First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Illegal to have sex if you have HIV AIDS MRSA etc
536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

edsamac wrote:

^ Then what you're saying is a foot in the door. Do you think individuals who engage in acts of sexual promiscuity are to be damned on the spot? Quite frankly, you can name whatever biblical passages to refute the engagement of sexual acts, but you fail to recognize the very human act of sin, itself. It is a sinful act ~ that's a given ~ but who are we to place judgement and damnation over them?

I've come to meet a very forgiving God in scripture, not one that is stringent and unaffected by the fact that his children are suffering. The parable of the Prodigal Son is perhaps THE most cliched scripture, but certainly not the least truthful, account on the immeasurable forgiveness of a loving God.


I won't go to the extent of damning these people. For all I know, they will realize their err and turn to God. At least that's how a Christian SHOULD think.




If god is so forgiving, there will never be a need for noah arc. I'm not a christian so i won't comment on your moral and ethics inclusive of your concept of sins in the bible. I'm placing judgement in the aspect of law, Which is to protect the common ppl, the unaffected majority ppl. This is how politics and law works, if you really want to help these ppl then, go politics, seize the power in legislative branch.

Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
Yes, they should get a tattoo on their forehead that says, "I have *name of the disease*"
Woohoo..that's the way to go

Flo~
2920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Singapore
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
absolutely yes... so as to prevent the disease from spreading...
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

Onerain wrote:


If god is so forgiving, there will never be a need for noah arc. I'm not a christian so i won't comment on your moral and ethics inclusive of your concept of sins in the bible. I'm placing judgement in the aspect of law, Which is to protect the common ppl, the unaffected majority ppl. This is how politics and law works, if you really want to help these ppl then, go politics, seize the power in legislative branch.



Wow... great, how you used the bible to explain much of your "ethics" and judgement on people. With that type of framework, you're placing the letters of the scripture on a level of greater importance than the spirit, itself.

You'd be wise not to quote on something that you don't necessarily believe in. It's true that laws were created to protect the greater good, but your gross misinterpretation of the Law, as written in scriptures, is just pitiful.


I rest my case on this argument with you.
8432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

bugleboi wrote:

can i ask a question about STD?
as far as i know STD wasn't there in early days,
I was wondering how STD appeared?
is it true that theres a myth saying that a soldier was trapped into some place and had sex with a monkey and got the decease from it?
just curious


STD is not just one particular disease, it's a general term for ALL sexually transmitted disease. From what I read I believe you're talking about the HIV virus. If I can remember correctly the HIV virus comes originally from Africans cutting raw monkey meat and wounding themselves in the process.

On other note, I believe that people that who were diagnosed HIV positive, prior to having unprotected sex should be punishable by the law. On the other hand, to force everyone to check themselves for AIDS is just ludicrous and complete waste of tax money. Never mind the fact that we live in a free country where people have the right not to be forced a check-up, but the long incubation period of the HIV virus would make this task futile.

The fault should not lie fully on the people with the STDs but also the one who gets infected. To have unprotected sex with stranger or to share a syringe with fellow drug user they knowingly risk themselves to STDs. Assuming it was not the mistake of others, such as the improper disinfecting of syringe needles in clinics, blood donation, by birth, or by rape, and also assuming they have adequate knowledge on how STDs spread.
8715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
Banning people with HIV/AIDS, I believe will lower the cases of HIV/AIDS. Does this mean I want that to happen? No. I feel it's too cruel of a punishment to make them unable to have sex, plus how will they track that person down? Will they follow him for the rest of his life, wherever he may go? Will they be in every room he's in at all times? I doubt that's an affordable way to stop people from spreading HIV/AIDS. One way to greatly reduce your chances of getting HIV/AIDS is not go to clubs every day, get drunk and have a one night stand with person. You can get the disease other ways but most of the time those ways won't be "available" to you anyways. This may sound gross and perverted... but if you REALLY want to be "relieved"... grab the one partner that is very very very very very very very very very VERY unlikely to have HIV/AIDS... that is your hand. Unless you have someone else's semen/blood/etc... that has HIV/AIDS on it.. you won't get it. So if you haven't played with blood/etc. from another person recently.. and you wash your hands and shower sometimes. You won't get it the disease.
8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
I don't htink its illegal I think your info should be available more accesibly so your partner can c
22358 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Nightscape
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
I was reading a health magazine which had an article on aids and there was an ad for ID bracelets for people who are HIV positive or have aids. The bracelet didn't have HIV positive engraved on it, instead it had a little symbol. The bracelet was advertised as away for people who are HIV positive to recognize others with the same disease. The article had interviewed a person with HIV for her reaction. The woman said the bracelet didn't appeal to her because she didn't want people to know she was HIV positive. She said that she didn't want to be treated differently because of her disease.

