posted on March 14, 2005 01:22:13 PM newHIV Paternity Payments Urged for 'Deadbeat' Infectors
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 14, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -
A nationally syndicated columnist who is openly homosexual is offering what he calls "a truly radical step" to curb unsafe sex -- forcing HIV-positive homosexual men who knowingly or negligently spread the virus to be financially accountable to their affected sexual partners.
The idea is being panned by medical experts who work extensively with the homosexual community, but it has drawn praise from a spokesman for a leading conservative group in Washington, D.C., who not only called the establishment of HIV paternity a "useful" idea, but said there should be more criminal prosecution for the reckless spread of HIV.
Dan Savage, whose column, "Savage Love," appears in publications including The Village Voice, first proposed the idea in his February 22 column. Savage compared his suggestion about HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) financial obligations to a heterosexual man being held responsible for paternity. While paternity forces child support payments, Savage's proposal would force homosexual spreaders of the HIV virus to be partly responsible for "drug support payments."
An HIV-positive individual must take an expensive and complicated combination of drugs - often referred to as a "cocktail" -- in order to stave off a case of full-blown AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.).
"One surefire way to curb unsafe sex would be to put the cost of AIDS meds (medications) into the equation," Savage wrote. "If the state can go after deadbeat dads and make them pay child support, why can't it go after deadbeat infectors and make them pay drug support?"
--
posted on March 14, 2005 01:31:14 PM new
I don't support it. Why? Both parties know they are supposed to have protected sex. The responsibility falls on both parties. You can't lay the blame and responsibility on just one of the people involved. Most who are HIV positive aren't working. They're on SSDI. Where are they getting the money to pay for the drugs? And, if someone is vicious enough to spread the disease willingly, what makes anything think they care if they're held financially responsible? What will happen to them if they don't pay? I think those types of people wouldn't care. They're going to die anyway. How do I know all of this? I once knew someone like that.
You have to take responsibility for protecting yourself and cannot lay the responsibility on anyone else.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 14, 2005 01:47:31 PM new
I couldn't agree more, cheryl, about taking personal responsibility.
But this proposal only calls for the 'carrier' to pay 1/2....his 1/2 of the cost of meds.
And it's been proposed because even with the knowledge we have now and the drugs we have now [that help] it's not changing enough behavior to slow the spread.
And now we've heard that there's a more potent strain of HIV...I believe reported in NY that's going to spread VERY quickly if something is not done.
I just liked this idea because it's, as they said, 'thinking outside the box' on what might make more take that personal responsibility you and I agree on.
posted on March 14, 2005 01:49:58 PM new
I support it if the infecting partner is aware they are infected. It's one thing to not know and be stupid however if you do know, you are now being negligent and you should be held responsible, both financially and criminally.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 14, 2005 02:01:16 PM new
Well, like I said, Good luck on collecting the money. So, what happens if the infecting party is unable to pay for 1/2 of the infected party's meds? Will the infected party still be able to get assistance on getting them? If someone is deliberately spreading HIV, I do believe they should be held criminally responsible. However, I think it would be like any other debt someone doesn't want to pay. You just don't pay it. I can't see that there's a way to make them pay if even a judgement against you means very little if you're not working or considered disabled.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 14, 2005 02:59:35 PM new
I cannot believe no one is screaming about the obvious discrimination in this.
"forcing HIV-positive homosexual men who knowingly"
Why this limitation? Shouldn't this be the case with ALL sexual partners of whatever sex or combination? Why limit it to just AIDS when there are so many other nasty STDs out there?
If some woman infects me during normal heterosexual sex, I'm not gonna be too happy about it. Granted, I personally would use protection, but still, the point is valid.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on March 14, 2005 03:05:15 PM new
So...replay...you enjoy screaming women?
Your point is one that occured to me when I first read it. Since this is no longer only a 'gay' disease...why would it not apply to all who infected whichever sex.
And I'm not trying to dismiss your other concerns about STD's, in any way, shape or form, but HIV/AIDS kills....the rest can be treated.
posted on March 14, 2005 03:06:55 PM new
Cheryl - These days the majority of HIV positive individuals are not sitting at home on public assistance. Modern medicine is accomplishing wonders and people go on living their lives, collecting checks, building business and the like. Hell, it's been 14 years since Magic Jognson was diagnosed positive he's not only still around, his viral load is nearly non existant. They may be down but don't count them out.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 14, 2005 03:30:42 PM new
I don't know fenix, it was the 4th and 6th leading cause of death in women in 2003 - I'll post a link in a minute.
posted on March 14, 2005 03:32:21 PM new
Linda, being infected and infecting someone else are different. You can understand how hard it would be for a woman to infect a man.
I'm wondering why only homosexual men. Why not straight men as well?
posted on March 14, 2005 03:52:32 PM new
Linda - it is quite easy for a woman to contract HIV but sexually based transmission is a whole nother matter.
Cheryl - I don't think law applies only to homosexual men. It's just that the article seems to be focusing on the fact that a gay man has come out in support of something that the gay lobby is against.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
What you have to understand is that the majority of the HIV patients I work with don't work. They contracted the disease before all the new medications came out. Therefore, they got sicker much faster. Most of them are in the hospital more than they are out. However, they are still sexually active. There's energy enough for that. Fortunately, through education these people have just one partner and are in committed relationships.
People contracting the disease today are far better cared for then they used to be. The only drug available to my brother was AZT. It killed him and quickly. He was always too ill to work. BTW, he wasn't gay. He was sexually assaulted one night while terribly drunk by the kind of person this article refers to.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on March 14, 2005 04:31:05 PM new
KD - I'd ask that you review the first link I provided....it's not that hard. HIV/AIDS has no sexual boundries...it can pass from anyone who is infected...no matter their sex.
I did agree above that anyone who knowingly infects another...should be held responsible.
posted on March 14, 2005 04:50:44 PM new
fenix and KD - IF you're saying that women infect men less....yes, I agree. What I'm not agreeing on is that women aren't also a large number of HIV/AIDS patients who ARE passing along the disease.
Like...in 2003 in ONLY heterosexual sex the numbers were:
male = 56,403
female = 93,586
So...the way I'm reading the stat from the CDC is in 2003 56,403 men became infected by women.
posted on March 14, 2005 05:07:49 PM new
Okay....sorry. Was just trying to find out who they believed were infecting all those heterosexual men...who weren't bisexual nor gay..nor drug users.
posted on March 15, 2005 04:49:08 AM new
Instead of having someone be financially responsible if they knowingly transmit HIV, that person should be charged with assault or attempted murder. This way there is a higher consequence then having to pay someone. As we know there are many fathers who are responsible for child support that never pay it.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 16, 2005 09:13:33 AM new
I finally figured out what a troll must be. The OP poster who alledgedly is not gay and has only so far shown hatred towards gays but posts a leading post about something that really has nothing to with her....or does it?
Colin, thank YOU for presenting the "christian" point of view.
posted on March 16, 2005 11:13:29 AM new "I believe anyone that knowingly passes on HIV, Gay or straight, should be executed."
Although that's an especially heinous crime it would be difficult to prove intent to harm, much less murder in such cases.. Since everyone with HIV has the potential to infect others do you believe that such disease carriers should be eradicated also?
