Posted on 03/20/2011 8:42:35 PM PDT by wac3rd
No one is talking about rights, unless you infer that a homosexual has a "right" to donate blood/organs and potentially infect the blood/organ supply. This you have done. If you are oblivious to this inference, you are sadly blind. If you aren't, you are malevolent.
Again, you begin with the presumption that for a practicing homosexual to donate blood/organs is a "right" which must not be infringed unless a compelling reason can be proven. This presumption is a very telling indicator of a mindset characteristic of homosexual activists, in fact, it's pretty conclusive. I believe Jim would agree.
No, the view that "rights" are in existence unless proscribed for some rational reason is false. There are a relatively few inalienable rights, as mentioned by the Founders, but there isn't an infinite blank canvas of "rights" onto which anyone, particularly anyone in power, is at liberty to compose their own version of wants and desires as a "civil right," as the Left loves to do. And so we have laws rightly restricting and banning behavior; indeed, all laws would be unconstitutional if this worldview were universally accepted, as each law would infringe upon someone's "rights." An anarchist society would be the result.
Your red herring of people dying if homosexuals are not allowed to donate is like a solution in a frenzied search for a problem. The science is rather conclusive on the exponential health problems and pathologies experience by practicing homosexuals, no matter how "responsible" - a definition that homosexuals themselves demand to control and mold to their own liking. (We already know how they largely define "monogamy.") You might as well champion "responsible" IV drug addicts (they always sterilize their needles) as blood/organ donors as to suggest that about practicing homosexuals. No, the only responsible "gay" is one who is celibate and doesn't engage in homosexual behavior at all. But then he wouldn't self-identify as "gay," a nomenclature that infers activism as well. And the activism espoused is one of unfettered sexual libertinism.
I will not back down or become apologetic about this subject. Practicing homosexuals and their advocates are one of the most pernicious maladies this country faces from within. They are on the same order as Islamic terrorists who seek to destroy this country and remake it in their own image. I and a few other FReepers recognize this deadly threat, and we call it out when we see it. It is no longer a joke or a comedic stereotype, but a grave, imminent danger. We're insane if we refuse to fight it every bit as fiercely as we ought to fight militant Islam.
I seldom report members to the highest level of administration on this website, if fact, you are probably only the second in over 10 years. This is how intolerant - yes, intolerant - I am of the homosexual agenda, no matter how sweet-smelling and "rational" it tries to sound. If the mods don't find your viewpoint objectionable, you have nothing to worry about. If you have the slightest inkling that you might be banned because of the content of your posts, maybe you should heed your conscience and admit to being a troll on a very conservative website.
>> “perhaps you could explain what is the common sense right answer you have as a conservative principle?” <<
.
Try this: Protect the public from the obvious consequences of allowing deviates to freely participate in society.
The leap made by most posters here is truly unfortunate.
This is not about the false premise of 'gay' beings that possess some immutable characteristic defining them as a different 'gay' species. There is no scientific basis for your premise. Your argument is a red herring.
Blood and organ donations should be legitimately discriminated against based upon ACTIVITY as well as testing.
In this case we see the results of buying into the politically correct BS you seem to subscribe to; e.g. "a jerk who appears/happens to be gay" versus the reality of a disordered individual who chooses to engage in unhealthy actions...
Very well said. Thank you.
I hope Jim agrees. I can’t abide homosexual apologists. Never.
******************************
I hear you, and I agree. Particularly apologists who express sympathy and support for homosexuals and their risk taking behaviour, while at the same time insulting and deriding those who do not do the same.
This case was particularly egregious, because the homosexual in question continued his dangerous behaviour, all the while knowing that he had pledged his kidney to an innocent person. That is morally wrong, but it is we who were chastised.
The more I re-read and think about it, the angrier I get. It’s absolutely criminal.
**************************
Agreed. If I recall correctly, there was a young man in New York State who is or was in prison for infecting a number of young women. My memory could be a bit faulty on the details, but I believe it might qualify as a precedent.
I can and will claim the conservative mantle just as vehemently as you do. I would choose ever so slightly different words if I had the time or inclination to rework any of what I have written, and specifically I might not have used the word “right” as I did. I don’t take it back so much as I don’t find it at all necessary to the case I am putting forward.
I am not asserting a specific right to donate blood or organs. (I don’t want to get into a philosophical discourse over rights.) If I have given that impression, then I have mis-communicated, and I can see why someone with your vivid imagination could seize upon it. I have not done the exercise, but I believe that the substance of my argument would flow through entirely unchanged if I replace every instance where I use the word “right” with the word “prerogative.” I believe that every point I make stands unchanged, and so I beg of you to accommodate that switch so as not to be distracted by what constitutes a right and what does not.
