1. You have the right to love whoever you wish. You can have sex with them in the privacy of your home without interference or laws restricting what you do when the doors close behind you. That means that you can do anything with your partner up to and including fellatio (a sin in the Bible) and anal sex (also a sin in the Bible). This is what straight couples can do, have been doing and will continue to do in any free society. Gays the world over keep asking for that same right to love.
2. I have lots of surplus money to give to the needy, lots of it. For whatever reason, you decide that in order to give, I must fulfill certain conditions else the needy will have to do without my money. But others can give money even if they don’t fulfill the same conditions you have imposed on me.
The scenario at number 2 is what a country like Britain has said to the gay fraternity – you cannot give blood to those who need it unless you pass a subjective test that relies on information that cannot be scientifically verified as true.
The reaction from bleeding heart politicians has been rather predictable but nonetheless odd. The Liberal Democrats are pushing for the ban against gay men giving blood lifted without conditions because otherwise it is discriminatory.
Discriminatory? How do they figure this?
Discriminatory is when you ask me to sit at the back of the bus while someone of a different color sits wherever they want because you think their skin color makes them superior to me. Discriminatory is when you break down a gay man’s bedroom door to see if he is engaging in carnal knowledge against the order of nature but you do no such thing for a straight man who is also capable of doing the same. Discriminatory is giving preferential treatment to men at the expense of women in the workplace, thereby denying them the right to better themselves and their families. Discriminatory is offering plum jobs only to your family or tribes people while excluding all others; a crime in all but name.
“Blood donation works on the principles of kindness and mutual trust, and in order for us to safely introduce this new rule we ask all potential and existing donors to adhere to the blood donor selection criteria by providing completely honest answers to all the questions, both for the protection of their own health and that of patients.”
When you discriminate against someone, you take away or deny them something to which they are entitled, perhaps which could even lead to loss of life, livelihood if not human dignity. Yet, if I never, ever, donate blood, no one out there will ever be the wiser and it will not impact my human rights in any way. Or will it?
Donating blood is an offer, a gift, as the word ‘donating’ clearly indicates. You can offer anyone anything; they don’t have to accept. The discrimination would come in if giving is mandatory but it is not. Morally, it is right that people should be give generously whenever they can. But we know that a lot of rich people never give in their lifetimes; in reality a lot of rich Africans not only do not give – they steal from the mouths of the poor and sick in order to continue enriching themselves. We cannot call out such selfish people for not giving because that is totally voluntary for the giver.
Which brings one back to the rather puzzling cries of ‘discrimination’ because Britain has refused to accept help from gay men and women unless they pass a test that, frankly, is silly. If a gay man lies that they have not had any kind of sex for a year, how will the transfusion service prove the lie? What is so special about donating blood that homosexuals feel it is their right to do it? The ban has been in place for 30 years or so. Who has lost his freedom, job, livelihood, human dignity as a result of not donating blood?
True, straight people don’t have the same celibacy restrictions if they decide to offer up their blood. But whose loss is it if gay men are asked to be celibate for a year or else not donate blood? How can something that is totally voluntary on both sides be seen as an entitlement? If the blood ban is lifted and everyone is left free to donate blood, and all the gay men who have not been giving blood continue not to give it, should we expect the potential blood recipients to cry foul that gays are not giving blood when they are allowed to? If not, where isn’t the surest confirmation that giving the gift of blood is not entitlement to the giver or recipient? Where then does that leave the “discrimination” clarion calls?
On this one I am left perplexed. If Britain doesn’t want the blood of homosexuals unless they pass impossible conditions, so be it. Homosexuals and heterosexuals will continue receiving blood as they have been for 30 years.
What then is the big deal?