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.
Very well said. Thank you.
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.