The Battle Over Blood
By Cliff Kincaid | June 9, 2010
Tragically, despite the life and death nature of this issue, news organizations are spreading deliberate lies.
With the public focused on the calamity of the Gulf oil spill, another disaster that could affect millions of lives is in the making. The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is holding meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban on gay blood.
In this battle, if the gays win, you lose.
Gay activists, who are expected to dominate the proceedings and intimidate federal policy makers, insist that the ban is discriminatory and homophobic and are demanding the “right” to donate blood. The lifting of the ban on gay blood is seen as a necessary prerequisite to lifting the ban on open gays in the military. After all, how can gays be on the battlefield, where they could be called upon to provide a blood transfusion to a fellow soldier, if they cannot legally donate blood?
What this means, if politics is played with the blood supply, is that that the five million Americans a year who receive blood transfusions, in addition to soldiers on the battlefield, could be exposed to the AIDS virus or other infections in the diseased blood of sexually active homosexuals.
Tragically, despite the life and death nature of this issue, news organizations are spreading deliberate lies.
For example, The Desert Sun of Palm Springs, California, reports that “Gay advocates in the Coachella Valley say now is the time to change the ban they consider discriminatory.” It then quoted David Brinkman, executive director of Desert AIDS Project in Palm Springs, as saying, “There is no scientific or medical evidence that supports the need for the ban anymore. All blood is tested twice and there’s 100 percent accuracy to insure no HIV gets into the blood supply.”
I informed Nicole Brambila, the author of the story, that the claim she featured in her story was absolutely false. But she refuses to correct the record.
In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with jurisdiction over the blood supply, says, “Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.”
This is one reason why gay males, or men who have sex with men (MSM), are prohibited from donating blood.
The FDA also says, “Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.”
These critical facts are being carefully omitted from media coverage of the pending change. And because the major media are influenced or intimidated by such groups as the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the gay-run Media Matters organization, reporters can find themselves targeted as “haters” and “homophobes” if they tell the truth about the gay lifestyle. As a result, many writers and commentators decide to avoid the topic.
The truth is so sensitive that when the Obama Administration tapped a Washington University professor by the name of Jonathan I. Katz to serve on a scientific panel to review the handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he was immediately attacked because of his article, “In Defense of Homophobia,” on the dangers of homosexual behavior.
As a result of the outcry from the homosexual lobby, Katz was dropped from the panel, even though the article had nothing to do with the Gulf matter. This is how they operate—protest and intimidation. As we recently saw with George Will’s capitulation to the gay lobby, very few conservatives have the intestinal fortitude to go up against them.
Despite the controversial title, the Katz article is well-researched and touches on the gay blood problem, noting that the homosexual activists have been campaigning for a lifting of the ban for several years and that their position is that “In order to satisfy their demand for full acceptance by society, the homosexual movement demands to kill some transfusion recipients by infecting them with AIDS…”
Do you or your loved ones want to die in order to advance the gay rights agenda?
In advance of the Thursday and Friday meetings on blood safety, a federal notice has reiterated that male homosexuals “have an increased incidence and prevalence of several currently recognized transfusion-transmitted diseases”—Hepatitis B virus, HIV, syphilis, and cytomegalovirus.
It also says, “There is a theoretical concern that MSM populations may also be at increased risk for other unrecognized transfusion-transmitted agents.” That means another infectious agent could be lurking in the blood that they want to have the “right” to donate to the nation’s blood supply.
The move to lift the ban is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby which contributes to the campaigns of liberal Congressional candidates. It reports “progress” in this effort, based on the fact that Senators John Kerry and Al Franken have done the organization’s bidding and pressured the federal government to hold the June 10 and 11 meetings to consider lifting the ban on gay blood. The FDA commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is a political appointee of the Obama Administration.
The pressure campaign has already forced the American Red Cross and two other blood groups to previously argue for lifting the ban. But the FDA, after reviewing the policy in 2006, reiterated the prohibition, which has been in effect since 1983 and applies to MSM since 1977, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.
Randy Shilts’ book, And the Band Played On, and the movie by the same name that was based on it, documents how gays at that time of the discovery of AIDS and the virus causing it, HIV, were even then arguing that a ban on gay blood was discriminatory. The blood industry was then resisting the testing of the blood, mainly because of the cost.
