April 23, 2008

Homosexuality Puts Public At Risk--AGAIN

How pernicious and selfish is the impact of the homosexuality juggernaut on the public welfare? As a former blood bank technologist I write with a special passion and outrage. That the perverse conduct of an overwhelming minority should be protected at the risk of the majority of the public defies rational understanding. Never-the-less, as far back as 30 years ago, all sensible and safe medical practices concerning communicable diseases was stood on its ear lest homosexuals be offended. Suddenly, HIV was placed in a hallowed category with special protections of privacy that endangered those of us who had to collect specimens from infected individuals without our knowing they were infected. Things have only worsened in the ensuing 30 years.

At San Jose State University, the president of that institution just suspended all blood drives at the university because the FDA has a lifetime blood exclusion policy prohibiting homosexual men from giving blood. This prohibition is medically sound and similar prohibitions exist for other high risk categories of people.

Never let reason or the common good interfere with lifestyles of the godless and perverted. The president of San Jose State said it violated the school's non-discrimination policy citing the school's code which says, "…discrimination of any kind, including … sexual orientation is an affront to the entire university community and is strictly prohibited."

The policy as stated is ludicrous. I am willing to wager that if a man walks on campus at San Jose State carrying a rifle, that certain assumptions will be made--for the good of the campus--and he will be discriminated against very quickly. People who claim discrimination is always wrong are not thinking clearly.

If my pilot appears intoxicated, I hope someone will discriminate against him and not allow him into the cockpit. Surgeons who have tested positive for beta hemolytic Strep. or Staph. Aureus have been barred from performing surgery; the risk to the patient is just too great. That is not discrimination; that is common sense, but when it comes to homosexuality, common sense, logic, and safety are banned from consideration.

Through 2005 there have been 20,500 deaths due to transfusion transmission of HIV; 20,500 men, women and children sent to an early grave because of the life depriving pleasures of homosexual men. No wonder there is a curse on our land and it only continues to worsen. Without Jesus--we must expect an escalation of such consequences and since the rain falls on the just and unjust alike, the innocent will continue to pay the price of guilty.


Blogger notcon4med said...

Hmmm...one wonders if this man would discriminate if he or one of his family needed blood and could choose between that from an hiv donor and a non-hiv donor.
Ridiculous doesn't go far enough. Delusional perhaps...

7:29 PM  
Blogger Skippy said...

Why should one need to choose between clean blood or infected blood? I don't believe one should ever have to make that choice and I also believe that health professionals need to take that risk and worry out of the equation. Why should I live a God fearing life not participating in such wrong and risky behaviour only to find out that to save my life I had to get blood (and a rare blood type at that) from a person that entertains themself with a wrong lifestyle and now I'm at risk. Not only am I at risk but so is my wife and children. How fair is that to them?

God's word is very clear on what is acceptable behaviour and what's unacceptable. Quite frankly let's call it what it is, sinful and wrong. So yes there should be discrimination against homosexuals donating blood, even if they are HIV negative. That type of lifestyle leads to HIV and AIDS.

Is it fair that a veteran that survived while protecting our country, these very same freedoms that people say we have a "right" to should get a blood transfusion and end up with tainted blood and end up dying because of it? Nah, I don't think so.

I would much rather be confident that should I or any of my family need blood that they get some that's not going to kill them in the end anyway.

Ridiculous and delusional is actually having that choice to make and then trusting that the line of health professionals dealing with the two "types" of blood will get it right.

1:38 AM  
Blogger notcon4med said...

Just to be clear: I was only setting up a hypothetical situation, meant as hyperbole, to make a point: that the same man who went to such lengths to protest the "discrimination" against hiv infected donors, would, without a doubt, discriminate against them if that same blood were offered to him or his family in time of need.

About the rest of what you said: Why don't we just take the issue of sin out of this story. It really has no place here. The point is, to protect the health of the public, there must be discrimination. To fail to "discriminate" against an hiv infected donor is just plain ridiculous and blatantly and recklessly irresponsible in terms of public health.

It is a public health issue, not a sin issue.

Your right to safe blood has nothing to do with your lifestyle. You don't earn the right to safely receive blood by not engaging in sinful behavior.

You are confusing categories and missing the point of the original post.

The acceptability of blood is/should be measured by the presence or potential likelihood of the presence of infectious agents. I'm not in the medical field, but I think I can say that much with certainty, and I think that was the point of the original post.

Your comment has muddied the waters and confused the categories.

If the acceptability of blood is measured by the presence or absence of sin in the donor's life - that being sins of thoughts, words, and deeds, because all sin is detestable before a holy God - then neither my blood nor yours, nor anyone's would be acceptable.

However, there actually is One who's blood would make the cut...

Sounds like a good segue point to the blood of Christ as the only acceptable payment for sin.

For those purchased by that blood, it's essential to never forget who we were, and continue to be, apart trusting and living in the righteousness of Christ:

Look at what the apostle Paul says:
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Romans 3:21-28

What a wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! Romans 7:24-25

Jesus not only saves, He also sustains.

Now, to return to the original issue:
No one "deserves" to receive tainted blood, but you do not "deserve" safe blood because of your "good" behavior.

However, everyone deserves condemnation and to suffer the just and righteous wrath of a holy God for our sin. There is no sliding scale of better or worse sins. But if we are in Christ, God has covered us with His righteousness.

So again, to claim that one deserves to be protected from tainted blood because of one's avoidance of certain sins is to totally confuse the matter and miss the point, I think, that the original post was trying to make.

9:59 AM  
Blogger Skippy said...

I apologize, I obviously did miss the point that was being made originally and the follow up you gave was right on.

8:23 PM  
Blogger notcon4med said...

Well, if it makes any difference, we all miss it at times. Case in point: I misread the original post. I thought the prohibition was against hiv positive donors, when in fact, it was admittedly homosexual men. That does make some difference. However, I still stand by my comments. I wonder if this man would choose blood from such a donor either way. I also still maintain that this is a question of safety, apart from personal morality.

I am also very encouraged by your (Skippy) willingness to be corrected by God's Word. That's all I brought to you, not my own opinions, and your submission to that Word gave me great encouragement! Thank you!

10:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home