La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Aids, Gaia’s answer to a problem.Excuse me? Is that just some really bad joke? No, it's what I really believe. And what problem would that be specifically? Too much sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 In the Guardian is a report on moves to legalise prostitution ahead of the world cup. The spin is "to help reduce the spread of HIV amongst the fans"---sounds a bit like " to help fight the war on terror" but anyway, could they not go one better and involve the trade more into the competition?Loads of new events with a "hands on element" that you dont get with the steeplechase, any thoughts? Typical of the Grauniad not to know that prostitution is already legal, and indeed has never been illegal in the UK. Or are they going to legalise brothels? S OOps, my fault again, the report was about South Africa-----senior posting moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 And what problem would that be specifically? Too much sex? Aids is essentially a disease of immorality. Either direct immorality, or as a consequence of the immorality of a partner. In rare cases a consequence of immorality of others, such as occurs when people are infected by blood products from people who have themselves become infected as a result of immorality or the immoral behaviour of their partner. Overpopulation, a breakdown in civilised decent MORAL behaviour, the ludicrous proposition of equality of all people, all go together to provide the environment where a disease that decent living people would never be exposed to except in the very rare cases as a result of contaminated materials originating from the immoral or those associated with them is how nature cleanses its hives. A disease that attacks the immoral and people call it a plague? I don’t think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Dontcha just love him....the shining beacon of moral guardianship...must be time to crawl back in the iron lung?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Aids is essentially a disease of immorality. Either direct immorality, or as a consequence of the immorality of a partner. Since when has having sex been immoral? As far as I am concerned there is nothing immoral about having sex with a partner of the opposite or same sex, or with multiple partners at different or the same time, if you are really lucky, as long as it is open and consensual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Aids is essentially a disease of immorality. Either direct immorality, or as a consequence of the immorality of a partner. Since when has having sex been immoral? As far as I am concerned there is nothing immoral about having sex with a partner of the opposite or same sex, or with multiple partners at different or the same time, if you are really lucky, as long as it is open and consensual. Then you, and those holding similar views, are part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 And what problem would that be specifically? Too much sex? Aids is essentially a disease of immorality. Either direct immorality, or as a consequence of the immorality of a partner. In rare cases a consequence of immorality of others, such as occurs when people are infected by blood products from people who have themselves become infected as a result of immorality or the immoral behaviour of their partner. Overpopulation, a breakdown in civilised decent MORAL behaviour, the ludicrous proposition of equality of all people, all go together to provide the environment where a disease that decent living people would never be exposed to except in the very rare cases as a result of contaminated materials originating from the immoral or those associated with them is how nature cleanses its hives. A disease that attacks the immoral and people call it a plague? I don’t think so. It is immoral to have unprotected sex and engage in promiscuous behavious then? You honestly believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Then you, and those holding similar views, are part of the problem. I did not think that the speading of HIV, especially in Africa, was caused by the holding views. Rather it was spread because participants had "unprotected sex". If the majority wore condoms then whether they had one or two sexual partners in a lifetime within a loving relationship or were banging a different person every night then HIV would be less than an issue. Now I understand that one of the reasons that condoms are not worn by some in Africa is down to the those bastion of moral virtues the Catholic Church who actively teach that a condom provides no protection. Having said all the above I do not think there is anything immoral in choosing to have sex with lots of partners or with only one as long as it is consensual. Having sex with another whilst in a relationship I do consider wrong as you have made certain promises explicitly or implied to that other person but other wise if it is within the law I do not see it as a moral issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 We have to take into account that Rog is a bit religious, unfortunately. It might be where he gets his morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. STDs are clearly subject to some form or morality as there are taboos about sexual intercourse in this society. What has this do with anything sorry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 We have to take into account that Rog is a bit religious, unfortunately. It might be where he gets his morals. I presume by religous you mean Christain religous, in which case I wonder why he quotes morals since it is evident Eve must have have a child with at least one of her kids. Also this God guy must have had fairly dodgy morals himself as he got Mary up the dufff behind her husbands back. I sometimes just wish everybody was a Budhist or a Hindu as they seem so much more peaceful. I also think the latter had a lot more fun if you consider some of the carvings on some of the temples in India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Hindu is peaceful? No more so than Christianity I'd have thought. If anything, the Hindu pantheon has Gods of war, such as Kali (goddess). Jainists maybe are more peaceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It is immoral to have unprotected sex and engage in promiscuous behavious then? You honestly believe that? It’s got nothing to do with religion other than many things consistent with a stable society are encapsulated within religions. Sex for the sake of having sex is fornication. Especially in the case of promiscuous sex. Sex by making use of another person with the intent of self gratification with no concern as to the ongoing wellbeing of the other, or the long term consequences of engaging in an act that cas the potential to create a third party is philandery. Sex with someone who is in a committed relationship with someone else is adultery. Acceptance of philandery, fornication and / or adultery as a social norm is injurious to a society just as much as theft and murder is. A thing that is injurious to society is immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It’s got nothing to do with religion other than many things consistent with a stable society are encapsulated within religions. Sex for the sake of having sex is fornication. Especially in the case of promiscuous sex. Sex by making use of another person with the intent of self gratification with no concern as to the ongoing wellbeing of the other, or the long term consequences of engaging in an act that cas the potential to create a third party is philandery. Sex with someone who is in a committed relationship with someone else is adultery. Acceptance of philandery, fornication and / or adultery as a social norm is injurious to a society just as much as theft and murder is. Why? I am not in favour of adultery, infidelity or philandery but what is wrong with a bit of good old fornication, per your definition having sex for the sake of sex, as long as all parties are in agreement. From my perspective it is a physical activity from which many derive pleasure. Just like many other activities that we partake of for pleasure. Whilst sex may be a more private and intimate activity from my perspective it is everyones free choice with regard to how much or how little they partake. Just because 2 individuals want to give each other a good old rogering purely for pleasure and no other reason I see no problem with that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Just because 2 individuals want to give each other a good old rogering purely for pleasure and no other reason I see no problem with that at all. A most apposite word in the circumstances. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.