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."