This week is the blood drive. People will go donate blood for any number of reasons such as food, or an excuse not to do heavy activity, or for a shirt.

Also this week, a group of people will be demanding the right to give blood.

Homosexual men, as well as others in the LGBT community, will be protesting the policies of the Food and Drug Administration.

Primarily, the disqualifying question about having sex with another man since 1977 is what many are in an uproar about.

I understand that they feel discriminated against since many of them are not irresponsible: They pick proper partners, practice safe sex, etc.

Despite all of this, they should still be banned from donating blood.

Just like in any group, there are people that flat out don’t care, and this is one case where one person ruins it for the whole group.

Intentionally flirting with disaster is stupid. How about I go wave a golf club in a thunderstorm?

Why should I be forced to play Russian Roulette with more bullets, just to make someone “feel comfortable and accepted”?

Why should we increase the possibility of HIV-contaminated blood getting into the supply? Our goal should be to reduce the risk as much as possible.

We might as well allow people who are promiscuous and share needles for IV drugs to donate blood. After all, they are simply living a different lifestyle, and who are we to judge them?

Go ahead, call me a homophobe and a bigot all you want.

Some will do it here out of anger, some just because they hate me.

Just remember that even people you hate can be right.

Accusations of bigotry aside, I am just not too happy about increasing the chance I may get a disease that can never be cured.

I do not want to worry about whether the next time I catch the cold or get pneumonia if it will be the last time.

Sure, there is Nucleic Acid Testing, which can detect HIV before antibodies form with a million-to-one odds that it won’t work.

So what do we tell that “one” person? Do we tell him/her/hir “sorry,” due to the increased strain? At least they can now look at the world in a new and diverse way.

The Red Cross has only used NAT since 1999 and few banks have been able afford the testing.

I know all my critics are asking, “Where’s the proof? What reasons do you have?”

Oh, I don’t know, how do 28 reasons sound? From April 1985 (when testing of blood began) until March 1990, the National Institute of Health did a study of CDC cases where transfusion patients reported receiving HIV.

Out of the 150 reports, 28 innocent people were confirmed being contaminated.

Maybe you have heard the famous story of Ryan White, an 11-year-old kid that received HIV from his hemophilia treatment. Of course, he is only one life.

Since 1999, I found four people that were contaminated with HIV. This occurred in such notoriously backwards nations like Australia, Japan and the U.S. This isn’t counting the unknown cases or those in poorer nations.

In Australia, a little girl received HIV in 1999. Now she has no guarantee on how long she’ll live, since HIV is different in children.

Sure, she can live with all the viral treatments, but they only stem the tide: HIV and AIDS will kill her; it is only a matter of time.

Even if anti-virals could guarantee 50 years of life past infection, are we now allowed to say the rights of gay men are now worth 50 years of our lives? Who is making these appraisals?

She can hope that some guy gets a free ride to Stockholm in the next few years to win a certain prize. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

After all, I am being sensational and the deaths of at least 30 confirmed people mean nothing when compared to the rights of gay men.

I only ask for one small demand if you really wish to make everyone do “Chance Time.” One simple thing.

If this policy were to be allowed, when that first person contracts HIV you all need to walk up to that innocent person and explain something to them.

Of course we can’t guarantee it’s the fault of a gay man, but the odds were increased by the possibility.

Anyway, you’ll need to explain how you’re sorry they are infected, but mention the happy fact that, “At least I don’t feel socially stigmatized as much now.”

After all, the goal in life is to feel better about oneself right?

In the end, increasing the bodily harm to the rest of us is in no way an acceptable risk.