I didn’t actually realize that there was a movement afoot to decriminalize knowingly infecting your partner with HIV/AIDS, but apparently, there is. I should always learn to expect the most degenerate action whenever possible. I like how this writer talks about tolerance and compassion in relation to knowingly infecting your partner with a potentially deadly disease. And yes, I realize things have gotten better on the HIV treatment front, but that doesn’t mean I want to test the shit out.

Apparently, HIV is now progressive. Only bigots get upset if their partner gives it to them on purpose. 

The article itself is full of cringe…

These laws aren’t “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant” toward people with HIV or AIDS. They’re fear-based holdovers from the days of the “gay plague,” which in many ways, the Reagan administration callously let happen by ignoring the disease and its victims for far too long…

So it’s telling that it’s a gay man from San Francisco, Sen. Scott Wiener, who is pushing the bill that would greatly reduce the penalties for transmitting HIV.

Where California now has four felony offenses on the books for people who deliberately pass along the virus, Senate Bill 239 would repeal two of them and reduce two others to a misdemeanor, just like the intentional transmission of every other infectious or communicable disease.

Today I Learned: Knowingly spreading HIV is an act of love.

  1. The article doesn’t say it shouldn’t be illegal. It just says the penalties should be reduced to those of other intentional STD infections – which is also what the legal bill says. I can see the sense of that. I don’t see the point in signaling out this or that for ultra-special treatment.

    Edit: An alternative I would happily support is raising the penalties for other STDs to match those if HIV/AIDS intentional transmission. That too would be equitable.

    1. Where do you get that? It specifically says, “So far, only Iowa and Colorado have acted to repeal their laws. If California is next, it could potentially accelerate a fledgling national trend toward decriminalization.”

      It’s also lying about “it’s no longer a death sentence.” According to their own link, “In 2014, there were 12,333 deaths (due to any cause) of people with diagnosed HIV infection ever classified as AIDS, and 6,721 deaths were attributed directly to HIV.”

      1. The current bill in CA, Senate Bill 239, is only for reduction of penalties. There’s no bill currently to repeal the laws. So the sentence about repeal causing a trend would be, well, speculation at best. (And completely unwarranted.)

        1. Right, but you said, “The article doesn’t say it shouldn’t be illegal”. The writer of the article is specifically advocating a “national trend toward decriminalization.” What California does isn’t the question, the insane part here is that the author thinks it shouldn’t be a criminal act.

    2. I can go to the clap clinic and get my chlamydia treated if I catch it from a partner. Doesn’t work the same way with HIV. If you are knowingly and callously spreading this deadly disease, you don’t deserve sympathy. In my book you deserve a bullet for condemning someone to a slow and painful death.

  2. That’s what tolerance and justice have come to mean these days. It means that nobody can hurt MY feelings, but I shouldn’t be burdened with the guilt of spreading a noxious disease onto others.

  3. I would say Leftists have lost their minds, but that would be presumptive. They didn’t have minds from the get go.

  4. You are so cruel and not awakened. Or maybe you is so cruel and not woke.

    I was looking for the percentage of people who can’t use the AIDS cocktail and ran into this:


    If you want to get pregnant.
    Atripla contains the drug efavirenz and isn’t safe for women who are breastfeeding, pregnant, or planning to get pregnant.

    Don’t you dare criticize an HIV infected woman who is planning to have a baby which will have a short and painful life. My soggy knees.

    (Yes, I’m joking. But WebMD is not.)

  5. If someone gives you the HIV intentionally, you should act accordingly and let a jury decide if it was just after the fact IMO.

  6. It would be interesting to see how that SJW will react if someone purposefully infected him/her with HIV?

  7. More people need to get aids, So they can go on the killing spree they’ve always wanted and prevent it from spreading again.

  8. uhhhhh. Whaaaat?? If someone knows they are HIV+ and they go around trying to spread it… they deserves prison time. However, one can argue that the victim should have taken precautions, but not telling your lover you have HIV should be illegal.

  9. As we continue to take theology away from law and medicine, these things happen to our law and medicine.

    Isn’t it outrageous?!

    Well, this is the will of the common people, and you can’t argue with common law, and somewhere within the common law, there is “logic” to not being a bigot about contracting HIV from someone already infected.

  10. I’m gay and this is insanity. Stay off of grindr guys. Always use a condom. The gay community has got to scale back and get some morals.

  11. I didn’t realize diseases suffered from discrimination too. I guess it Diseasaphobia or is it diseasism?

    1. Looking at the direction this shit is going in I think it’s time to start preparing for a 28 Days later kind of scenario…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.