48 year old man infects 17 year old with HIV.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 9:20 PM GMT
    rezdylan said

    I can't begin to tell you how RETARDED that would be, what a civil rights violation that would be, and how discriminatory and disgusting that would be. What an ignorant, fascist piece of legislation! Not to mention unconstitutional. There's a difference between encouraging responsibility among HIV+ people and legislating private behavior.

    How would you even enforce a law like that!? And what next? Make sodomy illegal again because anal sex is the primary method of HIV transmission?

    Jesus Christ! They're still people! HIV does not turn a person into a subhuman monster! And to equate it with assisted suicide -- fucking Christ!

    Also, if you think that the government exists to ensure that we have a right to life even at the expense of civil rights, you seriously need to reexamine everything you know about government.

    /rant


    Really? Is it so retarded? I'm an engineer, if I make a mistake in my job, or worse if I knowingly ignore a problem that puts others in danger I am fully responsible for it. I can be fired, prosecuted and convicted if someone dies or is hurt by something I design or work on. How is that different from knowingly infecting someone with HIV? Engineering isn't illegal and neither is being HIV+ but there are safety laws that engineers must observe and duly I think there should be for those living with HIV. No one is subhuman, but we cannot expect everyone to play the game nicely or honestly, that's why there are laws to protect everyone.

    And yes, government does operate on a balance of life vs. liberties. It always has and that premise is even in the preamble to our constitution.

    You alarmists and your "what next?!" crap. Right-wingers and left-wingers do it alike and all it is, is a token that you have no valid arguing points left. No, people will not marry animals and no, we will not recriminate gay sex. Making one move does not signify a trend in any direction, but worse still is refusing to make a decision and going nowhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 9:31 PM GMT

    MechEngnr, the minute you start entertaining, stretching, negating, or manipulating any minority group's rights, you need to slap yourself. They do that to positive folks (M4M positive particularly, who do you think is next for the chopping block?
    Plus, how to ensure ALL gay men use condoms? I don't know about you, but I for one don't want two armed guards.....in my bedroom.......watching me have sex.....wait. icon_question.gificon_idea.gificon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 9:31 PM GMT
    Once you start stripping civil liberties, you have undermined the constitution. It's an over quoted statement from Ben Franklin, but it applies -- (paraphrased) if you give up liberty for security, you don't deserve liberty or security. Government exists just as much to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority as it does to ensure life -- and HIV+ people are a pretty small, frequently shit on, minority.

    Once you start legislating one private personal activity, you open the door to legislation for all private personal activity. If a person wants to have consensual unprotected sex with an HIV+ person, they have a right to do so, whether or not you think it's damaging to society -- as long as their actions do not cause direct harm to anyone else. And as long as their actions do not cause direct harm to you, why do you even care?

    It's fascist bullshit, frankly, and is the same mentality that the religious right uses to deny rights to anyone they deem morally unfit for equal rights.

    And the comparison between your hypothetical failures as an engineer and consensual unprotected sex with an HIV+ person is, frankly, offensive. When you make a mistake as an engineer, it directly endangers people WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. When a person has consensual unprotected sex with an HIV+ person, it's because they want to; they made a choice to put their health at risk.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11557

    Dec 16, 2008 9:37 PM GMT
    there's "legal justice" and "street justice"....guess which path "I" would choose? icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 9:49 PM GMT

    just don't hit him in the mouth! icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 9:50 PM GMT
    As I stated in my first post, it would need to be a reactionary law, it would need to be specific. I'm not talking generalized discriminatory legislation. You cannot force people to use condoms, duh. I'm talking about Moore and this child of 17. Cases where there is clearly one-sided responsibility. We can indeed make laws as specific as we want you know. I've volunteered with AIDS workers, I'm not some pig-headed redneck Christian with no idea how the world works. I'm talking about enforceable responsibility. Then again, maybe we shouldn't look out for those who don't have as much knowledge, wisdom or experience as we do. Screw community, let's be so capitalist that we actually put our neighbors in harm's way so that we can profit off their misfortune. But go on and call me fascist because that's the easy way out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 9:56 PM GMT
    One sided responsibility?

    So the 17 year old was acting responsibly?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 10:03 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidOne sided responsibility?

    So the 17 year old was acting responsibly?


    Do you think a 17 year old knows enough to make the right decisions about sex? I don't. Especially if they're finding it online with a 48 year old. I'd say you can't even expect a 17 year old to act responsibly, which is why we hold Moore accountable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 10:09 PM GMT
    MechEngnr saidDo you think a 17 year old knows enough to make the right decisions about sex? I don't. Especially if they're finding it online with a 48 year old. I'd say you can't even expect a 17 year old to act responsibly, which is why we hold Moore accountable.