The result was an unconscionable delay in banning gay blood and the unnecessary deaths of many people.
The gays even objected to the original name for AIDS as GRID, standing for gay-related immune deficiency. Another name for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the “gay cancer,” was also jettisoned because of its obvious association with the gay lifestyle.
Upset at the delay in responding to the dangers to the blood supply, one official of the Centers for Disease Control, reported Shilts, attended a meeting on blood safety and pounded his table with his fist, shouting, “How many people have to die? How many deaths do you need?”
A representative of hemophiliacs, dependent on blood transfusions for their day-to-day survival, objected to all of the talk at the time about the rights of gays not to be discriminated against, asking, “What about our right to live?”
Once again, as we have seen in the gays in the military debate, the gays are constantly screaming about their rights, oblivious to the point of madness about the rights of others. In this case, it’s our right to be free of infected blood when our loved ones get a blood transfusion.
But unless the public quickly offers its comments and raises an outcry with the federal authorities coming under the influence and intimidation of the gay rights lobby, the “right” to donate blood could soon be extended to a politically-connected special interest group that has a demonstrated propensity to acquire life-threatening and deadly diseases.
- CONTACT: Jerry A. Holmberg, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8803, FAX (240) 453-8456, e-mail ACBSA@hhs.gov
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
27 comments
*dying* for the gay rights agenda?
Well, it’s good to see you’re not making people’s eyes roll back in their head with ridiculous, alarmist, sky-is-falling doomsday rhetoric or anything!
“How many people have to die? How many deaths do you need?”
The truth of this is that allowing gays to give, held under the same standards as heteros, will help SAVE lives … magnitudes more than those who might get a disease.
YOU are, again and again, the one that would rather see pointless suffering and death than the abandonment of your own asinine prejudices (and, what this seems to all be about in the end, your addiction to shamelessly parasidic methods of obtaining self-worth).
So now giving blood is a “human right”? (My husband can’t give blood because he had skin cancer.) I’ve heard that homosexual/bisexuals have a high rate of mental disorders in addition to their high percentage of sexually transmitted diseases and this is proof! If this had anything to do with any other ailment, people, including the sexually obsessed, everyone would be up in arms.
My nephew told me he had been seduced at the age of fourteen by a twenty-four year old guy and started going to homosexual clubs. By that time he had learned he had been diagnosed HIV. He said ten of his “friends” had already died. Even after enduring all the “experiments” the medical community could come up with at the time, he developed AIDS and as he suffered toward death at a young age, there was nothing “gay” about it.
A young boy who was infatuated with my uninterested daughter decided to go to New York and came back with an advanced case of AIDS and his distraught parents and friends had to watch him waste away and suffer horribly as he died.
We know others who met the same fate.
No! they do not have a human (or any other) right to contaminate the blood supply.
Please keep telling the truth about this!
WHY NOT HAVE THE TROOPS MARCH INTO BATTLE NUDE? WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE RECRUITMENT SLOGAN? UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU TO HAVE AN ABORTION. HOW FAR DOWN THE GOLDEN CALF LADDER MUST WE SLIDE. WITH ACLU DEMONCRAT TAKE DOWN AMERICA TACTICS SOON THE COUNTRY WILL BE SEARCHING FOR A REAL MAN. HOW ABOUT SEX CHANGE OPERATIONS LIKE THEY HAVE IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS. THE HORMONE SHOTS ARE A THOUSAND A POP. THE OPERATION IS A HUNDRED GRAND.
WHAT’S NEXT THE CONGRESSIONAL EARINGS OF HONOR? ONLY SARGEANTS CAN WEAR TIARAS. WHY DON’T WE JUST GIVE OUR WEAPONS TO BAN KI MOONS OR AMADENEJAD.
IN OTHER REDICULOUS NEWS TODAY NANCY PELOSI HAS ASKED ATTORNEY GENERAL ELECTRIC HOLDER TO INDICT GEORGE BUSH FOR THE MURDER OF HER TWO SONS. UDEI AND QUSEI.
