A-fucking-men. If you don't want to catch a cold, wash your hands. If you don't want to catch HIV, insist on safer sex. That doesn't mean unprotected sex with men who say they're safe. It means taking responsibility, setting limits, and being prepared for the possibility that your partner has no fucking clue.

Soory--I disagree. This type of law does not criminalize a disease; it merely criminalizes a behaviour. Say I own a store? Do I have to ask every customer if they're a thief? Nope, I get to assume they're honest and I can charge them if they steal from me.

The parallels to flu and so on are simply false. If I have HIV, _I_ pose the danger; my potential uninfected partner poses no danger to me; therefore the onus is on _me_ to be honest.

Trying to slough off responsibility from the infected person to potential partners is akin to saying "I wanna get laid, and the damage I do is not my responsibility; if my partner didn't ask it's their fault." BS. If your partner doesn't ask or use protection/safer sex, they're idiots (maybe) but they are not knowingly putting anyone but themselves at risk. The same cannot be said for the infected party.

Someone wrote this: "If you aren't yet aware that HIV started in the gay male community and continues to be a major health concern for gay men, you must have been in a coma for the last decade" while defending the idea that persons known to be infected ought not to have a criminal penalty attached to their infecting unknowing partners. Simply put: the quote above is as wrong as the idea being defended. HIV did _not_ "start in the gay male community." And knowing transmitters of the disease to unsuspecting partners ought to be prosecuted.

I'm not saying that someone who is HIV positive is shouldn't take responsibility for his own actions. But sex involves two consentual people, and if you consent to something, such as anal sex that is known to be a high risk for HIV, you are assuming some of that risk.

There may be a case for a civil lawsuit, but the government has no place prosecuting these types of cases. Further, it creates a deterrent to getting tested for HIV because once you know your HIV-positive status, that result will make you liable for criminal prosecution. Who wants that kind of weight hanging over them? Further, how does the government prove knowing transmission of the disease? A disgruntled partner could easily lie about a former partner.

Absolutely! I agree with you 100%. It was abhorrent behaviour, but at the end of the day, it does take two people to have unprotected sex.

We could look at this ruling another way also. Would this open the way for lawsuits against women who didn't divulge they were ovulating and became pregnant during unprotected sex?

fha mortgage lender

fha mortgage lender