RESOLVED: Homosexuals (or MSM) should be able to donate blood

Homosexuals in America are still human beings, and they deserve to be considered equal just as every other citizen. In addition to being human, their sexuality does not make them any less of a person. Today, homosexuals are denied 1138 rights, benefits and protections; laws against discrimination (based on sexuality) only exist in 20 states in the United States, that leaves 30 states where homosexuals are not protected from hate crimes. As mentioned earlier, this ban was put into effect during a time when there was a lack of technology to test people with AIDS/HIV, but as everyone can see, it is 2012, and we are more than capable of testing people for AIDS/HIV efficiently. It is for these reasons and those that follow that I am compelled to affirm today's resolution, RESOLVED: Homosexuals (or MSM) should be able to donate bloodContention 1: It is illogical to make generalizations about groups of people. When asking why exactly gay men were specifically banned from donating blood, the answer is that "In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections." therefore, in order to take precautions the U.S. has banned homosexuals from donating blood. While it has been statistically proved that the majority of MSM have AIDS, it is not necessarily fair to assume that every man who has sex with another man is HIV+. Heterosexuals are also more than capable of engaging in unprotected sex, (the point of this statement is not to target heterosexuals, but rather to address the fact that regardless of one's sexuality, anyone is capable of engaging in protected/unprotected sex.) but they are still not banned from donating blood. One might argue that this is due to the fact that a smaller percentage of heterosexuals are infected, but that will be addressed in my next contention, the purpose of this contention is to explain why generalizations are ineffective. The reason homosexuals have been banned from donating blood is because the majority of them have been statistically proved to carry AIDS/HIV, but the majority is not always representative of the group as a whole. A statistic from the United States Department of Justice states that between 1974-2004, 52.2% of homicides had been committed by African-Americans. Obviously homicide is a serious issue in the U.S. so what precautions should be taken in order to prevent future homicides? A ban on African-American citizens in the U.S.? No, because it would be illogical to generalize that African-Americans were responsible for homicides with 47.8% of innocent African Americans who have not committed any crimes. That is exactly what this ban is doing, only with homosexuals. 39% of homosexuals remain HIV- and it does not make very much sense to punish them because other MSM have AIDS. If the intentions of this ban were truly to stop the spread of AIDS, then everyone would be tested before donating blood. A law banning a specific group of people only succeeds in creating a double-standard.Contention 2: Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by far. By looking at the statistics from a glance it seems as if the number of MSM who have AIDS/HIV is larger than the number of heterosexuals that have AIDS/HIV, but when you actually take the time to research the statistics the honest answer is revealed. So according to the statistics, 27% of heterosexuals have been infected with AIDS/HIV through heterosexual contact and 61% of MSM were infected through homosexual contact. According to Gary Gates, demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, homosexuals made up an estimate of 1.7% of the United States population in 2011. That is less than 2% of the population in the United States leaving 98% of heterosexuals. What the statistics fail to mention is that, the 61% of MSM with HIV is actually 61% of less than 2% of the population, whereas the 27% of heterosexuals who were infected is actually 27% of 98% of the population. Clearly the number of heterosexuals infected is significantly larger than that of the number of homosexuals infected. Therefore, with intentions of preventing the spread of AIDS, does it make very much sense to ban the group of people with the smaller population?Contention 3: It would be more efficient to test individuals. Creating a ban on a specific group of people not only segregates, but creates a double standard. With a significantly higher number of heterosexuals infected, it does not seem logical to ban a group of people and allow a group with infected members to continue donating blood. Safe sex can be practiced by anyone and to assume that it can only be practiced by heterosexuals is ignorant. It would be much easier and less controversial to test the people who wanted to donate blood before they donated blood. In conclusion, this ban hasn't helped stop the spread of AIDS, it has only succeeded in segregating homosexuals once again in addition to angering many people. This ban is outdated and unnecessary.