti-gay organizations.

But like I said. The Red Cross are the good guys, and every time I'm approached to donate blood I politely explain that I can't and why, and they smile sadly and they always say something to the tune of, "Soon! It won't last much longer, you'll see!"

Right, http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=128193248 . That's why you should necessarily stop donating blood if you are eligible under the current restrictions, but should be aware and advocate appropriately.

Upon further research, I have to yield my stance, in part, due to Eventru's reply. The Red Cross may not necessarily be the boogeyman (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x954988 , http://www.globeslcc.com/2011/11/30/fda-says-no-to-gays-american-red-cross-blamed/), but it is certainly still an unfortunate proxy through which the FDA ban can continue promoting its massively outdated prejudicial stance against gay rights.

Because that's certainly what this is. I am also not altogether convinced the Red Cross can't do more to overturn the FDA's policy. As the current leading nonprofit group in the blood-collecting industry, and with the President of the United States serving as the honorary chairman (http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfbf43181aa0/?vgnextoid=d8b0f0454556e110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextchannel=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD), it doesn't seem very likely that the FDA would stand a chance against the country's biggest source of blood collection. The AABB and America's Blood Center, too, are proponents of change, to the benefit of people victimized by this policy--donors and the needy alike.

It's also noteworthy to say that the American Red Cross is not a branch of the United States Government, and therefore, it is not the "final say" in this issue. It is, however, powerful in its own right, and the policies that are in place can be changed. What would happen if the Red Cross refused to collect anymore? And AABB and America's Blodo Center? When (more) people started dying from a lack of blood supply, the FDA wouldn't really have a choice but to alter its policy immediately.

This is clearly radical and not something I would see happen, and I am less incensed by where our 10% donations are going, but I want to echo Enyalida. The people who perpetuate a hegemony the most are sadly the actual majority, and they are also the people who choose to remain neutral.

Although the fact that it can take some time for the HIV virus to show up in the blood, even when tested regularly is likely to be the cause behind the committee voting to uphold the ban. While I understand frustration, it is no reason to try to hurt innocent lives by refusing to give blood if you are eligible.

Furthermore: It is not 'gay rights'. You do not 'have a right to donate blood'. That is not one of the rights brought by any constitution within the United States.

It does discriminate against men who have sex with men, but it does not deny gay rights.

I'm sorry, being denied equal treatment in any situation is discrimination and a violation of rights.

Let's say you are a black american (the term is coming back into vogue). Do you need to go to a restaurant? Is it a right of yours to eat at a particular establishment? No, so you can go around back, this is a white only eatery.

Eventru has a point. You do not.

EDIT: Also, 'any constitution in the United States? You mean THE constitution, yeah?

Terentia:

While I understand frustration, it is no reason to try to hurt innocent lives by refusing to give blood if you are eligible.

Nobody has an obligation to give blood; you are not "tying to hurt innocent lives" by declining to do so. You are instead saving lives by choosing to donate.

It's also noteworthy to say that the American Red Cross is not a branch of the United States Government, and therefore, it is not the "final say" in this issue. It is, however, powerful in its own right, and the policies that are in place can be changed. What would happen if the Red Cross refused to collect anymore? And AABB and America's Blodo Center? When (more) people started dying from a lack of blood supply, the FDA wouldn't really have a choice but to alter its policy immediately.

I think saving lives is a lot more important than making a stand for civil rights in this particular case. Yes, the Federal law is discriminatory, but to deal with blood donations you need to work with the government and all FDA regulations--this isn't something you can just ignore because of all sorts of hospital regulations.

I don't think it would be a good idea for the Red Cross to go to war with the FDA and thus cause a lot of immediate problems, so they really can't be blamed. At the end of the day, I think saving the lives is still the primary goal and regardless of how they feel about the FDA law, I think doing such a thing would cause a lot more problems and put people at risk and even backfire. At the end of the day, their goal is to save as many lives as possible and provide immediate aid--anything else is and should be secondary.