EVERYBODY SING WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD MEN GONE. WHY NOT ASK THE MILITARY TO DECIDE? WHY SHOULD THEY BE PUNISHED BY OUTSIDERS WHO HATE THEM AND VOTE TO BURN THEIR FLAG AND KILL THEIR KIDS CALLING IT SETTLED LAW. THE ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE LETS ALL GET PERVERTED. THE ISSUE SHOULD BE A COMBAT ZONE DEATH BENEFIT OF TWO MILLION DOLLARS. THIS WAY THE LETS PUT THEM IN HARMS WAY PEOPLE CAN USE A $650,000 J DAM AND SAVE THE TAXPAYER MONEY AND MORE AMERICAN LIVES. OBAMA HAS PASSED BUSH’S 461 KIA COUNT OF 8 YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN. HE HAS ALREADY HIT 700 AND SKIPS MEMORIAL/D-DAY.
The first rule in medical care is “Do no harm.” The principle behind screening blood donors is the idea that the blood supply for transfusions should be as free from transfusion-transmittable diseases as is humanly possible, so that the doctor ordering the transfusion can be sure that this aspect of medical care will do no harm to the recipient.
For this reason, a whole host of people of various backgrounds, activities and health are prohibited from giving blood. This includes people (e.g., Sherri’s husband) who could be viewed as “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It includes people who were born in or have stayed certain lengths of time in certain foreign countries, which could be considered discriminiation based upon race or national origin.
And the screening process is over-inclusive — for a reason: “First, do no harm.” And it is imperfect: People can lie during screening. There may be a new, unknown disease process or other substance that hasn’t been isolated and may cause harm. Scientists may have been too limited in their consideration of the timing and length of time someone has lived in the UK to prevent all possible transmissions of Mad Cow Disease.
But why in the world would we want to intentionally enlarge the donor pool to include a population which has a very high incidence of transfusion-transmittable diseases?
I think there is some major confusion here -and I am pretty sure I am not the one who is confused.
We often speak about comparing apples and oranges -but in this case it is more like comparing apples and stones -there is simply no connection!
On the one hand the debate is about whether or not gays should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces. We know intuitively that gays have been serving “undercover” for many years -and serving very well indeed I might add.
The question therefore is whether or not they can come out of the closet.
I say -”Who cares?” Anyone who is willing to serve and potentially to die for his/her country is welcome to do so!
I (a heterosexual) served 36 years -presumeably beside many gays “in hiding” and was never troubled by this fact. Eventually I came to kinow the sexual preferences of some of the gays -and I couldn’t have cared less. They were professional warriors -and I was proud to serve with them. What they did “between the sheets” was no concern of mine.
NEVER was there an accusation that a gay had inflicted himself upon a straight person of either gender. They simply don’t do that. They also do not oggle others in showers. If this is your level of concern -spare me!
Giving blood on the other hand -is a totally separate question.
Blood collection agencies have a responsibility to ensure that the blood which they collect and eventually distribute is clean and pure. Free from all disease both sexually transmitted and otherwise.
They do not turn down “gay blood” because the source is gay -but because research shows that there is an elevated risk that such blood may contain the elements of HIV/AIDS! They ask potential donors if they are gay because it is a cheap and simple way to screen out a “high risk group”. It is not an insult -implying that all gays carry STDs -it is a PRECAUTION -which while excluding some perfectly good blood no doubt reduces both risk and cost.
Wake UP! They also question donors about virtually all other illnesses which might be transmitted -little goodies like malaria, hep C, and a host of others. They also ask if you take recreational drugs or are on certain (almost any) medications. If you are suffering even a cold you are not to give blood. All this is to protect recipients -not to insult or denigrate potential donors.
These blood agencies are just being responsible -not homophobic! I am sure any gay who thinks he/she is carrying any illness of any sort will “self exclude” -and one hopes that the testing process will remove any threats before collected blood is distributed anyway. “Just in case” however -all are asked whether they might present an elevated risk.
Blood donation and military service are two entirely separate questions. Any attempt to equate the two is either deceptive or confusing -depending upon the motivation involved. Either way it should stop.
I don’t particularly believe in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” -I just don’t believe there is any reason to be discussing the sexual preferences of potential warriors. If you want to serve -SERVE! If you want to talk about your sex life -do it somewhere else!
Anything else is rubbish!
Jock Williams Yogi 13
I think that if lawmakers permit active homosexuals to donate blood, then the ones who voted for it should roll up their sleeves and get transfusions from known “gay” men, just to show the rest of us homophobes how enlightened, compassionate, and progressive they are.
