Posted on 12/02/2013 7:39:21 AM PST by Gritty
This is the same cultural sub-group that has been know to intentionally infect themselves witht he HIV virus as a “bragging right”....
This won’t end well...
Unnngh!
Especially with the new version that develops into aids at 5 years.
It was the Sodomites, themselves, that threatened the Los Angeles Basin Red Cross with tainting the blood supply by queer hiv/AIDS-postivie donors giving false information as to their status at the time of giving blood, in 1984, to begin with!
Stigmatized???? How about calling those, ahem, pieces of flesh what they are, terrorists, in the truest sense of the word.
Right, except the facts don’t bear them out.
If HIV was truly easily transmissible via normal heterosexual contact, there would be a world-wide epidemic of heterosexuals with HIV, and there simply isn’t.
The primary form of transmission is abnormal sex between men.
I’m one of those whose blood they don’t want, from having lived in the UK in the ‘80s.
I don’t consider it some sort of civil right to try to force my blood donation on recipients, however.
Take their blood, mark the bag with a “G” and reserve it for gay people who need blood. Let’s see how safe gay people think gay blood really is.
No problem, just make sure the donated Blood is only given to other Gays and Democrats.
Sounds like a fair compromise to me.
I donate with the understanding that I might need a donation.
How can you stigmatize something that is already lower than whale feces?
It’s a matter of their being no indication in laws, rules, or regulations
that indicate that there is something wrong with homosexuality.
The same underlying reasoning is involved with the left’s resistance to partial birth infanticide. They want NO indication anywhere that abortion is in any way “wrong”.
Because it is things like this that leave them “feeling” marginalized and unaccepted...so it must be done away with regardless of the risks to others.
I wonder how much discussion there’ll be on the CDC stats related to disease in the gay community...because it’s ugly. If the answer is that “we can now treat these illnesses better”, well, I really don’t care...tell that to the people that contract something, along with their spouses.
Disgusting recklessness.
What satan’s doing here is he wants us to hoard our own blood and not share it with others, to increase selfishness.
And too, now destitute drug addicts and homeless young gay men and teens will have another small income source to continue their life of struggle. Don’t help them out of it, give them a way to stay in it.
Does this mean we can stop giving out clean needles?
By the way - the army is probably pushing this - they need those gay men and women donating blood on the battlefield and if a large chunk of available arms are not permitted, that is going to make things discriminatory and possibly life-threatening - certainly esteem-threatening and we can’t tolerate esteem issues in our armed forces, as has been plainly obvious.
Put women in combat to stop those bullets from hitting men - so then women wont have esteem problems, and the men can now have them.
Don't forget to add EVIL to that descriptor.
Why can’t these giving souls be happy with a blood bank for queers by queers, and have access to blood donated from the straight market too? Why must their donations be mixed with the general population?
Rhetorical questions really.
“They have successfully lobbied, cajoled and tortured the medical community to declare that homosexuality is not perversion, is not a disease, and is not a mental disorder.”
... and those who disagree do have a mental disorder.
Justice lawyers will stop this as the gubmint will be responsible for anyone contracting aids via a transfusion.
I donate every eight weeks
Some people get high cholesterol. I give mine away.
The only thing that should have any weight here is the safety of the blood supply. As long as homosexual men have high rates of HIV, the current policy should hold. It’s not discrimination. It’s just math.
If they really just gotta go give blood, for whatever reason, they should donate and then make sure there blood is not used for other patients. Every donation site I have ever been to either has a mechanism to apply a code to your blood to indicate that it should not be used at the time of donation, of they give you a call in number with a donor code, so you can have the blood pulled after the fact, if you start to feel sick. Both of these are completely anonymous, so nobody at the donation site will know.
Given that these mechanisms exist, what is the issue here?
When that rule came down, the Red Cross donation station in Dallas lost about 20% of their supply, or so one of the nurses told me.
I was one of the active contributors, donating every two months, usually plasma.
So far, I haven't noticed any "mad cow" affliction, just a senior moment every now and then...lol.
If folks like me can't donate, it makes absolutely no sense to allow gay/bisexual men to donate.
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.