The way to get this is to deal with the Government--if you would normally donate blood and decide not to to "punish", I think you are choosing the greater of the two evils in that case. Because boycotting the Red Cross is not going to change the federal regulations.

Just to put this into perspective - I have been involved in the fight for gay rights for several years, involved in both political and social committees, and spearheaded campaigns. I am not speaking from the sidelines. I'm speaking from the midst of the fray.

No one does have an obligation to donate blood - however, advocating that people do not give blood in order to change a policy, is indirectly harming innocent people.

and No, I did not mean "The Constitution." I meant, Any Constitution. The United States is comprised of fifty states. Each state has a Constitution. There is also the Federal Constitution. So, by stating 'any', I was referencing all 51.

Phred:



The way to get this is to deal with the Government--if you would normally donate blood and decide not to to "punish", I think you are choosing the greater of the two evils in that case. Because boycotting the Red Cross is not going to change the federal regulations.

African Americans don't need to donate blood, either, because they're clearly tainted by their African heritage. Women, too, are second class citizens and are too frail to even consider such a torment, so let's ignore their desire to donate. Irish Americans are historically Catholic, and by God, those Catholics are a scourge in our society, so their blood must be full of filth.


...I'm not sure if the end of my previous post emphasized the hyperbole I intended to expose well enough, so consider the above paragraph an extension of that. I don't want people to die for gay rights if it can be helped. However, if you are a member of a minority group, you recognize the plights I'm referring to. Giving blood isn't cited specifically as a "human right," as set forth by the American Constitution, because gay men and women still aren't really considered fully "human." We're still trying to define what it means to be "human" at the UN level (Google Hillary Clinton gay rights UN for an interesting report), and America is certainly not leading the way in this on-going debate. I still can't walk down the road holding my boyfriend's hand without someone screaming obscenities, for instance.


If you are eligible to donate blood, by virtue of your continued existence as a cisgender, presumably white male, then by all means-- the decision is yours to make. The decision is not mine, however, but the ability to choose would be an novel concept. I'd love to save lives with my blood, which I assure you is as red and clean as yours. I can't, though, because I'm also a gay male.

To return to the original idea: what would you say to Rosa Parks and Dr. King about this hegemony? Or Elizabeth Cady Stanton? The ideas I'm suggesting might seem radical to you now, but I assure you-- the people who instigate change aren't really interested in what is "good for the majority" because as I've already suggested, the majority doesn't see a problem with denying a huge population of the United States the ability to donate blood (among other "basic human rights.")

So you are right, Terentia, in saying that it isn't a "gay right" to give blood in the 50 states of our union. I am not truly a fully established member of the union yet, and my rights are still very limited as far as "freedom" is concerned.

The country does not want my blood. If other people who are "eligible" to donate are willing to sacrifice this choice in order to help represent the already immense loss the FDA is forfeiting because of an old, outdated belief that gay blood generates HIV (remember that EVERY UNIT OF BLOOD IS TESTED, SO HIV IS NOT THE CONCERN ANYMORE), then I welcome the support. May the FDA learn its mistake soon enough so that more people don't die without my universal blood type.

Making a choice to 'not donate' is 'not helping' people, which doesn't translate to 'harming'. If I am choosing to not feed the neighborhood cat, I am not harming or attacking that cat (analogous to not donating my blood). If I, on the other hand, keep a cat in my house and prevent everyone in my house from giving food to the cat, I'm harming that cat by deliberatly denying them resources they need. If someone were going and lighting fire to or picketing a blood donation centre or a hospital, they would be (still fairly indirectly, but ew) harming people. Any other way of looking at it leads to giving blood being a requirement, an obligation.
ALLLLLL of that said, I totally support still giving blood, if you can. If you've been sucking on random cow brains for the last few decades, carry on not donating (please). (What I don't support is the statement that a discriminatory practice, one contributes to the idea that a group of people is inherently more unclean then the rest of the populace.) I've got a fairly funny story about how I actually managed failing to give blood, I just don't bleed much. Another time.