It begins with the misnomer and perhaps openly propogandist word “homophobic.” I know of no “straight,” or “normal” people who “fear” homosexuals. I know of many who loathe them, view them as sick, as sinners or degenerates, see them as hedonistic, as an unfortunate modern phenomena, and many who feel sorry for them and who with a truly Christian tolerance (and often compassion) try to understand them. Many view the modern scourge of homosexuality as unhealthy both physically and psychologically for the individals, and absolutely tragic for their families, who also suffer much at the hands of their homosexual members. Even many thoughtful people are completely bewildered by both the phenomenom and the public, private and political viciousness of the homosexuals. To society’s crredit, the vast majority of these people, even the loathers, go along with toleration and nondiscrimination, often driven by the very American sense of fairness, the wiser heads swayed by the practical knowledge that the problem would be and has been in the past much worse, even tragic, even more complicated when it is driven “underground.” Homosexuals would like to pervert this generous public tolerance into approval, which it is not. As an added note, the rather “sanitized” and propagandistic homosexual movie “Philidelphia” probably misled many people into the very iniquitous “other life style” label with by which the young and naive are so often indoctrinated. This calculated misconception has been reinforced by other movies and all to many sitcoms.
While we can be proud of the America’s toleraterance of differences in people, our continuing tolerance of homosexuals along with people of all the various religious, ethnic and racial groups, and while I hope sincerely that nothing in this article will be construed as encouraging intolerance, knowingly adding blood with a significant probablity of being tainted to the national blood supply would be criminal. Think of accident victims or war veterans sustaining not just lifelong disabilities, but also infected with HIV. Think, for instance, of a legless veteran with HIV!
Finally, if one has to resort to phobic terms, the proper and truly pertinent term would be “heterophobic,” applied to the more vociferous homosexuals.
[...] Government wants to end ban on homosexuals to donate blood [...]
The response comments here are nothing short of remarkable. Many of them are revealing benchmarks for the decline and fall of this nation.
Although I take great consolation from such as this, remembering what Christ said about the fig tree, those who don’t have any idea what I am talking about should take warning for what is to come for them!
Jake P,
you claim that allowing gays to donate will save lives. Where are your statistics that people are dying for lack of transfusions? Waving your arms makes you look funny but doesn’t carry your point.
Jock Williams,
assuming you are not lying about your PERSONAL experience, it speaks not at all to the sailors and other military members who have been raped and harassed by their “Brothers”. It says NOTHING about whether military members have been infected through transfusions from these closeted gays.
The reality is that the majority of gays do not make overwhelmingly healthy contributions to society. Requiring the majority to suffer death, loss, and severe discomfort simply so a tiny minority of psychologically aberrant types can feel good about themselves and promote their own sickness is simply STUPID,
The gay lifestyle is comprised of sexual deviates who engage in sex acts with adults and children, which according to the Center for Disease Control is so dangerous the politically correct Center still warns against it. That In spite of Aids education, Aids is increasing among gays reveals a psychosis that borders on the insane. That gays are ridden with several sexually transmitted diseases some of which have not been seen since the middle ages demonstrates the profoundly disgusting and potentially lethal nature of their sickness.
That they intend to donate poisonous blood into the national blood supply shows that they do not give a fig for the rights or for that matter the life of anyone else. That a political appointee could be dropped from a commission show a breathtaking cowardice among those who, as leaders, are raping this country. They all really have to do.
I cannot believe all this disinformation still gets accepted. I am a US Marine. Keep gay blood out of the system. Being gay is a choice. Just like eating meat is a choice. People are gay because of what they put in their mouths, and other sick places. They are not born that way. Any more than pedophiles or people who have sex with animals and dead people are born that way. There are thousands of gays who have turned straight.
Gays have no business serving in the military. All Clinton did with don’t ask don’t tell, was sweep under the rug the fact that no gay actually served honorably up to that time – because they lied about being gay in the first place, which is dishonorable. Period. We used to ask, and if you admitted you were gay you were not enlisted.
I do not want the guy in my fighting hole attracted sexually to me. It is creepy and immoral. Women are not in combat units because men try to protect them, especially those who want to be or are with them sexually. Same with gays. I do not want to shower with men who are turned on by men.
