#26
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:18pm
For you it's all about the sex. What I see is a public health regulation at the very least. I guess we're just coming at this from different angles.
Unless you rape someone... — Page 2
#27
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:18pm
but concentual sex is legislated... statatory rape (however you spell it, sex between an adult and a minor) is concentual, but still illeagle.
Less is more
Ugly is beautiful
"My brother plays a drag queen... and I'm surprised he looks as good as he does in drag." - Adam Rapp
"thanks, abba. now i'll forever have an image of you as a tattoed hardcore straightedge grrl savaging people in the mosh pit." - papalovesmambo
"Yeah Abba. All the filthy crap you spew out there on those boards. I for one, am equally shocked. :-P" - AnnaK
Ugly is beautiful
"My brother plays a drag queen... and I'm surprised he looks as good as he does in drag." - Adam Rapp
"thanks, abba. now i'll forever have an image of you as a tattoed hardcore straightedge grrl savaging people in the mosh pit." - papalovesmambo
"Yeah Abba. All the filthy crap you spew out there on those boards. I for one, am equally shocked. :-P" - AnnaK
Updated On: 7/21/05 at 04:18 PM
#28
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:20pm
OK , let's state the obvious. again. Two adults.
Updated On: 7/21/05 at 04:20 PM
#29
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:22pm
again, as i told you in a pm, this law would effect everyone. not just two men, and not just two adults.
Less is more
Ugly is beautiful
"My brother plays a drag queen... and I'm surprised he looks as good as he does in drag." - Adam Rapp
"thanks, abba. now i'll forever have an image of you as a tattoed hardcore straightedge grrl savaging people in the mosh pit." - papalovesmambo
"Yeah Abba. All the filthy crap you spew out there on those boards. I for one, am equally shocked. :-P" - AnnaK
Ugly is beautiful
"My brother plays a drag queen... and I'm surprised he looks as good as he does in drag." - Adam Rapp
"thanks, abba. now i'll forever have an image of you as a tattoed hardcore straightedge grrl savaging people in the mosh pit." - papalovesmambo
"Yeah Abba. All the filthy crap you spew out there on those boards. I for one, am equally shocked. :-P" - AnnaK
#30
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:22pm
Legally, everything can be legislated by the states unless prohibited by the Constitution. The "right to privacy" has been built up gradually and on very shaky constitutional grounds, and I don't really think it extends here.
Like I said, for you it's an issue of consensual sex being regulated. What I see is government trying to prevent the spread of disease in an epidemic situation. The public health hazard is the more important interest.
Like I said, for you it's an issue of consensual sex being regulated. What I see is government trying to prevent the spread of disease in an epidemic situation. The public health hazard is the more important interest.
Updated On: 7/21/05 at 04:22 PM
#31
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:25pm
Plum this is not like someone exposing you to a disease by an improbable encounter. It's thE transmission of a sexually transmited disease by having SEX!
#32
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:25pm
which can be provented by using a condom.
Less is more
Ugly is beautiful
"My brother plays a drag queen... and I'm surprised he looks as good as he does in drag." - Adam Rapp
"thanks, abba. now i'll forever have an image of you as a tattoed hardcore straightedge grrl savaging people in the mosh pit." - papalovesmambo
"Yeah Abba. All the filthy crap you spew out there on those boards. I for one, am equally shocked. :-P" - AnnaK
Ugly is beautiful
"My brother plays a drag queen... and I'm surprised he looks as good as he does in drag." - Adam Rapp
"thanks, abba. now i'll forever have an image of you as a tattoed hardcore straightedge grrl savaging people in the mosh pit." - papalovesmambo
"Yeah Abba. All the filthy crap you spew out there on those boards. I for one, am equally shocked. :-P" - AnnaK
#33
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:25pm
You're just repeating what I said. For you, the sex is the most important factor. For me, it's the disease. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.
