Charlie Sheen is HIV positive

[Martinus]

BTW is it just a coincidence that the two of you are on agreement over this, or are you showing the general consensus in the gay community?
Meaning iff somebody gets infected because the HIV positive guy chose to risk the other's life just so he can get some action, then it's basically judged the "victim's" fault for not using proper caution/getting unlucky?

Yes, garbon mentioned that in this thread before. Essentially, the approach to HIV (and other sexually transmitted diseases) among the gay community is that you should assume that every partner may have it and should act accordingly - relying on a hypothetical that your partner (i) has been tested, (ii) is aware that they have the STD (many diseases do not show in early tests for example) and (iii) will tell you that is simply too risky.

It's the equivalent of driving a car with no anti-collision protections and no safety belts, because you are assuming all the other drivers drive safely.

[Martinus]

No, it isn't that at all. Again you are saying that if someone with HIV has sex with someone who doesn't have HIV, they suddenly are doing something wrong. I don't see why that is the case if they have taken adequate precautions. It shouldn't be a crime not to disclose your medical history. What happened to right to privacy? That evaporates when you contract HIV?

Blood tests before marriage have long been required by at least some states. There are limits to the right of privacy.

That would be considered a massive violation of privacy in Europe. It's unthinkable.

[garbon]

BTW is it just a coincidence that the two of you are on agreement over this, or are you showing the general consensus in the gay community?
Meaning iff somebody gets infected because the HIV positive guy chose to risk the other's life just so he can get some action, then it's basically judged the "victim's" fault for not using proper caution/getting unlucky?

I don't think it is the victim's fault but as I said, I just generally assume all partners have HIV unless I have some confirmation otherwise / I guess theoretically if I had been with someone for years.  That said, I think safe sex practices are pretty much a standard in the gay community. In fact, I know there was some revulsion when PrEP came out as it was thought that it would encourage people to engage in more reckless behavior while not actually staying compliant with the treatment. If the NHS agrees to fund PrEP next year, I think I'll go on it but will still continue to maintain safe sex practices.

[Razgovory]

I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.

This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.

Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.

[Martinus]

I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.

This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.

Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.

I already did in this thread. So did garbon.

[garbon]

I'm sure it was criminalized because of the sensationalized fear of the 80s/early 90s HIV epidemic in America that's largely quieted down when we basically made it a chronic condition by cycling retrovirals. That doesn't mean it's bad law--it may mean the legislature responded to a panic, but that's largely a function, not a bug, of representative democracy. To me it's an example of good law that should be expanded to other STDs.

This is good law for people who do not understand how HIV infection works.

Maybe you can tell us how you think HIV infection works.

I already did in this thread. So did garbon.

And it isn't just how we think, it is how the UN, WHO, CDC and all the various health acronyms think.

[jimmy olsen]

No, it isn't that at all. Again you are saying that if someone with HIV has sex with someone who doesn't have HIV, they suddenly are doing something wrong. I don't see why that is the case if they have taken adequate precautions. It shouldn't be a crime not to disclose your medical history. What happened to right to privacy? That evaporates when you contract HIV?

Blood tests before marriage have long been required by at least some states. There are limits to the right of privacy.

Is that true? I've never heard of this.

[Valmy]

Yeah I would be curious which states these are so I can avoid them in the future.

[Martinus]

Yeah I would be curious which states these are so I can avoid them in the future.

Incidentally, I wonder if these laws were passed by lawmakers who are for or against the "nanny state"...

Because I can't imagine a more nanny-ish state law than this.

[garbon]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chart-state-marriage-license-blood-29019.html

This suggests DC, Mississippi, Montana (for women) and New York (for black and hispanics for sickle-cell).

[garbon]

Though NYS gov website no test is required and MS gov says they changed policy in 2012.

[garbon]

Actually Montana seems to still require blood testing for rubella immunity on part of female applicant though you can instead sign a waiver to bypass testing. Oh and DC gov says they don't need it.

So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again.  There is potentially one state that requires blood testing but a requirement you can sign a waiver to get past doesn't really sound like a legit requirement.

[Eddie Teach]

Is that true? I've never heard of this.

I'm sure I've heard of that in a book or movie somewhere.

[Eddie Teach]

So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again.

That's not fair, his info is dated but was once true.

[Martinus]

Actually Montana seems to still require blood testing for rubella immunity on part of female applicant though you can instead sign a waiver to bypass testing. Oh and DC gov says they don't need it.

So the reality is that our resident 'truth teller' has misled us again.  There is potentially one state that requires blood testing but a requirement you can sign a waiver to get past doesn't really sound like a legit requirement.

Hah. Judging from his post, it would seem like at least a sizeable minority of states require that and it is a growing trend. 

Dorsey never changes.