"Live and let live" is a great motto, and one in which I subscribe to myself. But just because I believe that MOST of the time people should be allowed to live a happy life unencumbered by legislation culled from ignorance and hatred, I do not see the doctrine of "live and let live" as written in stone. Some laws exist for a very good reason -- and some social actions have far-reaching consequences which extend beyond the harmless. "If it feels good, do it" sadly no longer applies. HIV put an end to that.
I think we often spend too much time pretending HIV doesn't exist, or at the very least ignoring it. It's easier that way.
Except for childhood experimentation with neighborhood buddies, I have never had sex in a world without HIV. Men in their twenties and thirties today have also never have sex in a world without HIV. Because they have survived so far, I think some of them consider it just another annoyance which can be easily disregarded. It's like your Mom telling you not to go outside without wearing a hat in winter. You understand WHY she wants you to keep warm, but the hat looks so stupid and your friends will make fun of you -- so you ignore her admonitions. And hey, you haven't had any problems because of it so far, so why should you expect any problems in the future? And while we know cold viruses don't proliferate as a direct result of being cold, we would probably wish we DID have a hat on our heads if we ever had to spend an extended period of time outdoors in January. Frostbite on the ears isn't pleasant, after all. We could have prevented this if we had listened...
Anti-smoking laws do NOT protect the smokers themselves. They are designed to protect NON-smokers. Also, only 10% of smokers will get lung cancer. Many, many more will develop heart disease, emphysema and other conditions from smoking. Many of these people will also die as a result. But it is NOT true by any stretch of the imagination that ALL smokers will die from smoking, nor is it true that all will die from lung cancer (odds are good, yes -- but it is not absolutely certain). My ex-mother-in-law is eighty-six years old now. She has had emphysema for about twenty-five years. It's not a good thing. Her life from age seventy-five until now has been limited because of her condition (she quit smoking just before she was diagnosed). However, she is FAR from dead. Additionally, her life with emphysema was a cake-walk as compared to the life of an HIV patient. I won't get into the gritty details, but we are all aware that just because some people are ALIVE and have HIV does't mean their life is pleasant. The meds are HORRID, the infections never end, the sickness is FOREVER. Just because you are "getting by" doesn't mean you are doing well and have a QUALITY life.
On the other hand, as it stands right now, HIV kills you EVERY single time. There are NO exceptions at the present time. We can use imaginary justification and say that some people have had HIV for twenty years and the anti-virals are keeping them going. We can hold out hope that a cure will be found before they actually DO pass away. I wish and I hope and I pray (in my own way) that this DOES come true. But so far... it sure hasn't. Right now, HIV IS A TERMINAL DISEASE.
Furthermore, most smokers that I have met have a desire to quit and do the right thing. Most smokers also would NEVER advocate to ANYONE that they start smoking. Most smokers respect the wishes of the non-smoking public and do not force their habit on others.
We cannot say this is equally true of barebackers. There are, in fact, advocacy groups of barebackers who, for some incomprehensible reason, try to defend their deadly choice.
And because we strive to be non-offensive and politically correct, some of us refuse to stand up to them. THAT is a huge mistake.
Even though we may not believe that we need to EARN the respect of anyone in government, it would be in our best interest to play the game and make it clear that the gay community, as a whole, does NOT support the dangerous behavior of a few deluded individuals.
By age thirty, I'd think most of us should have learned that life is NOT fair. There are little injustices in daily life, and HUGE injustices within the social fabric. We've come to EXPECT societal perfection, yet such a thing does not exist anywhere in the world at the present time. So we are obligated to play the game to the best of our ability. Sometimes we will draw the right card or roll the right number on the dice and we can advance a little on the playing field. Other times... "Do not pass Go, do not collect $200." Bummer. But we ALWAYS get another turn to play.
As for BMG's question -- at least ONE of the porn actors who tested HIV+ had his infection traced to a porn actress from a South American nation, so they know it was an infection spread within the industry itself. But of course you are correct: actors and actresses can certainly get it from their private lives. I do believe the story that came out in mid-April from whence this all originated also traced infections within the industry.
