Skip to comments.Harvard Homosexual Leader Urges Others To Lie When Donating Blood
Posted on 10/2/2001, 9:33:57 AM 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?
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.
Wow! What a case study!
All caught lying to the blood bank as revealed by tests should be prosecuted for attempted murder.
Harvard. Such an environment includes a safe social space for closeted students, an atmosphere of acceptance throughout the College for those who decide to come out, a set of social opportunities for students to meet other students and educational events designed to inform both the community at large and BOND members about issues facing those who are not "straight" or those who are transgender.
BOND is intended to be a safe place in which sexual orientation is no longer a barrier to social interaction. The degree to which persons choose to emphasize sexual orientation--whether for intimate pursuits or for purposes of political action--also varies from person to person.
BOND as an entity does not claim to speak for its members in national political matters, nor does it do so for segments of the larger community. These vital functions we leave to other organizations.
It is our goal to create a more considerate environment at Harvard. To have achieved a "considerate environment" is to have accomplished the following:
·Awareness in the general community that there is diversity in opinion and behavior among those who are not exclusively heterosexual and/or transgender.
·Satisfaction among members that there is diversity in opinion and behavior among other students who are not exclusively heterosexual and/or transgender.
·An understanding that the "acceptability" of one's interpersonal attractions is not something that can or ought to be debated.
·A place in which the act of pursuing intimacy requires neither hiding nor proclamation.
Given that all
blood is screened for contaminants anyway (HIV, Hepatitis, etc.), are
you just afraid that someone may catch "gayness" from the blood?
It was reported on FOX that one-third of the blood donated for the
victims of the attacks was contaminated with STDs including AIDS. Anyone
need a blood transfusion?
Organizations may specify any Contractual Requirements for association
that they wish. Those who deliberately and knowingly attempt to
perpetrate Fraud upon such private organizations, are at the very least guilty of an act of Criminal Mischief of ethical similarity to Tresspass or Vandalism -- and should be prosecuted accordingly.
Mea culpa... Too much cafffffffeine, perhaps?
You can call me anything you please INCLUDING homophobe! I'm proud to fight against a derainged bunch of fools who think putting objects where they don't belong is a good thing. If that is what they would like to do with their lives so be it. Just don't try to shove it in my face or pass it on to people who have NO idea they are infected. They also SHOULDN'T expect ME to pay for their medical bills because of their ignorance.
If they want to keep their PRIVATE life PRIVATE I suggest they START by shutting the hell up!!!
BTW, is it fine with you that one of these damn fools seems to think
it's okay to INFECT another person with his blood and especially giving
it to people who have already experienced a tragedy beyond belief?
Big mistake, pal. You CANNOT equate homosexuality with race or religion.
IT IS SOLEY A SEXUAL PERVERSION.
It is a lifestyle characterized by the practice of sex with unnatural partners. That is ALL it is.
It's about sex. And dangerous sex, at that.
One of the problems is that false negatives are common within the first six weeks of contracting HIV. In any case, the incidences are high enough that the resources to collect and store the blood make collections from the group non cost-effective.
Numerous diseases that are nearly
unheard of among heterosexuals are common enough among homosexuals that
researchers like Dr. LeVey, famous for claiming to have found a physical
difference in the brain structure of homosexuals, feel comfortable
using the diseases as markers of homosexual practice.
How can they keep their private life private if they're asked about it
on a form when they want to help other people?! Doesn't that seem like a
contradiction to you?
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.