You assign positions to me that you have no business conveying (e.g., that I think there is an ‘infinite blank canvas of rights blah blah blah’). You must know better but obviously do not care.
So, I regret any such impression around “rights” that I may have created. But I don’t retreat one whit from the substance of what I have put forward, and with just a bit of work you can see that I have been quite clear that I could be persuaded of the need to restrict organ donation by gays. The substance of my position is not in any way ambiguous. For me to say that there is a downside to restricting gay organ donations — that some patients in desperate need of organs would thereby be denied — is transparently obvious but overlooked by other posters here. There are nearly 2 dozen people each day who die because they can’t find an organ donor, and so we need to be careful before taking any actions that make it more difficult to donate. It might be necessary, I am quick to add. It should just be done with care and de minimus.
For you to say that my homosexual activism is conclusive based solely on this basic fact is simply moronic.
I enjoy coming to Free Republic. I get a lot from posting here occasionally and reading the comments of others even when I don’t agree. I mostly make my point and move on, but when I run into someone like you, who claims to be the true arbiter of conservatism, and who starts lecturing me on what a true conservative must be, and who calls me names when I have a different point of view ... well, I defend myself. If you look, I haven’t responded harshly to anyone who didn’t first insult me; and in all instances I have responded with principles (”irrelevant”) rather than mindless name calling.
You claim the mantle of Jim Robinson, and write that you speak for him. Now I don’t have any real knowledge of the man except that he has a great forum and from many, many years of coming here I sense that he welcomes the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas. But maybe you know him better. Maybe you think he would find what I have written in this particular instance objectionable and unacceptable. Maybe despite my many years of posting here — making good points always — he will ban me for using the word “right” when I might have more appropriately chosen “prerogative.” We shall see, I guess. If he does, I would really like him to explain what specifically I am guilty of writing. And if he doesn’t, if he is silent, well I shall go onward and forward thinking I have been proven right, just as I am sure you will.
I’ll write one last time and then move on. I am not intimidated by the likes of you.
“Blood and organ donations should be legitimately discriminated against based upon ACTIVITY as well as testing.”
Please go back and read what I have written. I make precisely that point. Indeed, that is precisely my point. It is the wrecklessness of the activity that warrants the restriction, not the gayness of the perpetrator.
I am not against the restriction. I am not in favor of wrecklessness. You have simply chosen to misread what I have put forward.
I sense a growing online committee of people who want me banned. So ... I’m more than happy to have Jim Robinson weigh in, if he wants.
**************************
Please do move on. I suggest Europe.
I've been here since the 90's, under different names, until I found one that suited.
You may speak bravely, but given the content of your posts on this thread, you probably won't speak here for long.
I was just attempting to point out and make clear that there is a distinction between a state of being and the activities one chooses to or even claims they have no choice to but engage in.
As I am sure you are aware -the leftists that promote homosexual sex normalcy do so under the false premise that there are homosexual beings and as such what these being engage in can not be legitimately discriminated against. This absurd argument is one and the same used by those who want those who engage in homosexual sex to be able to donate blood and organs.
Anyway, ANYONE can engage in self destructive activities that pose a danger to themselves and or society. No one should get a free pass to wreak havoc EVEN if they claim they were born that way...
In summary, I think the only way to legitimately oppose this absurd leftist onslaught e.g. hate the sin but love the sinner, is by being deliberate on maintaining the distinction between human beings always to be respected and the activities of human beings which can rightly be discriminated against. As such, the term 'gay' which was concocted to confound legitimate opposition to the normalization of certain activities is best a term to be avoided because accepting its false premise defeats any legitimate arguments from the get go.
I used to donate blood. I haven't done so since I enjoyed the Air Force extended working vacation program. I never knew that by banning my blood donation, the Red Cross violated my rights! / SARC
Regardless of the fact that I might carry a brain-eating prion in my blood, how dare they forbid me of my right of endangering innocent sick people! / SARC / SARC
Now Msr Drellberg, please take your faggotry elsewhere.
“take your faggotry elsewhere.”
Remarkable! And I’m the one that you folks seek to ban! I’m the one being uncivil, because I sometimes use the word “gay” in lieu of homosexual?
Grizzled Bear, you can not possibly have read my posts, because I am nowhere saying that homosexuals should be able to donate blood.
I’ll say it again for those of you who haven’t read or understood the previous 300 times and ways I’ve made the same basic post. It makes sense to restrict organ donations by homosexuals, if that is what is truly necessary to protect the public health. On the other hand, there is a downside to doing so, in that a significant number of the 86 million people who hold themselves out as potential organ donors are homosexual. It makes sense to make the restriction no greater than necessary to secure the safety of the donated organs. Otherwise more people will die.