#34
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:27pm
How can you not think that this is a good idea? No one should have the right to force HIV upon someone else. I think that they should be held liable if they don't tell someone about it. If they aren't comfortable telling someone right up front then keep your pants on until you do feel comfortable. Its like what people say to girls all the time. If you aren't mature enough to deal with the consequences (in that case a baby) then you are not mature enough for sex. If you can't be an adult and have enough consideration for other people to try to keep them safe then you should be prosecuted.
"All the while making faces like a baby platypus who forget to take some Beano before eating a chimichanga." FindingNamo in reference to Jessica Simpson's singing.
Updated On: 7/21/05 at 04:27 PM
#35
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:28pm
You are responsible for your actions.
You are responsible to ask, you are responsible to tell, you are responsible to protect yourself.
You are responsible to ask, you are responsible to tell, you are responsible to protect yourself.
#36
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:29pm
No. You are saying it's a health issue. It isn't. It is common sense and anyone who has unprotected sex should not be able to seek justice from our constitution. That is crazy. That person has put themselves in a very dangerous situation.
#37
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:30pm
"It's thE transmission of a sexually transmited disease by having SEX!"
It is the transmission of a disease for which there is no cure. That is quite a different thing. And yes, if someone who knowingly has HIV willingly passes it to an unknowing partner, I think it should be illegal. It is like accepting a drink at a party with GHB. Yes, you accepted a drink from someone not knowing if it was tampered, but the person who tainted the drink knew what they were doing. That is also illegal.
It is the transmission of a disease for which there is no cure. That is quite a different thing. And yes, if someone who knowingly has HIV willingly passes it to an unknowing partner, I think it should be illegal. It is like accepting a drink at a party with GHB. Yes, you accepted a drink from someone not knowing if it was tampered, but the person who tainted the drink knew what they were doing. That is also illegal.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#38
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:31pm
True, both parties should be responsible, but things happen. Condoms break, there are tiny rips and tears that no one sees, etc... Both parties should be fully informed as to what they are getting into before they have intercourse. Its that simple. If you can't say hey just so you know I have HIV (or any other STD for that matter) then you shouldn't be having sex.
"All the while making faces like a baby platypus who forget to take some Beano before eating a chimichanga." FindingNamo in reference to Jessica Simpson's singing.
#39
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:32pm
Is this kind of law a perfect solution? Hell no. Does that mean that people who spread disease that way shouldn't be held liable? Once again, hell no.
Should amusement parks stop putting warnings before roller coasters because people with bad backs should know better than to go on them? If they give no warnings and someone hurts their back permanently, should they have no responsibility at all? That definitely hasn't been the legal case, and it shouldn't be the case here, either. I don't have sympathy for people who would spread a deadly STD like that.
And minor correction of chita- this law has nothing to do with the constitution except for being constitutionally permissible under the general principle of "states can go ahead and regulate unless told otherwise."
Should amusement parks stop putting warnings before roller coasters because people with bad backs should know better than to go on them? If they give no warnings and someone hurts their back permanently, should they have no responsibility at all? That definitely hasn't been the legal case, and it shouldn't be the case here, either. I don't have sympathy for people who would spread a deadly STD like that.
And minor correction of chita- this law has nothing to do with the constitution except for being constitutionally permissible under the general principle of "states can go ahead and regulate unless told otherwise."
Updated On: 7/21/05 at 04:32 PM
#40
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:46pm
"It is like accepting a drink at a party with GHB. "
Matt as far as I know accepting a drink from a stranger, although a risk, has not had the type of public informational campaign from government and private agencies that unsafe sex has. Just a thought.
-------------------------------------------------
"If you can't say hey just so you know I have HIV (or any other STD for that matter) then you shouldn't be having sex. "
Thanks KelRel. This is what it really comes down to. Positive people should be isolated and prohibited from interacting with non-infected people. Is this the type of law you want plum. I know it's a stretch but the tone is there.