    The state of Nebraska sure does, as the age of consent is 16. But, from this specific case a 48 year old was well within the age of consent and still could not act responsibly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 10:10 PM GMT
    MechEngnr said
    MunchingZombie saidOne sided responsibility?

    So the 17 year old was acting responsibly?


    Do you think a 17 year old knows enough to make the right decisions about sex? I don't. Especially if they're finding it online with a 48 year old. I'd say you can't even expect a 17 year old to act responsibly, which is why we hold Moore accountable.


    The 48 year old is more responsible after all he is an "adult" but the 17 year old is old enough to drive (and potentially kill other people) so he is old enough to be able to comprehend the consequences of his sexual behaviour. He is 17 not 9.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 10:48 PM GMT
    When are people going to take responsibility for their own actions? The kid made a shitty decision by not demanding the guy wear a condom end of story. That's something he'll have to live with for the rest of his life be it long or short, and remember anyone can die at any time reguardless of your HIV status; shit happens all the time, its called life it happens. As for making a law that is a very slippery slope, if so whats next? More people die every year from drunk driving or the kids that are sick because their parents smoke around them as they are developing. So when do we make a law about them? So instead of being such a whinny society how about people taking responsibility for their actions good or bad and learn from them. I know I'll get a load of shit for this but I really don't care I take responsibility for my actions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 11:02 PM GMT
    MechEngnr saidDo you think a 17 year old knows enough to make the right decisions about sex? I don't. Especially if they're finding it online with a 48 year old. I'd say you can't even expect a 17 year old to act responsibly, which is why we hold Moore accountable.


    Yes! As I wrote above, there are degrees of responsibility, which can be situational. This is recognized in US law.

    Why are gays here so hard on a mere 17-year-old? When the other lying guy was 48 years old? And who knew he was poz?

    Have some here forgotten what it's like to be 17? Or that some teenagers reach maturity, and adult responsibility, at different stages? YOU may have been Mr. Man of the World at 17, good for you. Not everyone is.

    I am dumbfounded by the insensitivity here, and lack of outrage at an obvious sexual predator. Talk about blaming the victim!
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22387

    Dec 16, 2008 11:14 PM GMT
    This is an outstanding example of no responsibility on the part of both the older 48 year old HIV+ man and a 17 year old kid. Since the older guy knew he was HIV+ why did he have unprotected sex with the 17 year old. Why is he having sex with a teenager in the first place? What is wrong with guys more in his own age bracket. The exact same thing pertains to the 17 year old. It is his own damn fault that he got infected with the HIV virus. What was this teenager thinking at the time? What is wrong with having sex with guys that are more his age? This whole scenario of a teenager and a middle aged man having sex sounds very creepy to me. It just does not make any sense. A young man's life has pretty much been damaged due to this potentially dangerous carelessness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 11:20 PM GMT
    MechEngnr saidThe sad thing is, I know people who have such horrible self-esteem that they would ruin themselves like this. The matter is simply one of ethics. Moore had none and the 17 year old was exactly that, a 17 year old - most likely the product of a broken home (being that he was having sex with a 48 year old man) and certainly of a broken education system that does not teach about safe sex - especially for lgbt people.

    The responsibility is entirely on Moore in this case. Knowledge is culpability. Wouldn't this be a case of reckless endangerment? IMO, it should be illegal for HIV+ people to have unprotected sex. Assisted suicide is illegal, so even if the partner is willing daresay even asking to have unprotected sex with someone who is positive, don't the two equate? On top of that, there are different strains of HIV floating around out there and chances are, even if you're only having sex with positive people, you will contract several different types making treatment all but impossible and maybe even giving way to a mutated superbug of HIV. Now, preventive measures to ensure a law like this are almost nil, but reactionary measures can mean something. I'm not suggesting rounding up HIV+ people because that is ridiculous but I do think no matter how you contracted it, once you are positive, your responsibility should be enforced by law.

    It may not be fair, but neither is life and the government exists to ensure that we all at least have the right to life.



    Very well said! And from a guy who already has my prospective career, nice! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 11:41 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    MechEngnr saidDo you think a 17 year old knows enough to make the right decisions about sex? I don't. Especially if they're finding it online with a 48 year old. I'd say you can't even expect a 17 year old to act responsibly, which is why we hold Moore accountable.


    Yes! As I wrote above, there are degrees of responsibility, which can be situational. This is recognized in US law.

    Why are gays here so hard on a mere 17-year-old? When the other lying guy was 48 years old? And who knew he was poz?

    Have some here forgotten what it's like to be 17? Or that some teenagers reach maturity, and adult responsibility, at different stages? YOU may have been Mr. Man of the World at 17, good for you. Not everyone is.

    I am dumbfounded by the insensitivity here, and lack of outrage at an obvious sexual predator. Talk about blaming the victim!