When it comes to what many people consider as universal human rights (the right to equal treatment, not specifically to give blood), the addition of a clause in one of the state constitutions would spell only a small victory if it wasn't recognized to some degree on a national (and hopefully global) scale. It would be wonderful if say, California State ruled against this form of discrimination! However, the FDA is a Federal organization, which could restrict any real, substantive, and truly effective claims of unconstitutionality to the Constitution. The most obvious being appeal to the ever popular Fourteenth amendment with the premise of the argument being that a federal regulatory agency that has power under the law to control industries should not then be able to create and enforce a discriminatory policy though that policy itself is not law per se.




If the entire thing is simply a discrimination in the most harmless sense of the term, differing treatment depending on membership to a group, that is logically sound and backed up by hard facts and risk analysis, why do they not disallow African-Americans from giving blood? They have over twice the total diagnoses of white americans. It's not quite the jump, but it's appreciable.

I'm sure that you essentially agree with what we're (The we being Druken and I, agreeing with Eventru) saying, as you've been on the fighting side (fighting the good ol' fight), but you've got to see that a comment like that isn't going to win you any fans and doesn't hold up. Joking aside, Lusternia has a pretty darn big LGBTQ community that doesn't particularly like it when they are told that being discriminated against isn't a violation of their rights. Heck, even those who aren't strictly 'inside' the community due to identifying with one of the spectrum of orientations represented with the label are big populations! I've never gotten any sort of anti-gay vibe from anyone, which is pretty astonishing for a ftp game with this playerbase. I like to think it's because we're all just such kewl kats, but I know that a lot of it comes from the no-nonsense attitude of the admins on these cases, perhaps partially because some (or a lot, who knows) of the admin are members of the community, as activists, supporters, friends, or queer people themselves. That's why I supremely astonished at your stance and subsequent defensive attitude. I'm kind of a stickler for public relations problems, and this is one that will bother me for a while. I'll try not to blast everyone's ears off on clans.

EDIT: I hope that my long and rambling (also overly parenthetical) post isn't taken as a rant. I'm honestly confused and thrown off guard by your statement, Terentia. I agree with Eventru more then I admit, though I oft take issue at his method of getting there or phrasing, but this is a time where I fully agree with everything he said/did.

I think you are assigning some meanings to what Terentia was saying that were not intended. I don't see anything in her posts that should have gotten you all riled up. She never said it wasn't wrong or it wasn't discrimination (in fact she did specifically say it was discrimination), just that it wasn't a rights issue by the technical definition of the word. So to me I'm seeing all these huge posts because people disagree on the exact definition of what a rights issue is and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa in summary:

You both agree it is a bad thing that should be changed
Your definition of what type of bad thing it is is somewhat different
GET SO OFFENDED

why are you doing this

Direct all this energy towards the appropriate direction (the people in charge of the policy, and those who are any the position to change it) instead of getting into a big old mess that has no reason to happen.

Wish I could still give blood. I've given over six gallons over my life, but my iron's not high enough anymore due to my gastric bypass.

I have also had to... let's say, "fudge" on some of my answers to do it. There's a lot of people who do, as a form of silent protest. I entirely agree with Eventru that this protest is aimed at outdated policies that aren't initiated or even agreed upon by the Red Cross, but which they have to follow, not at the Red Cross itself.

Early this year my spouse and I came into some money unexpectedly. We decided since it was "found money" and we wouldn't miss it if were gone, that we would give half of it away, to friends who could use a windfall more than us, and to charities. The Red Cross was one of the three charities that got a pretty sizable chunk of money from us.

Kudos to Lusternia for this donation program. Also, kudos to everyone who's fighting to get this head-up-behind-stupid rule about blood donation changed.

To return to the original idea: what would you say to Rosa Parks and Dr. King about this hegemony? Or Elizabeth Cady Stanton? The ideas I'm suggesting might seem radical to you now, but I assure you-- the people who instigate change aren't really interested in what is "good for the majority" because as I've already suggested, the majority doesn't see a problem with denying a huge population of the United States the ability to donate blood (among other "basic human rights.")