Knowing I am straight does not stop them, that is a lie. Gays hit on straight people all the time. I have had lengthy discussions on the subject, even with some gays who hit on me. They say things like “how do you know if you have not tried it? Maybe you are bisexual? If the lights were off and you were tied up and receiving oral sex, it would turn you on and you would not know if it was a man or woman. You touch your own genitals, it is just another man’s hand like your own. And on and on…
A lot of men are drawn into the gay lifestyle by the twisted logic of gays who are attracted to a man’s looks and physique. Just like many straight men are attracted to lesbians, and would be happy to bed them if they could talk them into it. Look at all the lesbians featured in straight male pornography. I believe people are open to sexual temptation of many types, heavily influenced by those around them. Being gay is deviant, and immoral and I wish they would get back in the closet.
Well is it any surprise in this country that homosexuals are demanding that a ban be lifted that makes them feel bad at the expense of someone else’s life?
Do we not sacrifice the lives of unborn children at a rate of 3,600 a day so that other people can have as much sex as they wish?
This is merely one issue that is part of our entire warped culture. Those who know that they are abusing God’s gifts, the gifts of pleasure of plenty mainly, are not ashamed of this fact nor are they content with merely abusing them. They want the indulgence of hedonism *and* the exaltation of sainthood.
Until this society understands what goodness is again and refuses to be dictated to by selfish deviants, we can look forward to more of this madness.
I think the point that we are all missing is that HIV is no longer a “gay” disease or virus. The highest-growing population is not in the homosexual population but in the heterosexual, specifically in women.
The myth that gay men ALL engage in dangerous sexual behavior should be done away with, and expanded to include all people who engage in any dangerous social behavior, including heavy habitual drinking, illegal drugs (especially intravenous), and unprotected sex. These health risks are not some kind of plague on the gay population only, but affect all sexual and social strata of mankind the world over. Indicting the gay population only ignores the greater problem with HIV and AIDS education by perpetuating the myth that only gay men are at risk.
With a constant shortage of clean blood, excluding gay men from the donation process seems to be just even more reckless than allowing gay men who have been screened appropriately and tested. Everyone who practices safe sex and a healthy lifestyle should be allowed the opportunity to save a life through blood donations.
Also, StraightMarine: You ARE gay. It is clear from your comment’s tone that you want nothing more than to tear off your “brothers’” fatigues and have at them.
You’ll be OK with it someday.
That’s okay, Sarah. Marines risk their lives fighting so useful idiots like yourself can spew false information and support deviant behavior in this great country of ours. Try some actual FACTS from the Center of Disease Control, exposing your lie:
“HIV Incidence Estimate
Incidence is the number of new HIV infections that occur during a given year. In 2008, CDC estimated that approximately 56,300 people were newly infected with HIV in 20061 (the most recent year that data are available). Over half (53%) of these new infections occurred in gay and bisexual men. Black/African American men and women were also strongly affected and were estimated to have an incidence rate than was 7 times as high as the incidence rate among whites. Visit the HIV incidence page for more details.”
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#incidence
Your insults that I might be gay is a typical Ad Hominem attack. Liberals always attack the messenger when they cannot win the debate. Homosexual behavior is an abomination to God, and I concur. Keep your sexual deviance in the bedroom and stop forcing it on society. Choosing the gay lifestyle is reckless and dangerous, and based on hedonistic lust, not love.
I am about two weeks shy of 85 and have had several transfusions in the last few years. I do not want to wonder if the blood I am receiving is safe so I support the restrictions.
As for the right to give blood, that is not a right, that is a privilege and no one should believe it is a right. The reason the homosexual wants to make it a right is not because he has compassion.
Ever look in a mirror? And what did you see? The homosexual looks into the mirror of straight lifestyle and loathes what he sees himself to be so he wants to destroy the mirror. Might do that but it will not change the image he was seeing in that mirror. We have far more tolerance for the homosexual than the homosexual has for the straight.
I find it ironic that homosexuals so often slander others as gay, that their nastiest insult seems inevitably to be that to insinuate that someone else is also gay, is perverse like themselves, is the worst they can say about an individual!
