Posted on 12/06/2004 9:56:49 AM PST by raybbr
MILFORD — Devlin Mannle, 18, simply wanted to donate blood as part of Jonathan Law High School’s holiday blood drive last week.
The American Red Cross worker began asking Mannle a series of questions.
Had he been exposed to hepatitis? Malaria? Had he recently visited certain countries in Africa? Is he an intravenous drug user?
Mannle’s answer to each query was "No."
Then the worker asked another question.
"Have you had sex with a man?"
"Yes," Mannle answered.
(Excerpt) Read more at nhregister.com ...
I don't recall, but I think it's obvious that they mean the heterosexual population some kind of harm. How else can you interpet it? The reality is that sexually active homosexuals are riddled with diseases of all kinds, and they know themselves to be at extremely high risk for those diseases and HIV.
Would it be good journalistic practice to catch these kinds of misleading statements? After all, after Zell Miller's electrifying convention speech, all the AP and other organizations would focus on is the "fact" that Dick Cheney had supported cutting a few weapons programs in the past. They weren't quoting someone else, they added that little "fact check" themselves. Surely someone could have done the same with "Ms." Lang.
According to The Connecticut Department of Health, there were 13844 reported cases of AIDS through June 2004. 22% of them were men who sleep with men. Yet these make up no more than 2.8% of the population (to be generous). 24% were heterosexual women. Yet these make up 51.6% of the population of Connecticut.
I don't want a tranfusion from a gay guy. I think the risks of getting AIDS from that are much higher and more serious than getting malaria from a tourist.
That's why they got taken to "Stepford".
That is just sick.
I was rejected from giving blood several years ago because I was not sure I wasn't pregnant. It turned out I wasn't & I returned to donate with no problems.
I don't give a rat's a$$ about a homosexual man's 'feelings'! I want the blood supply to be disease free! That is one of the major reasons for the Red Cross.
Can you imagine what one of these men would do if they had to receive blood because of an accident, and received AIDS tainted blood? Do you think he'd be 'understanding' because the Red Cross had been sensitive to honosexuals? HELL NO! He'd sue their a$$es off!
I get rejected all of the time because of my weight (I'm too small). I gather that is more for my own protection, I suppose.
Can you imagine what one of these men would do if they had to receive blood because of an accident, and received AIDS tainted blood? Do you think he'd be 'understanding' because the Red Cross had been sensitive to honosexuals? HELL NO! He'd sue their a$$es off!
_________________________________________________________
And probably try to claim that they did it deliberately because he was gay.
Sure...brag about how skinny you are....go eat a cookie.
***grin***
Don't worry...I'm preggers right now, and I'm sure to look like a good-sized zepplin shortly, lol! I always end up eating more than my fair share of cookies when I'm pg...so what kind ya got? LOL
:)
Sorry, no cookies...but I do have a few homemade truffles.
Hmmmmm....yummy!!! I'm gonna have to steal my MIL's million dollar fudge recipe-and I don't even like chocolate!
Maybe some peanut brittle...some hot cocoa? Ack, I am losing it! Look what you started! LOL I have to get these cravings under control.
I'll quit hijacking this thread now, lol.
Or wasn't that Stamford Wives? :^D
Could be, eh?!
(snip)
Mannle said Friday he wasn’t angry when he was told he could not donate blood. "I was in shock," he said. After thinking about how he was treated, he became incensed. "They never asked if I had unprotected sex," he said.
(snip)
Leif Mitchell of Yale University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research said Mannle’s complaint really has nothing to do with the Red Cross because the FDA requires it to ask the questions. Instead of inquiring about gay sex, screeners should ask donors if they’ve had unprotected sex, Mitchell said.
That would be as stupid as saying a junkie could give blood as long as he said he used clean needles! And since this deal was so important to Mannle (how do you pronounce that?) that he outed himself, what's to say he wouldn't have just lied about having unprotected sex? After all, nowhere in this article does Mannle say whether or not he has had unprotected sex!
Shawn Lang, a member of the Connecticut AIDS Residence Coalition and co-chairman of the state’s AIDS policy group, [said] more heterosexual women in Connecticut have AIDS than do gay men, he said.
I don't believe this for a second. There's some statistical gymnastics involved in that quote, or else it would have front page news long ago! When AIDS first became known as "a gay disease," the queer radicals promoted the idea that eventually, AIDS would ravage the heterosexual majority. We're still waiting.
What a self-centered jackass.
My sentiments exactly. The Gay-stapo wants you to believe that letting the practitioners of a dangerous, unnatural sex act give blood for the sole purpose of letting them feel good about themselves is more important than protecting the blood supply from the uncurable disease that's been killing them for two decades. How shameful!
And who the Hell gave Mannle the right to decide whether or not his practices meet the standard of "safe" or "protected" sex. [David Broudnoy, Boston radio talk show host and HIV sufferer, avers that he has never had "unsafe sex". Jeez, thanks for the blood donation, Dave.] The safest sex is that within a monogamous, exclusive relationship, an extremely rare arrangement for two gay men.
*Whining* SHUT UUUUP! ;o)
Yep, it's all about them.
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.