    I agree that we can't expect 17 year olds to be responsible. So no sex, driving, drinking, and voting until at least 21!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 11:47 PM GMT
    rezdylan said
    MechEngnr saidIMO, it should be illegal for HIV+ people to have unprotected sex. Assisted suicide is illegal, so even if the partner is willing daresay even asking to have unprotected sex with someone who is positive, don't the two equate? On top of that, there are different strains of HIV floating around out there and chances are, even if you're only having sex with positive people, you will contract several different types making treatment all but impossible and maybe even giving way to a mutated superbug of HIV. Now, preventive measures to ensure a law like this are almost nil, but reactionary measures can mean something. I'm not suggesting rounding up HIV+ people because that is ridiculous but I do think no matter how you contracted it, once you are positive, your responsibility should be enforced by law.

    It may not be fair, but neither is life and the government exists to ensure that we all at least have the right to life.



    I can't begin to tell you how RETARDED that would be, what a civil rights violation that would be, and how discriminatory and disgusting that would be. What an ignorant, fascist piece of legislation! Not to mention unconstitutional. There's a difference between encouraging responsibility among HIV+ people and legislating private behavior.

    How would you even enforce a law like that!? And what next? Reinstate anti-sodomy laws because anal sex is the primary method of HIV transmission?

    Jesus Christ! They're still people! HIV does not turn a person into a subhuman monster! And to equate it with assisted suicide -- fucking Christ!

    Also, if you think that the government exists to ensure that we have a right to life even at the expense of civil rights, you seriously need to reexamine everything you know about government.

    /rant



    Wow. What a hysterical and completely irrational response to a rational statement.

    "Reinstate anti-sodomy laws because anal sex is the primary method of HIV transmission?" Exactly why he proposed that it not even be legal to have unprotected sex with someone if you're HIV+. You know it's the most dangerous form of contact, MOST people know it's the most dangerous form of contact and yet, HIV is still spreading.

    You would send someone to jail for life if they murdered your loved one, why should you treat someone who willfully infects someone with a life threatening disease?

    It's called common sense.icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 11:51 PM GMT

    Geez, raw anal sex right out of the gate! I wasn't that ballsy and I was 23 when I first got some.
    The seventeen yr old is no innocent behaving that recklessly with someone of any age. I'd hate to put my weave in danger, but behaving that way, the kid was using borrowed time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 12:24 AM GMT
    You would send someone to jail for life if they murdered your loved one, why should you treat someone who willfully infects someone with a life threatening disease?

    It's called common sense.


    The murder of a loved one is not the same thing. The 17 year old had the option of saying no to the anal sex and also had the option to use protection. I agree that anyone who knows they are HIV+ and knowingly has unprotected anal sex is being negligent, especially if they do not inform their partner (in that case it can be considered criminally negligent) but I don't think murder is equivalent. Perhaps if you seriously injure someone while driving recklessly or intoxicated is maybe a more appropriate comparison.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 12:36 AM GMT
    RyanReBoRn said

    Wow. What a hysterical and completely irrational response to a rational statement.

    "Reinstate anti-sodomy laws because anal sex is the primary method of HIV transmission?" Exactly why he proposed that it not even be legal to have unprotected sex with someone if you're HIV+. You know it's the most dangerous form of contact, MOST people know it's the most dangerous form of contact and yet, HIV is still spreading.

    You would send someone to jail for life if they murdered your loved one, why should you treat someone who willfully infects someone with a life threatening disease?

    It's called common sense.icon_confused.gif



    Really don't see how reacting passionately against a suggestion that we limit the civil rights of a minority is irrational. And I'm really not sure what you think I'm arguing. Legislation of private behavior is wrong, and you'll find little disagreement from any rational person. What the poster said was it should be illegal for HIV+ people to engage in unprotected sex, period. It should absolutely NOT be illegal for HIV+ people to have unprotected sex, so long as the other party or parties are aware of the infected individual's condition. If the other party/parties were not made aware of the infected individual's condition, then they can be sued for RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, just as is being done (properly) in the case of the 48 year old and the 17 year old.

    What the poster suggested was a wrong-headed, hate-filled, bigoted law criminalizing even consensual, informed unprotected sex with an HIV+ person, including unprotected sex between two HIV+ people. A law regulating the private behavior of individuals, when the behavior does not impact negatively any outside party, is consensual, and all parties involved in the act are informed and aware of the risky behavior in which they are engaging, is, frankly, RETARDED.

    Transmission of HIV isn't murder, especially if the unprotected sexual encounter is consensual and all other involved parties are informed of the condition of the infected party.

    If it's non-consensual, it's rape -- one party is harmed, and it is already illegal. If it's consensual, but one party is unaware of the other's HIV+ status, it is reckless endangerment and it is already illegal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 1:09 AM GMT
    rezdylan said
    RyanReBoRn said

    Wow. What a hysterical and completely irrational response to a rational statement.

