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?