I just wanted to comment about this, because I think this is wrong. The difference between Parks, King, and Stanton situations is that they were directly attacking the institutions primarily involved. I suspect MLK, for instance, would never encourage White people to boycott the Red Cross in a similar situation (no donations from an ethnic type) because it's not anything directly the Red Cross can control, and the boycott would hurt both people who are innocent in the whole scheme of things, and the organization itself. (I never heard of boycotts of hospitals in their primary goals by the Civil Rights Movement--just by staff members who weren't in the primary care roles fighting for union rights and wages). I don't think this is the same situation. While I disagree with the FDA law, I think boycotts of blood drives send the wrong message, and I think there are a lot more important battles that can and should be fought.

In any event, I think the Red Cross is one of the more well handled charities out there--remember, blood is just one small part of everything the American Red Cross does. A lot of what they do goes to disaster relief, which a lot of people have benefited.

Phred:


I just wanted to comment about this, because I think this is wrong. The difference between Parks, King, and Stanton situations is that they were directly attacking the institutions primarily involved. I suspect MLK, for instance, would never encourage White people to boycott the Red Cross in a similar situation (no donations from an ethnic type) because it's not anything directly the Red Cross can control, and the boycott would hurt both people who are innocent in the whole scheme of things, and the organization itself. (I never heard of boycotts of hospitals in their primary goals by the Civil Rights Movement--just by staff members who weren't in the primary care roles fighting for union rights and wages). I don't think this is the same situation. While I disagree with the FDA law, I think boycotts of blood drives send the wrong message, and I think there are a lot more important battles that can and should be fought.

In any event, I think the Red Cross is one of the more well handled charities out there--remember, blood is just one small part of everything the American Red Cross does. A lot of what they do goes to disaster relief, which a lot of people have benefited.

I know it's not something King would have supported. The Freedom Rides were without his support for quite a bit of it, and he tried to even stop them, not because they were loud proclamations or challenges, but because people would be risking their lives.

Protests of that sort would only deprive people of the life saving necessity that the Red Cross helps provide, were such a protest to actually materialize.

@Druken, while every unit of blood is tested, I think it's important to look at how blood tests for HIV are performed and what they actually do.

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is, of course, a virus. A virus is nothing more than a string of nucleic acids surrounded by a protein coat. Comparatively, a cell, bacterial or otherwise, is an aggregate collection of molecules in a solution surrounded by a phospholipid bilayer, IE a membrane. In the case of most prokaryotes, plants (photosynthetic and most non-photosynthetic), and as well some/most protozoans there is also a cell wall. Bacteria often contain a second membrane or, or a more correctly a slime layer, that surrounds that wall. Within this solution (the cytoplasm) there's the cytosol and the cytoplasm. In eukaryotes there's a nucleus, in prokaryotes there's a nucleoid region. Some fungi contain multiple nuclei. Eukaryotic cells (ie animals, plants, protozoans) are far more complex, with two membranes surrounding their nucleus, mitochondrea and chloroplast (where applicable) not to mention a membrane about the cell itself, in addition to numerous organelles and occlusion bodies that are found within the ER and smooth ER.

Anyways, bottom line, viruses are very, very small. In fact their existence was only inferred for a very long time, because they can pass through filters that no cell could, and it was quite the stumper for some time.

Because of this, tests for viruses are very difficult. I'd call it looking for a needle in a hay stack, but that's not really an appropriate metaphor. It's like looking for a needle in Lake Superior.

Instead, tests for viruses do not look for the virus, but instead the effects. One very common side effect is the production of antibodies (duh). These tests look for the existence of HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies, which are present in most bodily fluids (thus why mouth swabs have become a popular testing method, though they're in a much lower concentration than blood).

So when they say they test every unit of blood, they mean they test the blood for HIV antibodies.

In order for a unit of blood to test negative for HIV but actually contain the virus would require a fairly recent infection that managed to slip into the very small amount of blood that's been drawn, as the immune system reacts pretty quickly to any infection even HIV (in fact it's part of how HIV generally works, it overloads the immune system on initial infection, so that it can get a foothold after it's chilled out and build up), or a severe, pre-existing immunodeficiency.