Matt as far as I know accepting a drink from a stranger, although a risk, has not had the type of public informational campaign from government and private agencies that unsafe sex has. Just a thought.
-------------------------------------------------
"If you can't say hey just so you know I have HIV (or any other STD for that matter) then you shouldn't be having sex. "
Thanks KelRel. This is what it really comes down to. Positive people should be isolated and prohibited from interacting with non-infected people. Is this the type of law you want plum. I know it's a stretch but the tone is there.
#41
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:50pm
Yes, it's a huge stretch. Look, people can be punished for smuggling plants into the U.S. because they could have plant diseases that would affect native species. If the health of trees is that important, I'd say the health of people is pretty important, too.
Updated On: 7/21/05 at 04:50 PM
#42
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:50pm
I agree with Kel. Not only on behalf of the positive person, but the negative person as well.
In MY opinion, and how I lead my life, if you are positive, it is your responsibility to disclose. And if you are negative, it is your responsibility to ask. And it is always everyone's responsibilities to be safe. And honest.
If you don't ask, have unprotected sex anyway, and get infected, dude, you share part of the blame.
In MY opinion, and how I lead my life, if you are positive, it is your responsibility to disclose. And if you are negative, it is your responsibility to ask. And it is always everyone's responsibilities to be safe. And honest.
If you don't ask, have unprotected sex anyway, and get infected, dude, you share part of the blame.
Celebrate Life
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted. - Randy Pausch
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted. - Randy Pausch
#43
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:51pm
I had to step away from this for a moment before I answered.
A: Chita, why so angry? You seem very upset at the fact that someone may legislate what you can and can’t do in the bedroom. That’s not going to stop you, obviously. So, relax.
B. In this particular case, the gentleman seems to be repeating his behavior, getting arrested for it 3different times. In a situation like this, he obviously knows what he is doing, but he still continues to do it. That why it should be illegal.
C. I applaud the fact that you play safe, but I am bothered by the fact that you don’t even bother to ask… “It’s none of my business”. YES, it is! You think, just because you play safe that there might not be SOME risk factor? WRONG. There is, and ALWAYS will be. Being informed is the best way to deal with it. But I guess you’d rather not ruin the fun. Just slap a condom on it and everything will be fine.
I've been to too many funerals.
A: Chita, why so angry? You seem very upset at the fact that someone may legislate what you can and can’t do in the bedroom. That’s not going to stop you, obviously. So, relax.
B. In this particular case, the gentleman seems to be repeating his behavior, getting arrested for it 3different times. In a situation like this, he obviously knows what he is doing, but he still continues to do it. That why it should be illegal.
C. I applaud the fact that you play safe, but I am bothered by the fact that you don’t even bother to ask… “It’s none of my business”. YES, it is! You think, just because you play safe that there might not be SOME risk factor? WRONG. There is, and ALWAYS will be. Being informed is the best way to deal with it. But I guess you’d rather not ruin the fun. Just slap a condom on it and everything will be fine.
I've been to too many funerals.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#44
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:52pm
JERBY'S TWO CENTS
a person infects his/her partner with HIV because he was sleeping around = crime
a person with a proven motive tries to infect people with HIV = crime
a person infects a child with HIV = double crime
a person infects another person where neither person chose to use protection = ding ding ding NOT a crime IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO
a person gets infected because the condom broke = not a crime
Why? Because here's the facts, folks. A lot of people who are HIV+ don't know this. They could get tested every 6 months, but in the period between what the test doesn't cover and the present, be able to infect people--and not know it.
The fact is--if you are going to engage in sex with someone who is not a trusted partner, you MUST assume they could have HIV. Knowing the person has HIV and not knowing shouldn't make a difference in what safe sex practices you engage in.
Some of you people act like someone who MAY be negative and someone who IS HIV+ are two different things. They are NOT.
