This Week’s Challenge

Given the highly controversial nature of this matter, I'm going to start off by saying that I have no quarrels or conflict with the homosexual community. Having friends and even some family who lead a homosexual lifestyle, my official stance on the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage is this: Do what you have to do, do what you want to do, no one on this earth has the right to say that gay marriage or the state of being gay is wrong.

Now, with that out of the way, the issue at hand is this: Is it wrong and discriminatory for the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to implement a ban on homosexual men donating blood? A square and firm "No" is my logical response.

According to a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study in 2007, there were a total of 1,017,859 people in the United States with the AIDS virus. Of that number, 487,695 had contracted the virus through male-to-male sexual intercourse. That means that in 2007, 47.9 percent of all AIDS cases were contracted as a result of male-to-male contact; and even more simply put, nearly half of all AIDS cases in 2007 were a result of male-to-male homosexual acts.

Given those numbers and facts, to immediately assume that the government is discriminating against the homosexual community by not allowing gay men to donate blood is nothing short of irresponsible and close-minded.

The fact of the matter is that just about half of all AIDS carriers in 2007 were a result of homosexual acts; it would be negligent and destructive in the utmost sense of the words to allow homosexual men to freely donate blood to people who are in desperate need of it. If the very idea of donating blood is to improve the health of someone else, then is allowing homosexual men, who are at a disproportionately great risk of having AIDS, to donate  a good idea? Absolutely not.

In fact, this issue seems like another case of common sense made complicated. This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination against sexual orientation, and everything about knowing for a fact that AIDS is a deadly virus and that those who receive blood donated from homosexual men carry a more substantial risk of contracting said virus.

Just to heighten the simplicity of this matter: Should a parent allow a registered sex offender to babysit their children for a weekend? (and no, I'm not suggesting gay men are sex offenders; this analogy is about probability, so hear me out) A "yes" to this answer would be more than appropriate for those who would argue that banning homosexual men from donating blood is discriminatory and wrong. There is not a 100 percent chance that said sex offender will sexually abuse said children during the weekend, but there is a much better chance than there would be with a non-offender.

So is there a 100 percent  chance that someone will contract the AIDS virus from receiving blood from a homosexual male donor? Of course not. But are the chances higher? You bet. The numbers are there for you to check out whenever you want: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidsrace.

The FDA's overall intention is to establish proper health precautions within the United States in order to decrease health risks to its citizens, and I further believe that the banning action in reference is maintaining good faith of this aforementioned intention.