So, just like legalized prostitution in Nevada, there is going to be a push for certain rules to be put in place within another sex industry. Ladies of the evening in Nevada brothels are tested, and while we can debate the validity of such testing when we consider that HIV doesn't always show up immediately on a test after infection, we can see from the lack of infection among prostitutes there that this actually DOES work. It's a matter of SOMETHING being better than NOTHING at all. May as well do what we can.
"Employees must wash hands after using the restroom." This rule exists for a reason. I am not sure about ALL fifty states, but I do believe it is an actual law and not just a workplace suggestion. It's impossible to enforce it ALL the time, but I'm glad it exists just the same. MOST folks would follow through with some soap and water before heading back to the kitchen to cook up the next Big Bacon Classic.
The crux of all this isn't that anyone is out to put a damper on homosexuals enjoyment of porn. As I mentioned, I'm sure there are some in government who see this as a nice benefit, hating gays as they do. But this isn't the "agenda." The agenda is to ask WHY laws apply to ALL other professions to protect employees against biohazards, yet porn studios have ignored these laws so far.
I think it is important to see the big picture. There are plenty of examples of government interfering with the personal lives of gays and straights, and plenty of legislation written as the result of hatred, ignorance, and Biblical delusion. It's just that this is NOT part of that.
Gay porn studios have used condoms in many films in order to set an example and to teach. That has been their own CHOICE.
Do we also know that the manufacturers of hard liquor products have VOLUNTARILY refrained from using television advertising? This was an industry CHOICE. It placated the government as well as the populace -- and it hasn't hurt sales at all.
Laws and rules of conduct and community health codes exist for a reason. If we trace them all back to their source, we find that the reason for each and every one is to protect individuals from the poor choices that OTHER individuals might make.
If someone doesn't want to be around me if I'm smoking, there are laws which stop me from doing so. I can't hide it. I can't somehow "sneak" a cigarette in a supermarket or movie theater. I cannot force anyone to be around me when I want to smoke if they do not wish to do so. Yet someone who barebacks CAN hide this fact. They can lie about it, they can avoid the topic. If they have HIV, they may not even KNOW it. Therefore, I must do what I have to do on my OWN in order to protect myself from these people. There is no way the government can protect me.
So... one little rule which would make the porn industry adhere to the same rule which has applied to all other industries doesn't seem like a big deal. It's one very small thing out of many.
It would be fun to see how the non-smokers might feel if the laws banning public smoking were changed. The outrage would be intense and immediate.
I don't like wearing a seatbelt, but I do it anyway. The laws vary from state to state. In NH, you are not required to wear one if you are over eighteen (maybe sixteen, I forget). Yet I've worn a seatbelt for so many years now that it feels completely WRONG to get in my vehicle without putting it on. I WISH it wasn't a law -- it just seems to me that most people would wear them because it is the right thing to do. It isn't necessary, in my opinion, for the government to tell me that I MUST wear it or pay a fine. I'd wear it anyway, just because flying through the windshield doesn't sound like fun to me. A cousin of mine died from not wearing hers (I only met her once, we were not close). Had she made the right decision on her own, she'd be alive today. Had she followed the law even if she didn't want to make the decision herself, she'd be alive today.
Too many people just jump the gun these days -- it is EASIER and quite often much more "fun" to have something to get riled about. When we don't like our existing government, we often LOOK for more things about which we can complain.
And that's really the bottom line. I'd be willing to accept differing opinions, provided they are based on good, solid logic and have been carefully thought through.
It isn't easy to change someone's mind, and it is unlikely that this will happen in each and every circumstance. We have found out the hard way that we cannot change the opinions of those who hate us based on religion or some warped political bias. But... we still at least TRY.
So I have to TRY, when I can.
It's not about forcing people to see it MY way. It's about asking people to think things through before committing to a gut-emotional response.
That's all.
|