Let's be real and honest, folks.
a person infects his/her partner with HIV because he was sleeping around = crime
a person with a proven motive tries to infect people with HIV = crime
a person infects a child with HIV = double crime
a person infects another person where neither person chose to use protection = ding ding ding NOT a crime IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO
a person gets infected because the condom broke = not a crime
Why? Because here's the facts, folks. A lot of people who are HIV+ don't know this. They could get tested every 6 months, but in the period between what the test doesn't cover and the present, be able to infect people--and not know it.
The fact is--if you are going to engage in sex with someone who is not a trusted partner, you MUST assume they could have HIV. Knowing the person has HIV and not knowing shouldn't make a difference in what safe sex practices you engage in.
Some of you people act like someone who MAY be negative and someone who IS HIV+ are two different things. They are NOT.
Let's be real and honest, folks.
#45
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:53pm
Thanks for what, was that a sarcastic remark saying that I agree that positive people should be isolated? If so that is not how I feel at all. I just think that if someone is going to be so callous as to spread HIV to unsuspecting people then THAT (just the person commiting the CRIME, not all HIV+ people) person should be isolated from all people HIV+ or not. It is a heartless and danergous thing to do.
"All the while making faces like a baby platypus who forget to take some Beano before eating a chimichanga." FindingNamo in reference to Jessica Simpson's singing.
#46
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:54pm
"Matt as far as I know accepting a drink from a stranger, although a risk, has not had the type of public informational campaign from government and private agencies that unsafe sex has. Just a thought."
And obviously, the informational campaigns of the government and private agencies have not worked too well because we still have a problem. Perhaps this law will help when PSAs and pamphlets have not. Your thought only reinforces my point.
And obviously, the informational campaigns of the government and private agencies have not worked too well because we still have a problem. Perhaps this law will help when PSAs and pamphlets have not. Your thought only reinforces my point.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#47
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:55pm
daydreamer, I agree with you totally.......
It is ridiculous to set a detective story in New York City. New York City is itself a detective story...
AGATHA CHRISTIE, Life magazine, May 14, 1956
#48
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:56pm
daydream this is for you....So does asking mean you can have unprotected sex?
What if the answer is I'm negative? When did the person find out their status? Have they zero converted since then? Does the fact that they are unaware of their conversion to positive status free them from any liability? I'm drowing in a sea of questions that can all be answered by saying "keep the laws out of my bed and let me just put on a condom and take resposibility for my own life."
Theatre Diva I'm losing it. I have to step down from the ledge.
edit: Thank you jrb_actor
Seroconversion: The development of detectable antibodies in the blood directed against an infectious agent. It normally takes some time for antibodies to develop after the initial exposure to the agent
What if the answer is I'm negative? When did the person find out their status? Have they zero converted since then? Does the fact that they are unaware of their conversion to positive status free them from any liability? I'm drowing in a sea of questions that can all be answered by saying "keep the laws out of my bed and let me just put on a condom and take resposibility for my own life."
Theatre Diva I'm losing it. I have to step down from the ledge.
edit: Thank you jrb_actor
Seroconversion: The development of detectable antibodies in the blood directed against an infectious agent. It normally takes some time for antibodies to develop after the initial exposure to the agent
Updated On: 7/21/05 at 04:56 PM
#49
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:58pm
In Michigan it is against the law to NOT disclose your status.
When I lived there that never bothered me, as I think it's the right thing to do....BUT
anyone who does not take precaution needs to assume responsibility for their own actions.
When I lived there that never bothered me, as I think it's the right thing to do....BUT
anyone who does not take precaution needs to assume responsibility for their own actions.
It is ridiculous to set a detective story in New York City. New York City is itself a detective story...
AGATHA CHRISTIE, Life magazine, May 14, 1956
#50
Posted: 7/21/05 at 4:59pm
As I stated, even if the laws change, what you do in your own bed won't. They aren't going to have police banging on your door at home.
Chita, are you ito the whole 'public sex' thing? Because you do sound very worried.
Chita, are you ito the whole 'public sex' thing? Because you do sound very worried.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $101
