Comments on: The Jesus and Constitution Party http://www.speedkill.org/2004/06/28/660/ Radioactive Toy Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:42:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: heliologue http://www.speedkill.org/2004/06/28/660/#comment-451 heliologue Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2004/06/660/#comment-451 It wouldn't surprise me if they were talking about homosexuals, as though allowing gays to marry is going to encourage the spread of HIV. You wouldn't think it, but there's still this awful mindset that HIV doesn't arise from anything but homosexuals and the sluttiest of heterosexuals. It's pathetic. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were talking about homosexuals, as though allowing gays to marry is going to encourage the spread of HIV. You wouldn’t think it, but there’s still this awful mindset that HIV doesn’t arise from anything but homosexuals and the sluttiest of heterosexuals. It’s pathetic.

]]> By: Blib http://www.speedkill.org/2004/06/28/660/#comment-452 Blib Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2004/06/660/#comment-452 A lot of states already have laws against knowingly exposing someone to HIV. It's considered first degree assault in Washington. It's a felony in Virginia for a prostitute to knowingly expose a client to any STD. I'm a little confused on what the Constitution Party means by subsidizing activities that lead to sexual perversion or promiscuity though. Also, the 16th Amendment does have a pretty long history of controversy. If I understand correctly there's some debate over whether it was even correctly ratified into the Constitution, so a person might almost be able to get away with calling it unconstitutional. A lot of states already have laws against knowingly exposing someone to HIV. It’s considered first degree assault in Washington. It’s a felony in Virginia for a prostitute to knowingly expose a client to any STD. I’m a little confused on what the Constitution Party means by subsidizing activities that lead to sexual perversion or promiscuity though.

Also, the 16th Amendment does have a pretty long history of controversy. If I understand correctly there’s some debate over whether it was even correctly ratified into the Constitution, so a person might almost be able to get away with calling it unconstitutional.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.speedkill.org/2004/06/28/660/#comment-453 Jeff Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2004/06/660/#comment-453 <i>A lot of states already have laws against knowingly exposing someone to HIV. It's considered first degree assault in Washington. It's a felony in Virginia for a prostitute to knowingly expose a client to any STD.</i> I was vaguely aware of that. Do those laws have anything in them about consent, as in if the person is aware the other has HIV, and they still go through with, it's still a crime? What came to mind when I read their stance was two consenting adults, one with HIV and the other knowing that, but still having unprotected sex. A lot of states already have laws against knowingly exposing someone to HIV. It’s considered first degree assault in Washington. It’s a felony in Virginia for a prostitute to knowingly expose a client to any STD.

I was vaguely aware of that. Do those laws have anything in them about consent, as in if the person is aware the other has HIV, and they still go through with, it’s still a crime? What came to mind when I read their stance was two consenting adults, one with HIV and the other knowing that, but still having unprotected sex.

]]> By: Blib http://www.speedkill.org/2004/06/28/660/#comment-454 Blib Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/index.php/archives/2004/06/660/#comment-454 Not sure about the mutual consent thing. It would make sense that if both were aware of the disease, there would be no grounds to prosecute one or the other. But if I know the wonderful world of law (and admittedly, I don't really :) ), there's probably some loophole or another. Not to open an entirely different can of worms, but I would guess it's kind of similar to the situation where there are two consenting adults but one of them is a year, a month, or even a day under the age where they are an adult by the legal definition... the minor could still prosecute the other for rape, even though both were fully aware of the situation. It would come down to one person's word against another, and the jury would probably feel more compelled to take the "victim's" word to heart. Not sure about the mutual consent thing. It would make sense that if both were aware of the disease, there would be no grounds to prosecute one or the other. But if I know the wonderful world of law (and admittedly, I don’t really :) ), there’s probably some loophole or another. Not to open an entirely different can of worms, but I would guess it’s kind of similar to the situation where there are two consenting adults but one of them is a year, a month, or even a day under the age where they are an adult by the legal definition… the minor could still prosecute the other for rape, even though both were fully aware of the situation. It would come down to one person’s word against another, and the jury would probably feel more compelled to take the “victim’s” word to heart.

]]>