Is it morally wrong to endanger one's health and that of others?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
epan said:
In fact, some STD’s can be transmitted by virtually any skin to skin contact. Most people who are infected with an STD are unaware that they are infected. Others are blood borne, and more difficult to transmit. And then, there are all the other diseases which we transmit to each other…

In the context of this thread, and physical contact with another person may put your own health at risk.
Click to expand...
👍 That is why it is essential to investigate the sexual background of those who wish to adopt children.
 
tonyrey said:
That is why it is essential to investigate the sexual background of those who wish to adopt children.
Click to expand...
But you don’t want to do a background check. You want to know what they do in bed right now.
tonyrey said:
I would not recommend any couple who practise anal sex.
Click to expand...
‘Practice’ as in present tense. I guess it’s lucky that you’re not in the adoption business otherwise you might find yourself in court on a regular basis. Or getting punched out.

But in any case, presumably you’d be OK with two women who wanted to adopt.
 
Bradski said:
But you don’t want to do a background check. You want to know what they do in bed right now.
Click to expand...
You don’t even want to do a background check because adult pleasure is your priority.
‘Practice’ as in present tense. I guess it’s lucky that you’re not in the adoption business otherwise you might find yourself in court on a regular basis. Or getting punched out.
Click to expand...
In an amoral secular society that is to be expected. Might is not right…
 
tonyrey said:
You don’t even want to do a background check because adult pleasure is your priority.
Click to expand...
In an amoral secular society that is to be expected. Might is not right…

Probably cameras and sensors in every place public and private, and mandatory RFID and GPS implantation for all residents, tourists, citizens, would do the trick. Otherwise, people might be deceptive about their sexual practice. This should be monitored.

Anyone caught on camera who is not transmitting ID information could be dealt with automatically.
 
Bradski said:
But in any case, presumably you’d be OK with two women who wanted to adopt.
Click to expand...
tonyrey said:
The answer is obvious to anyone with an elementary knowledge of biology…
Click to expand...
Then I’ll take that as a yes. Fair enough. We’re making progress. So you’d be OK for two women to adopt a child but not for two men – because of the anal sex thing. If that’s what’s bothering you, would you be OK with two men adopting who expressed a dislike for anal sex?
 
Bradski said:
Then I’ll take that as a yes. Fair enough. We’re making progress. So you’d be OK for two women to adopt a child but not for two men – because of the anal sex thing. If that’s what’s bothering you, would you be OK with two men adopting who expressed a dislike for anal sex?
Click to expand...
A superfluous question considering that anal sex incurs a higher risk of contracting an infectious disease. I have also pointed out that children brought up by homosexuals are disadvantaged by being deprived of a paternal or maternal role model which is particularly important for them during adolescence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top