Skip to comments.Another Gay Rights Victory: Sentence for Man Who Exposed Other Man to HIV Thrown Out
Posted on 06/17/2014 9:47:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m not sure how a ruling that frees gay men to expose their sex partners to a deadly virus is a gay rights victory, but clearly I’m not keeping pace with the frenzied rush of liberalism through the gates of madness.
If gay marriage was marriage equality, what’s this? Viral equality?
State Sen. Matt McCoy of Des Moines cut off Nick Rhoades’ ankle bracelet at a gathering in Grinnell. The crowd was cheering. People were crying.
“It was totally moving and made all the work worthwhile,” said Terry Lowman, who attended the event. “To me, the drama played like Jesus washing the feet of the poor. I was so totally moved.”
Sure. Except the “poor” in this case was a man with HIV who had sex with another man without telling him he had it. In his defense, the other man didn’t actually come down with it.
So clearly he’s the innocent victim here.
In Cedar Falls, Rhoades and A.P. engaged in consensual unprotected oral and protected anal sex. Several days later, A.P. learned Rhoades was potentially HIV positive. A.P. contacted the police, and subsequently the State charged Rhoades with criminal transmission of HIV in violation of Iowa Code section 709C.1
Rhoades knew he had HIV since 1998 but he described himself as HIV-negative on the social network website where he met A.P. in 2008.
Any jury in the case would have heard evidence that “A.P. performed unprotected oral sex on Rhoades, that there was a possibility of failed protection during anal sex, and that Rhoades later apologized to the victim,” he added.
The complaint was made by a gay man against Rhoades. Rhoades was not the victim here, he was the perpetrator.
The Des Moines Register stories on this are a mix between propaganda and crazy lies.
In 2009 Rhoades pleaded guilty to criminal transmission of HIV, and while his 25-year prison sentence was later reduced to probation for five years, he still has a felony criminal record and is required to be on the state’s sex-offender registry. In the meantime, advocates of equal rights for gays and lesbians took up his cause, the Iowa Legislature this year changed the state law on which he was convicted and Gov. Terry Branstad recently signed the bill into law.
Good news for gay men with HIV. Not so much for gay men without HIV. But the latter category should probably rethink their HIV-free privilege.
This Iowa man had consensual sex with another adult who didn’t contract HIV, yet he was prohibited from being around minors without supervision. The punishment imposed on Rhoades was horrific, and state lawmakers knew it.
That’s not a horrific punishment. A horrific punishment is knowingly exposing someone else to a deadly virus.
Liberals are obsessed with rape culture. They have defined rape down quite a bit. But when it comes to gay men, suddenly this is considered consensual sex.
But gay activists are still unhappy with any legal ban for knowingly infecting someone else.
HIV transmission should not be criminalizedever. HIV criminalization laws do absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of the virus. They stigmatize HIV-positive people, dissuade people from getting tested, and undermine public health goals. They are exceedingly difficult to enforce and based on junk science. They should all be repealed, entirely, immediately.
There you have liberalism in all its glory.
All of this is certainly progress. But LGBTQ activists should resist the urge to ballyhoo Iowas new law as a model for the other 34 states that criminalize HIV exposure or transmission. The revised Iowa law may have removed the bizarrely harsh, unscientific penalty that Rhoades initially faced, which slapped him with a 25-year prison sentence for theoretically exposing a partner to HIV without actually transmitting the virus. But an HIV-positive person who knows hes positive and transmits the virus to a partner with reckless disregard still faces five years in prison.
When there’s real progress, then gay men will be able to spread AIDS as much as they like without ever being prosecuted. Disagreeing will be a hate crime… because this is liberalism.
So, how long before they pardon Jerry Sandusky and pay him compensation for time served?
“Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion”
As twisted ‘gay’ theology goes, God made them this way, hence redemption means suffering on the upside-down cross of ‘gay’ sex.
His pardon defense. “He loves children”.
This rights a longtime wrong for gays. Next—allow them to donate blood without questioning or testing. They shouldn’t be stigmatized.
Better not forget the “/S” here.
“When theres real progress, then gay men will be able to spread AIDS as much as they like”
Can’t spread it if no one let’s them infect them.