Or for the virus to be added to the blood after it's been drawn.

Ultimately, Terentia's point was this - no test is 100%, and after exposure to the virus you should seek immediate treatment (with 24 hours at most), where you'll be put on antiretroviruses for at least six months, as well as regular testing - because those tests are not perfect.

Realistically, the statistical odds of infected blood being passed through in this day and age without the involvement of a malicious will are immensely low. However, her point was only that the potentiality exists and that it is a very big, long, uphill battle that can be beaten by either confronting it head on, or by addressing the anti-gay stigma at large.

Cut the roots out and the proverbial plant dies.

Edit:

A short comment on 'phrasing' - 'Rights' has become a blanket term for anything that isn't allowed but we feel should be. People argue people of a given minority are not allowed to sit in restaurants or that they have a 'right' to order food in a language none of the staff speaks or that they have a 'right' to demand people only place orders in a particular language. People feel they have a 'right' to donate blood or to say 'Merry Christmas' or they have a 'right' to dump toxic waste on their property or the 'right' to beat their children or the 'right' to let their property decay and rot and become a public eye sore.

'Rights' has become over-used. People have very few 'rights', but they are broad reaching. Terentia's point, re the argument about 'rights' is that no one has a 'right' to donate blood, just as no one has a 'right' to go to college or there's no guaranteed 'right' to lay out in your front yard au natural for the neighborhood to see.

Nothing says "And all Americans shall be allowed to donate blood".

Even more specifically, rights can be construed to be the right to participate in anything with tangible, quantifiable benefits. Marriage, for example, confers a multitude of benefits financial and social that can easily be quantified and listed. There is no real 'benefit' to the participation in donating blood, nothing is being denied to you by your exclusion.

Ultimately you'll find we're squabbling over wording. What you call a violation of rights makes some pause and go, "But there's no right! So no violation! So why are you complaining!". The likes of Terentia and I will sit here and say, "Let's call a spade a spade. This is flat out discrimination, rights or no rights, and it's wrong."

(Rights are overrated anyways. As a verifiable southpaw, I support Lefts.)

Yes. "Rights" is perhaps a sweeping generalization for a universal ideal that will never happen, for anyone, anywhere. The ability to participate in something so wonderful and beneficial like blood donation because I am acknowledged as a human whose blood is clean is the ideal that I, and other like-minded people, are striving for.

My examples (MLK, Parks, Stanton) were meant to induct people into the current model of the fight that gay activists are waging against the anti-gay hegemony that still controls America, much like the mindset that told women they didn't need to vote or the mindset that black Americans didn't need to be mixed with whites. They are the same in nature: blacks wanted an end to segregation and women wanted to vote. Is it a RIGHT to vote? Is it a RIGHT to sit at the front of the bus? Now, yes, they are both considered choices that all Americans can make because activists, like the three I've named, worked to bring about this change. I understand that they weren't personally responsible, but history has held them up, and, by golly, I don't trust that people know what I mean when I say "activism," so it's easier to attach a well-known name to the kind of movements they were associated with. As we're still in the brunt of gay activism, we don't really have any well-known heroes from the community yet (don't try to tell me that Elton John or Ellen Degeneres are well-known for their involvement with gay rights in the same way that Stanton was involved with Suffrage because...they aren't yet. Move on.).

Is it a RIGHT to donate blood? By the definition of "right" in this thread, probably not-- but if we were talking about all of this in 1900, the same tenor and semantic debate would permeate this discussion if we were originally arguing the use of "rights" as the word is applied to women's rights; how is it a RIGHT for women to vote when they are (insert politically and socially obscure reasons why women are sub par voters here as an explanation for the continued hegemony) and do not NEED to vote? Fast forward a century. People have forgotten that this was ever debated because it feels so natural that women can (and should!) vote, as per the constitution and the society that continues to edit the constitution. Don't forget that, either--the constitution is not set in stone. It is updated and revised a lot more often than it sounds like most of you think it is!

