If it's proven there's no god

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the homosexual men in the UK were fully aware that their sexual practices carried with it inherent health risks and yet they still engaged in them and you will not condemn them morally.

But heterosexuals in the UK are also fully aware that their sexual practices carry with them inherent health risks and yet they still engage in them. Neither of us condemn them though ~ or I certainly don't, unless the transmission of infections is done willfully or with willful negligence. There is nothing immoral about homosexual sex in and of itself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the homosexual men in the UK were fully aware that their sexual practices carried with it inherent health risks and yet they still engaged in them and you will not condemn them morally.

I won't simply condemn an entire demographic group. But I am willing to condemn individuals over their morally unsound behaviour where such condemnation is warranted.

Originally posted by FMF
I won't simply condemn an entire demographic group. But I am willing to condemn individuals over their morally unsound behaviour where such condemnation is warranted.

They were fully cognizant of the health risks and stand condemned by their actions. It is of some interest that you could not bring yourself to admit it and yet we find you moralising over others.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They were fully cognizant of the health risks and stand condemned by their actions. It is of some interest that you could not bring yourself to admit it and yet we find you moralising over others.

Like I said, each and every sexually active heterosexual and homosexual is responsible for their own awareness of their personal sexual health and it will vary from person to person. I will not condemn an entire group of people in this case unless the group identified comprises heterosexuals and homosexuals who knowingly or negligently infect their partners.

Originally posted by FMF
Like I said, each and every sexually active heterosexual and homosexual is responsible for their own awareness of their personal sexual health and it will vary from person to person. I will not condemn an entire group of people in this case unless the group identified comprises heterosexuals and homosexuals who knowingly or negligently infect their partners.

then you will condemn knowingly engaging in a sexual practice fully cognizant of the health risks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then you will condemn knowingly engaging in a sexual practice fully cognizant of the health risks.

I condemn exactly what I have said that I condemn ~ over and over again on the last few pages of this thread. I do not condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex except in the circumstances that I have clearly explained to you.

Originally posted by FMF
I condemn exactly what I have said that I condemn ~ over and over again on the last few pages of this thread. I do not condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex except in the circumstances that I have clearly explained to you.

if they were fully cognizant of the health risks and we have come to understand that they were they you condemn them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if they were fully cognizant of the health risks and we have come to understand that they were they you condemn them.

If they were fully cognizant of their own infection or contraction of a disease and then knowingly passed it on to a sexual partner, then that would be morally unsound behaviour. Remember, something in the region of 94% of male homosexuals in the UK are free of HIV. I will not condemn homosexual men as a group as there is nothing inherently immoral about homosexual sex.

Originally posted by FMF
If they were fully cognizant of their own infection or contraction of a disease and then knowingly passed it on to a sexual partner, then that would be morally unsound behaviour. Remember, something in the region of 94% of male homosexuals in the UK are free of HIV. I will not condemn homosexual men as a group as there is nothing inherently immoral about homosexual sex.

they were fully cognizant that their sexual practices contained health risks otherwise you will need to explain how they managed to remain unaware. The highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men in the UK is rather damning indictment against the morality of the practice for its rather self evident that its destructive. In the same way that you were unwilling to proclaim that intravenous blood transfusions have resulted literally in the death of literally tens of thousands of persons and are thus a very dangerous proposition its evident that NO amount of empirical evidence can penetrate a psyche so morally ambivalent as to be considered spiritually myopic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
they were fully cognizant that their sexual practices contained health risks otherwise you will need to explain how they managed to remain unaware. The highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men in the UK is rather damning indictment against the morality of the practice for its rather self evident that its destructive.

All sexual practices carry health risks, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. There is nothing inherently immoral about homosexual sex.

Originally posted by FMF
All sexual practices carry health risks, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. There is nothing inherently immoral about homosexual sex.

No they do not, if you have remained chaste with a single partner from virginity how does that carry the same risk as a promiscuous homosexual man who has had multiple partners. Are you seriously telling us that the risks are the same? Sure ignore the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual man in the UK and keep telling yourself there is nothing unhealthy or immoral about it. Those persons who engaged in it knew the risks. They were fully cognizant that their sexual practices could result in a potentially life threatening disease. That makes it immoral. Man if an immorality slapped you on the face or fell from the sky in the form of a grand piano you would deny it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In the same way that you were unwilling to proclaim that intravenous blood transfusions have resulted literally in the death of literally tens of thousands of persons and are thus a very dangerous proposition its evident that NO amount of empirical evidence can penetrate a psyche so morally ambivalent as to be considered spiritually myopic.

I have been unequivocal about the morality of the issue. If anyone was given a blood transfusion so as to deliberately kill them or if there was criminal negligence and innocents died, then of course it would be morally reprehensible. Blood transfusions have saved the lives of countless millions of lives and are probably used millions of times every day around the world. Any accidents and unintended deaths are to be lamented of course

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
they were fully cognizant that their sexual practices contained health risks otherwise you will need to explain how they managed to remain unaware. The highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual men in the UK is rather damning indictment against the morality of the practice for its rather self evident that its destructive. In the same w ...[text shortened]... al evidence can penetrate a psyche so morally ambivalent as to be considered spiritually myopic.

For the last few years the number of deaths from HIV in the UK has been anywhere between 400-600. Compare that with the number of road traffic fatalities which is between 1700-2200 per year, and the number of serious injuries is around 21,000 per year. Is using the roads in the UK morally unsound? Because using your logic it's rather self evident the practice is destructive.

Originally posted by FMF
I have been unequivocal about the morality of the issue. If anyone was given a blood transfusion so as to deliberately kill them or if there was criminal negligence and innocents died, then of course it would be morally reprehensible. Blood transfusions have saved the lives of countless millions of lives and are probably used millions of times every day around the world. Any accidents and unintended deaths are to be lamented of course

Th blood transfusion have saved million is an illogical argument, it has also killed thousands, tens of thousands of persons Who might have been saved if they had been offered alternative treatment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No they do not, if you have remained chaste with a single partner from virginity how does that carry the same risk as a promiscuous homosexual man who has had multiple partners. Are you seriously telling us that the risks are the same?

Of course they are not the same. Indeed, if someone has remained chaste with a single partner from virginity it does not carry the same risk as a heterosexual man - or woman - who has had multiple partners. This does not make heterosexual sex immoral. Promiscuity may well involve morally unsound behavior but I do not think promiscuity is, in and of itself, morally unsound.