No matter what one’s view of homosexuality, there’s certainly nothing admirable or commendable in advocating anything that significantly increases the probablilty of tainting our blood supply. It’s a given that politics has always and will continue to spawns many kinds of scoundrels, but to be told that there are present-day politicians so low that they are ready to sell out a basic and much-needed protection of the public for a few campaign contributions and/or to keep from being blackmailed by the homosexual lobby seems beyond the pale. I don’t care how liberal one is, how can someone endanger his own children. Should not such ultraliberals rethink PC in this case, if that’s their excuse, before advocating something so ignoble and dangerous?
CRT: It’s not an insult to try to help someone else realize their true sexual identity. I’m really quite sad for StraightMarine, and I hope he can break down those old walls of homophobia that keep him so separate from his true self. But life is much harder as a gay American, as proven by the hateful comments following this article. Gays and allies only want a little tolerance, or less heated hatred towards them. And anyway, what does your sexual orientation even matter to anyone you’re NOT having sex with? I’ve always been curious why the Right wants to stomp out the rights of an entire group of people they’ll have no sexual contact with–and if they have no sexual contact, what does any other part of a gay man or woman’s life have to do with a straight man or woman’s life? What does anyone get out of telling other people their lifestyle is wrong? Where is the progress?
I have never thought of homosexuality as a strictly partisan issue. Perhaps there is more tendency at toleration among my liberal friends and acquaintances, but again, homosexuals should never confuse tolerance with approval. Since conservatives make up a larger percentage of the church-going public, they tend to be more pronounced in their public condemnation of homosexualtiy–which is their right in a democracy (the government cannot define for any religion or church what they will be allowed to pronounce as sinful)–though again, the conservatives I know favor toleration over outright repression. Perhaps it is a matter of liberals seeing homosexuality as an unfortunate choice, an abnormal and unhealthy lifestyle both mentally and physically, whereas conservatives are more likely to pronounce homosexuality additionally as degenerate and sinful. No one I know wants to return to the old laws making homosexuality a crime.
However, one thing is for sure: If homosexuals persist in this dangerous advocacy for polluting the blood supply, they will most surely lose any moral high ground they might have previously claimed in their struggle for tolerance. There are enough unknown risks which the best testing of blood does not detect for us to knowningly add another. To suddenly burden innocent men, women and children with a sudden lifetime sentence of HIV is both unconscionable and criminal. I hope this heartless and reckless advocacy comes from only a small number of the more extreme homosexual community.
I don’t understand what the activists are actually worried about. I’m gay and I give blood frequently. Just lie and say you’re straight, and as long as you always use condoms (unless you both recently tested negative for HIV) you’ll be fine.
Why can’t gay people understand that their life style is unnatural?I feel sorry for them but not so sorry that i would take there blood ,wheter you practice safe sex with a condoms or not ,they the condoms can break ,it is not a 100% safe .I have a 38 year old son that was concieved with a condom in use oops.
I am sorry but it is what it is abnormal ,don’t try to make me believe that is is normal a man with a man etc is not normalality .
It is wrong to exclude an entire class of people from giving blood because some have determined in their stereotypical view that gay males are more likely to have AIDS than others. Some gays are monogamous, some are not. Some heterosexuals are monogamous, some are not. Heteros who sleep around are just as likely to have AIDS than gay males who sleep around. I have some gay male friends who are very responsible and live moral lives.
I also know of some hetero people who are very irresponsible and live dangerously destructive lives. No one refers to what they do as the “hetero lifestyle” or tries to categorize them as people who shouldn’t give blood, or can’t be in the military, or any number of other things. It seems like responsibility is never questioned, but it should be.
But if you’re gay, you’re in ‘that’ lifestyle, regardless of anything else. Nobody listens, they only make decisions based on their fears and completely ludicrous assumptions.
“…wheter [sic] you practice safe sex with a [sic] condoms or not ,they [sic] the condoms can break ,it is not a [sic] 100% safe .”
Which is why there is an emphasis on prevention in the gay community. Most gay advocacy groups recommend regular STD testing.
June 9 at 3:00 pm | #1 | Link
So, Cliff, I see you haven’t written about the proposed anti-gay law in Uganda for a while. Should we take that as tacit admission your claim that the law wouldn’t punish people with the death penalty for simply being gay is utterly false? Since you have no apparent interest in publicly correcting the record despite being proven repeatedly wrong, us readers will have to read between the lines and treat your current gay-bashing tirade as a diversion.