I don't necessarily know what MLK would have said about the silent protest against blood donation because his issue was very different, and I don't think any of you can say what his opinion would be, either. I do know that he certainly--and vehemently--called a spade a spade, to use Eventru's phrase, and resisted the public opinion that suggested the color of his skin meant that he was somehow part of a class of people beneath the white majority, with different, limited choices and different eligibilities (read: rights).

The bottom line is that the color of my blood is still red, I've been tested for HIV three times with favorable results (which is much more than my straight friends can say, interestingly enough), and I'd love the option to support someone's continued longevity with the hemoglobin and plasma that flows through my veins, but I'm not privy to those choices, eligibilites, or, well, rights. Yet.

It's interesting that this thread moved in this direction, and I'm happy it did. It's an important conversation that absolutely needs to keep happening. My suggestion to protest the Red Cross (and other blood collection agencies) in a silent protest the FDA's backwards assumption that gay blood is still somehow different from straight blood is only the pinprick of the needle that needs to be thrust through the heart of the hegemony that has led people to a semantic debate about rights instead of discussing the ways in which protests can turn a society--or a company that can (and does) create worldwide homophobic policies--around.


Edit: By the way-- only 38% of Americans are currently eligible to donate blood, according to a statistic on one of those links I posted. It may be an outdated figure, but it's one that makes some sense when you consider what (along with being gay) makes you ineligible, there can't be very many people left who are pure enough to donate. I applaud the FDA for being so stringent and safe with its policies, I truly do. Blood transfusions are not something to mess around with without being as careful as is mortally possible with the quality of the blood we're using to heal people.

HOWEVER, more people will die overall if the current policy continues because so many people--who would otherwise be eligible to donate if that pesky gay clause didn't exist--are being denied the ability to contribute. A widespread protest of blood donation would hurt people in the interim, but it would force the FDA to overturn this stupid law, and quickly, to prevent senseless death. I don't want it to come to that, and that was always intended to be an extreme solution, but when you consider how low our blood supply is now...what else can be done?

If it's not the Red Cross's fault, why the heck would you protest them? That's like saying Lindsay's mom won't let her come out to play, therefore, I am going to shun Lindsay in school whenever I see her. It must be Lindsay's fault because Lindsay isn't standing up to her mother enough. Or, Immigration won't let my friend Enrico live in this country, so I'm going to end my friendship with Enrico because he's not making the government change its policies. It's misdirected effort.

Everiine:

If it's not the Red Cross's fault, why the heck would you protest them? That's like saying Lindsay's mom won't let her come out to play, therefore, I am going to shun Lindsay in school whenever I see her. It must be Lindsay's fault because Lindsay isn't standing up to her mother enough. Or, Immigration won't let my friend Enrico live in this country, so I'm going to end my friendship with Enrico because he's not making the government change its policies. It's misdirected effort.

The answer to your questions are in my post. Have to read it all! And you're sort of trivializing the main argument. Not playing with Lindsay to get back at her mom is not the same, as I'm assuming from your syllogism that Lindsay's mom wants you to play with her.

The government doesn't want us to play with the Red Cross, despite how much the Red Cross claims to want to play with us. The protest isn't against the Red Cross because the Red Cross is evil, and in fact, the Red Cross is really only the chess board upon which we're forced to play this political game.

Then add the content in my edit to the previous post. The numbers are chilling.

Seriously, though. Read my post.

Here is a reality check for you, gay people donating blood without breaking their honour oath on an anonymous piece of paper does not weigh up against providing humanitarian aid during conflict. And it is extremely selfish of you to expect them to put the feelings of a few over the lives of many. Which is what you are doing when you demand they shed their neutrality for a political battle unrelated to them. Blood transfusion isn't even a primary objective of the Red Cross, it came forth from requiring a supply during conflict and not being able to stockpile it for long (red blood cells can be stored for aprox 42 days)

But then it is easier to complain about how someone isn't defending your ideals, than actually defending your ideals.

Also a fun side note: In Belgium you can't donate blood if you went to the USA during the last 6 months.