Of course I think that if the police can prove that a person knew about their condition, yet still chose to have unprotected sex, donate blood, or share needles should be punishable by law.
536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

edsamac wrote:

Wow... great, how you used the bible to explain much of your "ethics" and judgement on people. With that type of framework, you're placing the letters of the scripture on a level of greater importance than the spirit, itself.


This concept only appears after the methodist movement during the 1900s. just food for thought. Is it the same situation before noah arc?


edsamac wrote:
You'd be wise not to quote on something that you don't necessarily believe in. It's true that laws were created to protect the greater good, but your gross misinterpretation of the Law, as written in scriptures, is just pitiful.


I rest my case on this argument with you.


As a legal researcher, my understanding of the law have to come from all the religions, history, politics and the philosophies that form the law. You can see if you do a research into the histories of the interpretation of your scriptures that there was no misinterpretation on my part. My answers are based on the philosophy that i adhere to so it will be biased in your eyes.

Laws can't be twist around or given a spiritual interpretation once accepted into the penal code, if not there will be chaos in the judiciary system as people will appeal of discrimination.

I apologize for this reply, i just enjoy a intellectual discussion when i'm trying to work out something.
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
^ I get your point, but I'm just disappointed in the amount of analysis that you've put into it, so much so that you've turned the human being into a monolithic form that adheres to social structures and is, in effect, a simple mechanism that determines it's stability. It's true that the law was made to enforce the common good, but your reasoning makes me feel that a certain "humanist" aspect is lacking.


I agree with the law controlling and keeping pandemics, such as AIDS, in check. I do not agree with the law alienating a human from his basic rights, and turning him into something that can be condemned. Your framework turns an infected individual into a case study ~ into a disgrace that has no hope for redemption. I cannot subscribe with such cruel methods.
920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Edmonton
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
Erm, it already is illegal for someone with a mortal disease that is transferrable through sex to have sex WITHOUT TELLING THE PARTNER BEFOREHAND.

If the victim can prove that the partner with any such disease did not inform him/her beforehand, then there you go...

However, if you're informed about the disease, and you consent to the sex, then too bad so sad if you get the disease.

As for making sex completely against the law for those with such diseases, I believe that the view is way too extreme for most countries. Ultimately, I would say that the decision would depend on how much a crisis is the country in regarding such diseases.
1007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
In sweden youre supposed to inform your sex partner about your disease, otherwise you may end up with a big fine or prison.
(for you who can read it) This guy got 14 years http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article1747968.ab he sexually absuse of both minor and other however two of these girls got infected by HIV and those two were deemed as aggravated assault.

*im trying to talk with dad on the phone as im writing this so there might be some errors*
1947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Desu~, Desu~
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
It should be illegal to pass it on purposely. Thats it. If a person got it by accident, or their partner never told them, then, thats pretty damn cruel.

And, once again, the bible is brought into a topic where it should GTFO.
1912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Vancouver
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08

Michi_Michi wrote:

It should be illegal to pass it on purposely. Thats it. If a person got it by accident, or their partner never told them, then, thats pretty damn cruel.

And, once again, the bible is brought into a topic where it should GTFO.


If only..=[

Anyways, if a person knows they have it, they should pretty damn well know that they shouldn't. Atleast use a condom for your partners sake.

3630 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Mars
Offline
Posted 2/3/08 , edited 4/18/08
people are gonna do it anyways, just saying it's illegal won't stop them....why don't we just ship all the people with HIV/AIDS to china or something
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.