    "Reinstate anti-sodomy laws because anal sex is the primary method of HIV transmission?" Exactly why he proposed that it not even be legal to have unprotected sex with someone if you're HIV+. You know it's the most dangerous form of contact, MOST people know it's the most dangerous form of contact and yet, HIV is still spreading.

    You would send someone to jail for life if they murdered your loved one, why should you treat someone who willfully infects someone with a life threatening disease?

    It's called common sense.icon_confused.gif





    What the poster suggested was a wrong-headed, hate-filled, bigoted law criminalizing even consensual, informed unprotected sex with an HIV+ person, including unprotected sex between two HIV+ people. A law regulating the private behavior of individuals, when the behavior does not impact negatively any other party, is consensual, and all parties involved in the act are informed and aware of the risky behavior in which they are engaging, is, frankly, RETARDED.

    .



    Only this ISN'T a case where the kid seeks out an HIV+ guy and consensually has unprotected sex with him. I'm reluctant to use sweeping generalizations but I don't believe ANYONE would have unprotected sex with an individual if they had prior knowledge of the individuals HIV+ status.

    Then you say that an HIV+ man having unprotected sex with men(consensual or not) are not harming anyone besides themselves? How about the many OTHER men he will go on to have casual sex with, further spreading his strain of the HIV virus? How about all of his previous sexual partners, what about the many men THEY will go on to infect? Clearly this goes beyond JUST affecting the two people involved.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 1:25 AM GMT
    RyanReBoRn said


    Only this ISN'T a case where the kid seeks out an HIV+ guy and consensually has unprotected sex with him. I'm reluctant to use sweeping generalizations but I don't believe ANYONE would have unprotected sex with an individual if they had prior knowledge of the individuals HIV+ status.

    Then you say that an HIV+ man having unprotected sex with men(consensual or not) are not harming anyone besides themselves? How about the many OTHER men he will go on to have casual sex with, further spreading his strain of the HIV virus? How about all of his previous sexual partners, what about the many men THEY will go on to infect? Clearly this goes beyond JUST affecting the two people involved.




    Wow, uh... Apparently you haven't read my full posts. Or, if you have, you haven't understood them. So I'm not going to engage in the war you obviously want to start.

    Good day to you, sir! icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 1:46 AM GMT
    We need more laws enacted that will criminalize any and every comunicable disease that we have yet to cure or otherwise "figure out"...that'll fix the problem!
    Or maybe another government issued ID that shows that you are "clean and ready for love"!
    Or maybe we just start a media war of words and put slogans out there, like, "just say no" or "abstain!...no sex outside of marriage", etc.
    Maybe a realistic program of research, education and availability of protection and information, instead of more stigma and political posturing would go further......then it becomes a personal responsibility to be informed and protect yourself realistically. Might also help to have parents a bit more involved in the lives of their children......helping them to learn and navigate some of the hard lessons of life.
    For all any of us know, we may all dodge every disease out there, have perfect health, eat well, exercise, be fit and healthy as could be! Step off a street corner, with the crossing lights, and be killed anyway by a bus or a truck or a car. Sort of like the guy that died on I-270 around Columbus, this morning, driving his car to work, in his lane, doing everything right, and is killed when a trash collection truck lost control and crushed his car...I saw it! It was horrendous!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 1:51 AM GMT
    MechEngnr said
    MunchingZombie saidOne sided responsibility?

    So the 17 year old was acting responsibly?


    Do you think a 17 year old knows enough to make the right decisions about sex? I don't. Especially if they're finding it online with a 48 year old. I'd say you can't even expect a 17 year old to act responsibly, which is why we hold Moore accountable.


    I agree with you here, actually. But that doesn't mean I would punish all HIV+ people for the actions of one HIV+ person with a law specifically denying this minority group, and only this minority group, their right to engage in consensual unprotected sex (so long as all parties are informed of the status in advance). That is inherently discriminatory and unconstitutional.

    If you wanted to criminalize unprotected sex, period, for everyone, THAT would be constitutional. It would also be the worst law ever. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 1:59 AM GMT
    Sporty_g said
    Or maybe we just start a media war of words and put slogans out there, like, "just say no" or "abstain!...no sex outside of marriage", etc.
    Maybe a realistic program of research, education and availability of protection and information, instead of more stigma and political posturing would go further......then it becomes a personal responsibility to be informed and protect yourself realistically. Might also help to have parents a bit more involved in the lives of their children......helping them to learn and navigate some of the hard lessons of life.


    Yay, SportyG!

    (P.S., Sporty_G -- I see you work out at LifeTime Family Fitness in Dublin! I grew up in Dublin! About 3 blocks from Dublin Coffman High School.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2008 2:09 AM GMT
    Honestly, the only reason this is "news" is the age difference. If the "giver" was 20 instead of 48, it wouldn't be news.