Here's a letter to the editor that appeared in the January edition of Têtu, France's response to The Advocate:
Normally, gays aren't allowed to donate blood, but I went anyway, hiding my sexuality because I think blood donation is required of all good citizens, and gays are citizens like everyone else.
So I went to the blood bank with my magazine and was interviewed by the doctor with all the normal sexuality questions. Everything went fine.
The letter continues after the jump.
I sat down and took out my favorite magazine in front of everyone. I read Têtu the whole time they were taking blood, hiding nothing, neither the cover nor the hot boy pics inside. A few nurses asked me what I was reading after having seen what it was, but no one said anything to me.
Imagine my satisfaction reading Têtu in a space where gays aren't allowed.
--Kévin, Le Havre
Ignoring the sheer sycophancy shown towards the magazine to which Kévin is writing (he sure knows how to get his letters printed), what do you all think about this? Do you donate blood with the blood ban in place? Do you think that other gay men (and women who've had sex with men who've had sex with men) should?
Because there's really no need for the ban - the testing for STD's is effective and sexual orientation doesn't determine necessarily what's going on in someone's sex life. But is it worth lying over?
I was reminded of this letter to the editor from back in January because I got a link to this in my inbox from Peter LaBee:
Whoa. Selfishness redefined. Who knows if anyone died because of this twisted homosexual bid for "equality"? (The whole point of a blood ban is that the blood in question is not equal.)
Way to not sound like a Nazi there, Peter, with trying to find out who has the better blood and all.
So is following the letter of the law important in this case?