The Red Cross Needs Your Blood!!!

...Unless you're gay, or know someone who is.

That's the latest from our friendly neighborhood philanthropists.

Apparently there is a major blood shortage in the works. Thousands of people will die this year alone without a constant replenishment of the donor supply for fresh blood. That's why both the American Red Cross and the Give Life Organization set up blood drives all over this glorious country to collect pints of this, the most precious life force there is.

That's why I wanted to help. That's why I responded to the GiveLife.org's call for my blood. That's why I looked up my local donation site, why I rolled up my sleeve, why I bit my bottom lip and waited for the prick with the needle to do just that. That's why I was confused when I was told I could go, when I was sent away, without a Tickle-Me Elmo band-aide or shot glass of apple juice and a nilla wafer. That's when I found out they don't need my kind of blood.

You see, according to the Blood Donation Eligibility Guidelines provided by the Red Cross and company, there are certain types of people out there who are not eligible to donate even a droplet of their much-needed hemoglobin. Dead people, for instance. Drug addicts, prostitutes, animals, anyone from or near the Congo, and gays. These "types" of people, need not apply.

Why? Well, the official statement by the Red Cross states, "if you are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977...you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV," and therefore are ineligible to help out. Lord help them when that feeble-minded fag wanders in and confesses the last cock he sucked was in 1976.

But seriously, did you know that by being a boy who likes boys you have actually DONE something that puts you at risk? Unlike all the girls who throw their legs up behind their ears when a Vince-Vaughn-look-alike enters the club, or the dudes who bounce from one hole to the next like it's their innate prerogative to play, gay men, even clean, monogamous, HIV-negative gay men -- homos with hearts if you will -- all with recent test results in hand, they are subject to the ultimate rejection: Thanks, but no thanks.

The Red Cross does perform all kinds of precautionary tests on the donated blood, mind you, seeking out the most healthy and purest of pints they can collect. They just figure it would save some time by eliminating the ultimate threat to public safety: homosexuals, and people from Nigeria.

After fifteen years of what can only be described as blatant discrimination, the Red Cross chose to revisit the issue, calling upon the medical community for proof their partisan practice was, in fact, legitimate. And on October 4th of this year, the Blood Products Advisory Committee, a group consisting of "government scientists" -- so you know they're trustworthy -- told the Food and Drug Administration and the Red Cross that upholding the controversial ban on gay men's blood donation would ensure a continually clean blood supply, one the Red Cross proudly proclaims has been, for the past few decades, "virtually free of tainted blood."

Translation: Gay = Dirty.

According to an article posted on the Red Cross website, the Committee voted 7 to 6 to maintain the discriminatory policy, thereby continuing to prohibit an estimated 62,300 men from offering up their needed blood. After much deliberation on the topic the Red Cross found the verdict satisfactory, claiming the decision was not a social policy issue, but one concerning the health and safety of the public at large.

The FDA then returned to their practice of approving drugs that kill people.

Now I'm not proposing a ban on all blood donation. Far from it. Donate if you can, if you're allowed. Be honest about who you are and what you've done. And please, be up front about your health status when applying to be a donor. Just do me a favor and ask them kindly, when they're filling up all their vials with all the life you have to give, why they so vilely and blatantly discriminate against an entire demographic wanting to offer theirs.

Skewed medical science aside, perhaps the more times they have to answer, the less sense their explanations will make to them as well.

Oh, and for the record, here is a sample of other people ineligible to save lives:

* Anyone with "unexplained weight loss."
-- Lindsay Lohan please step out of line.
* Anyone with "diarrhea that won't go away."
-- Those of you who ate at White Castle in the past year also please step left.
* Anyone who has or has had "piercings, electrolysis, or botox" and cannot prove the needles used were sterile.
-- That's all of NYU, college freshman across the country, every actor/actress in Hollywood and male swimmers and models.
* Anyone "pregnant must wait six weeks after giving birth."
-- So at least we know Britney's off the market for the time being.

And lastly...

* Anyone who has been "bitten by a human, if the bite marks actually broke skin."
-- Ummm, yeah. Ironically, if you've survived a nasty vampire attack you're still okay to donate, so long as you don't celebrate by making out afterwards with your skinny, hairless, tattooed Albanian boyfriend. Go figure...