Weirdly, I actually agree with the “activists”.
Reading the article, am I clear that Gov. Branstad signed the new law decriminalizing the reckless potential trasmission of HIV? Really?
Either my notions of conservatism are all out of whack, or Branstad is.
So now it’s legal for gay men to infect other gay men with HIV.
In other news, the appeals court set aside the prison sentence of “Typhoid” Mary Mallon, who while working as a cook, knowingly infected some 51 people with typhoid fever, killing 3 of them.
When asked about her plans, she replied with her intent to return to food service, because she wants to infect as many people as possible. “I have a right to do whatever I want to do!”
Its gone beyond simple acceptance and has become some kind of weird glorification of homosexuality
But nothing will change the disease, mental illness, suicide, addictions and violence they suffer due to their “lifestyle” choices. And its not me saying that - its the CDC, among others.
Since HIV infection is little more than an “inconvenience” for most of these reprobates, thanks to medical “progress,” they no longer see it as a judgement on their behavior.
It has been turned around to become a “judgement” on the vast number of normal people, who must now shoulder the exorbitant insurance costs of tens of thousands of dollars a year, for life, for these moral criminals.
From the Supreme Court on down, our judicial system has been totally corrupted by elite liberalism, better comprehended as Communism.
Who threw it out and what was their basis?
Not exactly. The new law he signed still provides punishment for those that expose others to infectious diseases. But, the end result is significantly less punishment for those doing so that have HIV.
Still, it is outrage this creep is being treated like some kind of victim and got off with a slap on the wrist.
Kerry: Let Gay Men Give Blood
I would point out, however, that your assumption that the gays are simply killing each other and anyone else foolish enough to come in contact with them is, I'm afraid, becoming less likely. The Fairy Medical system is working 24/7/365 to discover a cure, and can now delay 'suicide by orgasm' for years.
From my reading of this, they got rid of a law specific to HIV transmission.
Which I actually find myself ok with, under the same reason why I oppose “hate crimes” legislation. Charging someone who knowingly transmits HIV to someone else without their knowlege can just as easily be charged under various endangerment, assault with a deadly weapon and attempted homicide (upgraded to homicide if the recipient should eventually die) statutes.
Beyond that, this might best be left to the civil courts anyways. Let the gays divide themselves along HIV positive vs not positive and sue each other into oblivion ...
So intentionally infecting people with HIV in a sick sadistic slow murder spree is now a “right”.
And it impacts children and teens as well.
Westfall PA recently had a teenager expose “upwards of 80 people” to HIV.
Buzz is that the kid was ‘bisexual’, and was involved in the ‘party scene’ where group sex/threesomes and other such ‘delights’ are happening.
And thanks to health laws and the kids age, not a peep in the papers or even the jerks name.
The next step is to allow gay men to give blood then let them off the hook when they lie about having HIV. Why would someone do that? Because they want to feel “validated” as a person, regardless of the consequences to others. In short, something only a liberal could understand.
The Third World “Children’s crusade” of gang bangers from central america is comming here with all sorts of diseases...
So why not a little HIV too...
The problem with HIV/AIDS is that it takes too long. They can infect many, many others before going to their “reward”.
does “assault” require a resulting visible wound, or is not assault - physical attack - a crime whether or not the victim is seriously injured by the assault??
I believe it is the latter.
Negligently putting someone else at risk is not LESS negligent only because a result of the risk did not
Additionally, has not HIV been able to “hide” for some period of time before it is detected?? True?? If so, the risk remains.
When the victims start shooting the infected queers who deliberately and deceptively infected them with a deadly disease, such sexcapades will become rare.
Being queer must not be used as an excuse tto claim immunity from the consequences of one actions. It is long past time the infected queers discover that sex acts, like other acts, have consequences.
well if they can let gay men skate for this its only fair to let straight men skate on pregnancy.
and no i do’t want either to skate but i don’t want legal double standards either.
The homosexual activists have just given themselves a death sentence.
I suppose it’s the “Gay” special right to get infected with a terminal virus and die...
How did the town vote in the last election? If it went for Obama, then there is no great loss. Children of Progressives are beyond redemption.
I understand that thought.
Don’t recall that stat offhand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.