Despite attempts by the “mainstream” media and government officials to whitewash it, it is no secret that homosexual behavior, in addition to being immoral, is a very dangerous and unhealthy sexual practice. These health risks include mental health issues such as depression and substance abuse, but also increased risk of AIDS and other STDs, anal cancer, hepatitis, and suicide.
One of the many considerations against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military involves the necessity sometimes for battlefield transfusions to save an injured soldier’s life. All the evidence from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and multiple health sources around the world show homosexuals have a vastly elevated risk of AIDS. Do we really want to subject our soldiers not only to the risks of being injured by the enemy, but given a deadly disease by a fellow soldier because of that soldier’s sexual behavior?
For many years, homosexuals have been prohibited from donating blood because of the increased risk of AIDS transmission brought on by their sexual behavior. Due to pressure from homosexual advocacy groups, the government recently took a fresh look at the prohibition, and has now released their findings.
Keep in mind this is a federal panel operating under the ultra-liberal, pro-homosexual Obama Administration; these findings cannot be blamed on Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
From the Washington Times:
Following two days of testimony, a federal panel Friday voted against recommending changes to ease the current blood donation restrictions for gay men, saying more research was needed to help “create a road map forward” for future change.
By a 9-6 vote, members of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability agreed to continue the current donor policy which rejects blood donations from any man who has had sex with another man — a category know as “MSM” — even once in the past 33 years.
The article makes it clear that the issue is not even about judgements of a particular person, but rather about public safety.
But donor-deferral policies “are not judgments about the individual donor,” said Mark Skinner, spokesman for the American Plasma Users Coalition, which represents 10 organizations for people who use life-saving blood products.
The policies are intended to reduce the risk of known and unknown infections that could be passed to blood recipients, said Mr. Skinner. The issue of emerging pathogens is real, he added. “We don’t know what the next HIV will be.”
No doubt many homosexuals do take it personally. However, there are consequences for our behavior, and since human beings are not robots or animals, we make choices and have to live with those consequences.
Sometimes our choices aren’t even immoral, yet carry consequences. I lived in England for three years in the late 1980s, and because of that, I cannot donate blood, either. Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (vCJD), commonly known as “Mad Cow Disease,” was rampant during that time in England, and for the safety of someone who might receive my blood which could be contaminated, I am barred from donating blood. I don’t take it personally; it’s a reasonable precaution to protect public safety.
Unfortunately, when someone makes the choice to engage in homosexual behavior, they place themselves at great risk as well as anyone with whom they have sex. In addition to the spiritual peril from such immoral acts, homosexuals face greatly elevated risks of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, substance abuse, depression, and suicide. The danger to themselves is great enough; that risk should not be passed along to innocent recipients of a blood transfusion.
If homosexuals insist on destroying their souls and their bodies with this risky behavior, no one is trying to stop them. But they should not be allowed to place other innocent people at risk of contracting a deadly disease. The ban should remain in place.