Skip to comments.Harvard Homosexual Leader Urges Others To Lie When Donating Blood
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?
I wonder if his butt buddy is also a monogamous fag...
Of course, no heterosexual can be 100% sure either, unless he has been monogamous or celibate for a couple of decades. When did you have your last HIV test? Are you 100% certain that every partner you have been with has been HIV negative?
Big difference. HIV is next to impossible to transmit heterosexually (particularly F->M), which is why it is essentially unknown outside those who have sex with gay people or IV drug users (or are in these classes.)
The reason heterosexual guys don't carry HIV is that you essentially can't get it from a woman (and she won't have it unless she is a junkie or the regular partner of one.)
Your fear is overstated.
. . .yes it is always nasty homophobes with their stereotypes causing problems. Forget about statistics and the probabilities of tainted blood. . .Why go there?
Why must must so many 'homosexuals' act as their own worst enemy? Suggestions like this, and the kind of morbidly ill-will judgement it advises, will not improve their stereotyped image.
On the contrary. . .
Massachusetts: we sowed liberalism and gential "freedom" and reaped HIV/AIDS.