Far better to ask the right questions so that the person can take responsibility for learning these truths for themselves.

Bob: “So, Steve, you seem interested in Dave. Have you had “the conversation” about HIV status yet?”

Steve: “Well, no.”

Bob: “Hmm, seems like an important conversation to have before you head home with him, don’t you think?”

In the intricate web of life, we all have a certain responsibility for each other. Often, this is best achieved by prompting another to be more responsible for himself.

Excellent work, Jim; reasonable, accurate, and respectful.

So obviously, professional homophobes will be quick to criticize it. Such folks just hate reason, accurate and respect for GLBTQ people.

Brilliantly thought out.

I think this is an issue that goes to the core of how one views the world.

Libertarian minded persons (regardless of political affiliation) tend to believe that each individual is – for the most part – master of his own fate. And while we each seek to alleviate any disaster we see coming, we also recognize that ultimately we can’t be responsible for the Steves of the world.

Authoritarian minded persons (again regardless of political affiliation) tend to believe that each person must be controlled and required to behave in a certain manner. The collective good overrides individual responsibility generally and individual rights always.

Libertarians (small L) think that Steve is the primary responsible party here. Authoritarians think Bob should be the one to control those around him.

This often is reflected in gay political issues.

Those most likely to hold Bob responsible are also those who believe that they can and should pass laws restricting the rights of gay citizens – for the greater good of the community. “What ifs” rule the day.

Those who support freedom and equality for gay persons tend to also believe that Steve and Dave are free to make their decisions – even very bad decisions – and that Bob’s interference should only be when Bob knows for certain that unsafe sex is going to occur. Individual circumstances rule the day.

Or so it seems to me.

Bottom line, if I knew two friends who might hook up and I knew one of them had a disease that could be spread via intimate contact, I would tell my unsuspecting friend as well as the friend who had the condition that I was going to do so. Sure, I might have to deal with fall out; but I believe I might have to deal with a different kind of fall out if I say nothing.

Not to mention…

There are all kinds of fun that one can have while remaining 100% safe (that was me in the ’80′s), and even more fun one can have while remaining 98-99% safe (me in the ’90′s with my HIV positive partner until his death) and a “full response” while remaining 95% safe (me in the late ’90′s and ’00′s until I met my current partner).

Both my husband and I are negative, and monogamous, so we’re 100% safe, even though we’re 100% unsafe, so to speak.

The sticking point in this story is Steve. His upset indicates to me that there was another agenda for him, one that was frustrated but which was not acknowledged. He could have had a good time with Dave, maybe even found the guy of his dreams, as I did with my late partner. It surprised the hell out of me. I wouldn’t have traded the 5.5 years for anything. Today is the 12th anniversary of his death.