I can’t imagine a more benign or common sense stance. And whether the donors are homosexual or not is irrelevant. I am not an apologist for anybody or anything. Do you not care about the potential recipients and whether they live or die?
Forget the “rights” of the donors, and whether the donors are homosexual or not. I have never based this on rights, even if I inadvertently used the word several times in one post. It has been my point from the outset that this is not what is relevant. If the point is to save as many lives as possible, then proscribe or weed out the wreckless behavior so that the stock of organ donors is made safe without restricting the number of donations any more than necessary.
What about this is beyond your capacity to understand?
Keep calling me names. It’s not me who looks foolish.
Gosh, fellas, where is Jim Robinson when you need him? Why is he not intervening to ban me? Your sensitive eyes surely need protecting.
Gather up all of the angry men and angry women you want, and gang up all you want. Call me anything. It is not my behavior that is inappropriate, and I am not intimidated.
Are you not aware that Jim Rob suffers from some chronic health issues? He can't pop in to wipe your nose at your every whim.
Incidently, you seemed to have missed my point. Due to my overseas deployments I am not eligible to donate blood. I'm certain my organs, being saturated with my blood, would also be rejected. I simply accept it. I don't demand that the medical establishment recklessly endanger helpless people to satisfy my selfish ego. The individual engaged in extremely unhealthy sexual activities. He should have either abstained from sodomy or abstained from donating the kidney.
I would say the same thing if the donor was a needle-freak.
AIDS is a 100% preventable disease.
I am not the one who called upon Jim Robinson. Others did, and in an effort to intimidate me. I do not know him, and I was unaware of any illness. I am, however, grateful beyond words for having Free Republic for many years.
And as for your point, I say amen. I am frustrated, as you can tell, that I am making what to me is the world’s most basic and common sense point only to find that I am tarred and feathered as something I am not.
If I understand your point, it is that individuals who engage in reckless behavior should be precluded from donating. Based on what you write, you would appear to have no trouble with anyone who is celibate donating a kidney, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. It is the reckless act of sodomy that endangers the organ recipient, and either the homosexual should abstain from that specific act or not donate. It is the sodomy that should be the focus of attention. It is the sodomy that is relevant.
If I am right in my interpretation of your post, then I think we are making the very same point, you and I. And so I say again, amen. It is the ACTIONS that we should single out and not the homosexuality per se.
It may even become necessary to preclude all homosexuals from donating organs, because we can not reasonably monitor acts of sodomy. But if we rule out all homosexual organ donations (and here I am going beyond your point) we should emphasize that what we are trying to foreclose is the reckless sodomy rather than the homosexuality per se. We are tagging the latter only because we can not otherwise block the former.
Of course you can disagree with me about the last part, though why would you? Regardless, does my position, clearly stated and reasonably put forward warrant the truly vicious remarks and repugnant names that you and others are sending my way?
I'd say "monogymous," not "celibate."
It may even become necessary to preclude all homosexuals from donating organs, because we can not reasonably monitor acts of sodomy. But if we rule out all homosexual organ donations (and here I am going beyond your point) we should emphasize that what we are trying to foreclose is the reckless sodomy rather than the homosexuality per se. We are tagging the latter only because we can not otherwise block the former.
I'd block the BDSM community as well. BDSM is a symptom of mental illness, just like homosexuality. They indulge in unhealthy acts and are prone to diseases.
If you read the guidelines, those who have sex with a prostitiute and men who have sex with other men (since IIRC 1977) are asked not to donate. For some odd reason, these groups are prone to AIDS. Also, as another poster stated, men who have sex with men are prone to a wide range of diseases including "Gay Bowel Syndrome."
DBeers, I am pleased that you are not seeking my banning. As with Grizzly Bear, I am at a loss to understand why you find my arguments offensive or wrongheaded, based upon what I have written, except perhaps that I have used the word “gay” when you would have preferred that I stick to “homosexual.” I was unaware of the connotations you ascribe to the word “gay,” and for the sake of moving beyond that concern of yours (and presumably others), I have not used it again.
I have argued in favor of discrimination against homosexuals, insofar as it is truly necessary to secure a safe supply of donated organs. I am puzzled as to how you could have gotten any other impression.
This is a life and death issue for millions of people. There are not enough donated organs to meet demand. People are dying. Kidney transplantation, for example, has a far lower cost than dialysis and much better outcomes. Shouldn’t we be doing all that we can to maximize the number of safe organs being donated? That is all I am advocating for. This should be the sole objective, and homosexuality per se should play a role only insofar as it is absolutely necessary, and no more, as described above.
So I will ask you, as well, why the vitriol against me?
I’d say “monogymous,” not “celibate.”
Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. I’m not even sure this is the right answer, but it is thoughtful and I think quite compassionate. I am in your debt for turning this discourse around. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.