It sure is...most of us describe it as a "mental illness". Oh, wait...the AMA changed their mind about that back in the mid 70's. Never mind.
Posted on 10/02/2001 8:33:57 AM PDT by Starmaker
At a time when most Americans are rallying behind the President in our nation's battle against terrorism and are flooding Red Cross offices with money and offers to donate blood, a homosexual activist at Harvard has told his followers to lie to the Red Cross when they volunteer to give blood.
Clifford Davidson, head of a homosexual group called BOND, recently sent an email to his activist friends. According to a report in "The Harvard Crimson," Davidson told his friends: "On the Red Cross's form, you will be asked: 'Are you a man who has had sexual contact with another man since 1973?' This applies to many of you. You should lie."
Davidson has since clarified his recommendation to lie, saying he only meant that homosexuals should lie on the form if they'd been tested for their STD and HIV status. Fellow homosexual Fred Smith lauded Davidson's recommendation, noting, "The [Red Cross] rule is based on homophobic stereotypes. In this case I don't think it is unreasonable to ignore it."
Another homosexual friend responded with these none-too-comforting words: "I've lied about my sexuality in the past to donate when appropriate, and will do so in the future. But I'm also a very responsible, HIV [negative], STD free, monogamous fag."
The attitude displayed by Davidson is amazingly narcissistic and shows that he is unconcerned that his advice might result in the inadvertent spread of HIV into the blood supply in Massachusetts. A person who receives HIV-blood is destined to die from it. The Red Cross, of course, conducts a series of tests on all blood donated to make certain the supply is safe. Blood found to contain HIV or other germs are discarded. Yet, no test is 100% certain, and no homosexual can be absolutely sure he's free from HIV infection. There is also the issue of latent infection, where the HIV virus remains virtually undetected for years in a person's system. It can avoid detection from standard tests.
Homosexuals have been complaining for years that it is "discriminatory" to forbid homosexuals from donating blood. San Francisco Supervisor Mark Leno, for example, complained last year over the Food and Drug Administration's decision to continue the ban on homosexuals possibly infecting the blood supply.
Homosexuals are not only risking infecting our nation's blood supply with HIV, but many of them carry a mini-epidemic of other sexually transmitted diseases including: syphilis, gonorrhea, shigellosis, hepatitis A and C, human papilloma virus, and other communicable diseases.
With more Muslim terrorist attacks a real possibility in the U.S., it seems rather unpatriotic for Clifford Davidson to be asking fellow homosexuals to lie when they donate blood to the Red Cross. Why burden the Red Cross with blood that is possibly contaminated and will have to be discarded anyway? Why is Davidson willing to risk the lives of victims of terrorism who may be infected with HIV-tainted blood that escapes Red Cross testing?
Davidson and his homosexual activist allies should be willing to set aside their narrow and selfish political agendas to consider the better good for our nation. But will they? Or will political considerations continue to outweigh concern for human life and the security of our nation?
It sure is...most of us describe it as a "mental illness". Oh, wait...the AMA changed their mind about that back in the mid 70's. Never mind.
Hospitals will allow you to donate your own blood in preparation for surgery. However, there is NO GUARANTEE that you will receive your OWN blood if needed during surgical procedure. Don't worry, though...ALL blood is tested. Are you comfortable with that? Real cozy? As cozy as the passengers at Logan who thought airport security was "state of the art"?
If the Red Cross wanted to develop better information, I guess they could ask if somebody has had unprotected homosexual sex within since 1973 and then follow up with HIV testing questions and ask if they have done so within the last six months. However, from their point of view, it is more practical to just exclude the entire population, and take blood from a lower risk group. The increase in the number of available donors that would result from a more thorough screening is so small that the added complexity and possibility for tragic error is not justified.
It's a practical issue, not a civil rights one. Nobody is denied a civil right because they are unable to give blood. In fact, one can donate and have a completely confidential way to opt out from having their blood transfused, if one is under societal pressure to donate.
PS. I used the confidential opt-out on a blood donation once, for an unrelated reason. I had been taking malaria preventative medication in the previous six months, but we had a big blood drive at work and everybody was expected to pony up. I did so, but used the confidential opt-out sticker to make sure there would not be a problem with my blood. There were no problems whatsoever.
Perhaps. IIRC, there is a latency period where HIV infected blood shows up negative on the tests.
Yeah, try telling that to the families of kids who have contracted AIDS and died because of blood transfusions; and there are many more than Ryan White! There are adults dealing with the results of transfusions back in the 80's before it was widely known that AIDS was transmitted by blood products. Most of those who received the tainted blood have died, but some are still fighting the disease.
This is disgusting that this man would even THINK about endangering his fellow human beings to make a political point! And the worst part is; young homosexual men are not even trying to have 'safe sex' anymore! They are looking for the thrill, going to the bath houses, having anonymous sex in clubs. You'd think the whole AIDS thing never happened!
What are you talking about?
First of all, Robertson and Fallwell are castigated because they actually speak up for the Bible, and they do not budge, nor do they try to inject relativism into the doctrine of Jesus Christ, as do some of these "mainstream" denominations.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell are very good men. They've done more good for the message of Jesus Christ than nearly everyone, combined, who are pointing the fingers at them. Robertson built a Christian network, CBN, which is anchored by the 700 Club. Fallwell started a Christian University to educate and inform young adults by mentally and spiritually.
Some people need to stop comparing Fallwell and Robertson as the bad seeds of Christianity likened to Sharpton and Jackson as the bad seeds of black Americans, and this guy the bad seeds of the Homosexual community.
First of all, Jackson and Sharpton are shakedown artists and they do little, if anything, positive for the black community. They don't deal with real problems that plague the black community, rather they go after Civil War monuments and symbols, sewing corporations for not having a certain percentage of blacks, even if it is in an almost all white area.
This homosexual guy represents a disgusting abnormal lifestyle that is deadly and that is immoral.
Robertson and Fallwell stand up for the Bible, Christ's teachings, and work to reach out to all people. Yeah, as if Jerry and Pat are bad guys that you must compare them to con artists and immoral deviants.
Can pigs fly?
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.