Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: madison10

Giving blood is already on the honor system. They can give blood if they don’t admit they’re gay. The Red Cross has a database of all previous blood donors that shows the ones with tainted blood, and not just AIDS. They already do a pretty good job of keeping the blood supply safe. This whole thing is just about redefining homosexuality as normal.


8 posted on 12/28/2014 12:36:11 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Black lies matter. 'White privilege' is dog-whistle for 'kill white people.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: E. Pluribus Unum

I’m permanently banned from donating blood because I was stationed in Germany more than thirty years ago.

The government now trusts faggies more than it trusts its vets. Got it.


51 posted on 12/28/2014 2:22:32 PM PST by elcid1970 ("I am a radicalized infidel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Giving blood is already on the honor system. They can give blood if they don’t admit they’re gay…….. This whole thing is just about redefining homosexuality as normal.

I almost completely agree with you…. The point to having any ‘rule’ about anything is that there typically is some rationale for the restriction that has to do with an expected and desired outcome. In the case of blood, it has to do with public safety and the fact that those who engage in sexual activity with others of the same sex have a very high chance of harbouring diseases that will infect the blood supply. Here is the way I look at this…It’s one thing to have a rule and know that there will be people who will break that rule. It’s another thing to take the position that “they are just going to break the rule anyway so why have the rule”. Keeping the rule at least let’s those who violate the rule know that they are doing something wrong. Changing the rule (about prohibiting blood from those who engage in same sex sexual activities) absolutely ‘normalizes’ the activity that was the reason there was a rule in the first place and in the future when there is an infected blood supply, the finger won’t be pointed at them…. they are just behaving ‘normally’ and after all, AIDS is not totally a disease restricted to those who engage in same sex sexual activity, right?

For the record, AIDS is the disease that often comes to mind when one considers to those who engage in same sex sexual activity but that is just the disease that has gotten the most attention. There are a host of others as well….. anal cancer, syphilis, parasites (bacterial/viral/protozoan), amoebiasis, gonorrhea, anorectal sepsis, Tptein-Barr Type 2 virus, hepatitis A/B/C virus, prostate/testicular/colon cancer, colitis, enteritis, proctitis, proctocolitis, pubic lice, human papilloma virus….and on and on. What I like to tell people is this… Sexual activity that is conducted exclusively between faithful husbands and wives promotes good health in every possible way. In fact, the more sex they have, the healthier they are (and this not restricted to the physical). The exact opposite is the case with same sex sexual activity …every bit of sexual activity they conduct is harmful EVEN IF IT INVOLVES A MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP (like that ever happens amongst same sex participants).

No doubt the concept of opening up blood donations to participants involved in same sex sexual relations (even if there has been celibacy for a year) is ludicrous….. just with AIDS alone, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died because HIV positive individuals infected the blood supply. The idea of opening up that risk again even with new means of screening blood is beyond stupid.

The moot point that I’d like to raise where I don’t totally agree with you has to do with your use of the word ‘gay’. This has become defined as one who is naturally attracted sexually to those of their own sex. Since it is preposterous and misguided to consider the idea that people are born that way and thus need to have a specific word to identify them as a class of individuals, I suggest that such language that talks to this issue on what are ultimately ‘their terms’ be rejected. To use that word is to give credence to their existence in the manner that they portray their existence. There is no such thing as being gay….God did not create any people to think or behave in this way. There is only those whose lives have gone completely off course from His intended plan and they are engaging in same sex (or homosexual) activity. They are not ‘gay’ as a special class of individuals…. We were created to be sexual individuals but for whatever reason (and sometimes through no fault or motivation of their own), their sexuality has been allowed to manifest itself in a perverted manner. Gay people don’t exist…. only perverted people exist.

64 posted on 12/28/2014 4:43:15 PM PST by hecticskeptic (In life it's important to know what you believeÂ….but more more importantly, why you believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson