Having a lot of experience in dealing with media, the law, criminal HIV transmission, etc. I would really love to see the "disclosure" as it were from the court case simply for the fact of there is one critical element of precedent that is not yet set in the field of criminal HIV transmission. It is more than just a question of did the person disclose or not. It is also a question of whether or not status was asked in conversation, as well as would the "victim" have consented to sexual engagement had they known their status, or for that matter that they would have consented knowing that there was a possibility that they could have contracted HIV from someone and not reached the point of seroconversion in some cases. That being said, there's also the responsibility of both parties to use a condom, just for the simple fact that you can never be sure of what someone has for a variety of reasons. This also is something that I tend to question when reading such a thing. Don't get me wrong though, if a person knows their status, lies about it, and fails to use a condom, that is a whole other ball of wax on a number of levels than for example, not being asked for your status (generally because the person in question doesn't care) and not disclosing it, but insisting on the use of a condom as not to transmit HIV. In the case of the first example, I would agree that such a sentence for one single case is barely enough, however that brings us to yet another problem. No clear guideline in terms of criminal HIV transmission has ever been set when it comes to sentencing, the "test of fact" with respect to the medical risk or circumstances determining not only whether or not to convict, but also what is deemed the "standard or maximum guideline" as is outlined with other sexual and/or violent related offences. That brings me to the second point of curiosity to see the disclosure and reference the case… The different risk factors involved in the case should directly impact on such things, however as historical pattern has shown, they don't. What were the more in depth details of the case? this is most essential to know just for the simple fact of proving yet another example of how judgments on the topic, as well as the standards used in which to determine the sentencing both remain inconsistent... Don't mind the small rant, it's just this particular type of article hits a little too close to home for it not to spark some curiosity with respect to the details on exactly how things went down, while at the same time also outraging me for a number of personal reasons just reading about such a subject. The only other thing I will say is I've spent WAAAAY too much time in a courtroom recently.

Idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Considering that a lot of them still fly a confederate flag in their back yard in that neck of the woods, that's a shocker actually… I know this because I have seen this with my own eyes when I lived in that neck of the woods.

Some liberal Catholic commentators have criticized the bishops’ priorities, saying they are playing into the culture wars. John Gehring, Catholic outreach coordinator with Faith in Public Life, a liberal religious advocacy group in Washington, said, “The bishops speak in hushed tones when it comes to poverty and economic justice issues, and use a big megaphone when it comes to abortion and religious liberty issues.” As long as this is the accepted behavior of Bishops nothing will change. And change is needed badly these days.

This is about pedophilia not Homosexuality.  IMHO. This whole story reminds people of the old stigma of recruiting and will cause many wild reactions. Sandusky was and is a pedophile pure and simple as that.

[image: 1781651063349-42cff6588860.gif]

Being Canadian, and thus a part of the Commonwealth of Nations, I was very happy to see this. I know that India, who is also a part of the organization, is taking the suggestion to heart.

You know, I don't think that the only reason gay people get married is to hold with tradition. I think that's maybe a reason for some, but more importantly I think there are a lot of gay people who are religious. A gay church in Dallas, Texas, Cathedral of Hope, paid for my college tuition, and I live in Alaska! They have enough partitioners donating money that they could afford to do that. The Metropolitan Community Church, which caters to the GLBT population, is really growing, and there are so many denominations of traditional Christianity that are now accepting us more and more, such as the Episcopalians, ELCA Lutherans, some Protestant churches, etc. I just think it's messed up that the UK won't give it's GLBT citizens equal marriage. WTF is with that? At least it's better than in the US.