Way to go Commiefornia

Unfortunately, this is 100% fact. These laws can send you to jail for 20-life without even touching someone, just for proposing (soliciting) to touch someone.

 

Try responding to what I commented on.

 

If the laws required passing the infection to be found guilty, I would concede you have a valid argument. These laws are bad. They do not require any actual chance of transmission to be convicted.

There is a guy who was convicted and sent to jail for 15 years because while being arrested he spit on the cop.
First - spit/saliva CANNOT transmit HIV.
Second, there was no broken skin to allow entry of the virus, even if the saliva could support HIV transmission (which it can't).
Third, the spit incident wasn't intentional, but was a result of the shouting match.

Didn't matter. He was still convicted.

 

There are only two ways to get HIV. Blood to blood contact, such as sharing needles and transfusions, or seminal/blood contact, as happens during sex.

Anything else is 100% impossible to transmit HIV. It also dies within seconds to minutes outside the body, so it can't be transmitted by toilet seats, etc.

 

Somewhere between just letting people run around and infect whomever they please willy-nilly... and forcing everyone who tests positive to get a giant + sign tattooed to their forehead, exists reasonable legislation.

 

Do you understand how anthrax is spread?

 

Look... I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

If you truly believe that one man's right to get his rocks off trumps his sexual partner's right to know that those rocks will kill him, then we have no common ground on which to discuss this. The selfishness and murderous crassness that could conceive of the notion that one's own sexual needs outweigh the life and health of those with whom they have sexual relations with is frankly mind-blowing.

I've done some looking into this concept since this post came up and frankly I've lost a lot of respect for the gay community for being so militant about the need to have non-disclosed sex. I can't even get my head around the concept of, "I reeeeeeally wanna have sex with that guy, but if I tell him I have HIV, he won't do it, so I just won't tell him. And if he asks, I'll lie."

Boggling.

 

In my opinion, HIV+ gay men who support this change have no love or respect, and possibly even harbor hate, for HIV- gay men.

 

How did they find out that he was HIV positive?

 

By @beac83 s way of thinking. We shouldn’t be charging anyone with attempted murder because they didn’t actually kill anyone.

 

Unless random, possibly infected, cocks were being fired from bump stock fitted, semi auto sex rifles, I doubt guys in 'Nam would see it the same way....

While truly a tragic time, the reported continued behaviors only damaged the cause of many. I guess it's falls in the young and dumb category, which makes it more sad.

 

Most of the non-disclosure is due to the stigma around HIV, and the vast and pervasive mis-information that persists about the disease. The laws haven't ever had any effect on that. And the laws are mostly used as leverage against sex workers. They have created incentives for behaviors that perpetuate the HIV epidemic, rather than curtail it.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it now. I personally believe it is irresponsible for anyone, at any time or for any reason, to intentionally expose another person to risk of serious illness, no matter what that illness is, unless all parties to that exposure are aware of the presence and nature of the risk.

I think this applies to all communicable diseases. Tuberculosis, Pneumonia , Measles, Mumps, Rubella, all the childhood type diseases, etc. It also applies to all STD's.

It probably applies to all risky behaviors you can subject another to, with an example of being a passenger on a motorcycle as a point of discussion.

I think that anyone who injures another should be held liable. Civil courts have proven very effective at that.
Intentional damage (actually inflicted) should be able to be prosecuted criminally.
But should this ONE virus, and just this ONE be a felony offense?
Should it be a felony offense even if there is/was no chance of actually transmitting the virus in the situation?

I believe these laws are unjust because they are not based on science, but on emotion, stigma, and fear.
As Sean said, there are a few other communicable diseases for which intentional transmission is criminalized, but all of these other laws are misdemeanor offenses, not felony offenses, and have a much higher standard of proof that transmission was possible, likely or actually did occur in order to be convicted.

I realize that some are characterizing the revision of the CA law as a selfish move on the part of the gay community. And I guess if you don't care at all about justice, fairness, or a science-based approach to disease prevention, that is a way to look at it. But the laws haven't had any positive effect on

But bad laws, either because they are over-broad in their scope, are factually/scientifically wrong, or are designed to inflict extra punishment on a specific group are not justified. They should be removed.

Anyone who recklessly endangers someone else can (and probably should be) be charged with reckless endangerment either as a misdemeanor of felony depending on the severity of the case. There is no reason to have extra laws specifically for HIV.

These HIV criminalization laws were misguided and bad when they were passed, because of the over-broad application, bad science included, and the way they criminalize behaviors that do not cause anyone harm. They need to be removed.

 

Court ordered testing. Also, many states require HIV testing for any sex worker arrested.

Also, this was a number of years ago. People who have progressed to end-stage AIDS often have some pretty striking physical manifestations. KS lesions, severe wasting, etc.

 

Only if they actually tried to kill someone, not just talked about maybe trying. The laws we are talking about convict you for even discussing trying. You don't have to actually do anything.

last I checked, an attempted murder charge requires action to accomplish the act, even if the result was unsuccessful.

 

I would be willing to wager that a great deal of non-disclosure is motivated by the knowledge that disclosure would almost certainly curtail any sexual activity. Why would you not reveal your HIV status to a person you care enough about to engage them in intimate activity? The only reasons I can imagine are purely selfish. Your sexual identity is overriding your innate decency on this issue.

 

Discussing trying? Is that like conspiracy to commit murder? I have personal knowledge of people who were imprisoned for that very thing. Every case should be decided on its own merits. One would hope that the judgement of a jury of your peers would invalidate purely malicious prosecution.

 

I have no peers.