Delmar's political predictions for the next 12 years.

[PureX]

Committing adultery when one KNOWS there is a chance they may end up with a disease and then NOT informing the spouse prior to sleeping with them IS an assault. It is recklessly endangering the well being (and possibly the life) of the spouse.

Reckless endangerment is not an "assault". C'mon, give it up.

 

[Rusha]

Reckless endangerment is not an "assault". C'mon, give it up.

No, I will not *give it up*. Apparently you are fine with people putting other people's lives and health at risk WITHOUT their consent. I am not.

 

[6days]

Sure. The hate starts when you want to force them to comply with your idea of right and wrong, using the laws.

You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is hateful.
"Forcing" people to obey speed limits, is not hateful.
"Forcing" teachers not to have sex with students is not hateful.
ETC ETC ETC

The whole point of the law is to protect us from people like you, who think you have the right to control the lives of everyone else just because you can't tell the difference between your own ego and the government of an entire nation.

Not sure what you are on about, but laws are meant to protect society...establish norms ETC.

 

[6days]

No, I will not *give it up*. Apparently you are fine with people putting other people's lives and health at risk WITHOUT their consent. I am not.

Yup... Agree. It is good to campaign against things which destroy families and weaken society.

 

[Granite]

It's reckless endangerment of the non-cheating party. They should be informed that their health and life is being put at risk.

Maybe yes, maybe no (the condom was invented for a few different reasons, not to put too fine a point on it). Bottom line you're making a bigger situation out of a bad one that frankly is no one else's business. Coming from you I'm really surprised by this.

 

[Delmar]

...Pedophilia is a crime not because it's sexually immoral...

:jawdrop:

...Morality has nothing to do with why we make laws in this country...

That does seem to be the we things are going, and is is tragic!

 

[TracerBullet]

You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is hateful.
"Forcing" people to obey speed limits, is not hateful.
"Forcing" teachers not to have sex with students is not hateful.
ETC ETC ETC

However denying a minority equal protection and equal rights is hate. Disagree all you want but no one gets to discriminate

Not sure what you are on about, but laws are meant to protect society...establish norms ETC.

And withing living memory the norm was segregation and Jim Crow laws. You can't claim to be protecting society while at the same time cutting off a portion of society from protection, it just doesn't work

 

[TracerBullet]

Yup... Agree. It is good to campaign against things which destroy families and weaken society.

What about the families of gays and lesbians? or don't they matter?

 

[TracerBullet]

:jawdrop:


That does seem to be the we things are going, and is is tragic!

Yes, discrimination has no basis in morality.

 

[PureX]

:jawdrop:


That does seem to be the we things are going, and is is tragic!

It has been this way from the start. This nation was formed for the sake of protecting individual freedom. Not to promote the majority's (or the power elite's) moral proclivities.

 

[Rusha]

Maybe yes, maybe no (the condom was invented for a few different reasons, not to put too fine a point on it).

Outside of a preventing pregnancy, why would a married couple need to use condoms? The assumption would be and should be that having your spouse bring home an STD that was contracted via adultery doesn't fit into the equation.

Bottom line you're making a bigger situation out of a bad one that frankly is no one else's business. Coming from you I'm really surprised by this.

No, I am not. As you know, there are several diseases that have the potential of being fatal. When a spouse does not clue their partner in on the fact that they are bringing one of those types of diseases home, the harm or death of the partner is THEIR fault.

 

[Granite]

Outside of a preventing pregnancy, why would a married couple need to use condoms?

:noid:

The assumption would be and should be that having your spouse bring home an STD that was contracted via adultery doesn't fit into the equation.

Obviously. If you're married the assumption should be faithfulness, period.

No, I am not. As you know, there are several diseases that have the potential of being fatal. When a spouse does not clue their partner in on the fact that they are bringing one of those types of diseases home, the harm or death of the partner is THEIR fault.

Look, this might happen every once in a while, but I'm just completely wary of making an extremely personal matter some kind of criminal/government situation.

 

[Delmar]

It has been this way from the start. This nation was formed for the sake of protecting individual freedom. Not to promote the majority's (or the power elite's) moral proclivities.

That is just silly. All just law is based on morality. What is freedom if not a moral principal?

 

[Rusha]

:noid:

Obviously. If you're married the assumption should be faithfulness, period.

Exactly.

Look, this might happen every once in a while, but I'm just completely wary of making an extremely personal matter some kind of criminal/government situation.

Just because it's a family member, the act of willfully hurting someone isn't just *personal*. While I am not saying you are one of them, how often do we listen to people refer to domestic violence as a "personal problem"?

Leaving an unsuspecting spouse without the knowledge that you have passed on a disease is completely preventable as well as inexcusable.

How many married partners would continue to stay in a marriage OR have a sexual relationship with their spouse if they were forewarned there was a possibility they might contract a disease due to their spouse's cheating?

I am not stating that adultery should be a criminal act, but rather that causing harm to your spouse BECAUSE they didn't know their spouse would be filling their body with a third party's poison should be considered a criminal offense.

 

[Granite]

Just because it's a family member, the act of willfully hurting someone isn't just *personal*. While I am not saying you are one of them, how often do we listen to people refer to domestic violence as a "personal problem"?

I don't see any comparison between beating your spouse and passing along an STD.

Leaving an unsuspecting spouse without the knowledge that you have passed on a disease is completely preventable as well as inexcusable.

Indeed. Bad form, to say the least. I'd hesitate to call it a criminal matter.

How many married partners would continue to stay in a marriage OR have a sexual relationship with their spouse if they were forewarned there was a possibility they might contract a disease due to their spouse's cheating?

Well you might as well ask how many folks would get married on the off-chance their spouse might just one day kill them with a meat cleaver.

I am not stating that adultery should be a criminal act, but rather that causing harm to your spouse BECAUSE they didn't know their spouse would be filling their body with a third party's poison should be considered a criminal offense.

Here's a problem: The disease could be passed along without the cheating spouse's knowledge (not everyone knows right away they have an STD and some can be asymptomatic). In that case, how do you establish a criminal offense? Certainly there's no intent involved. Also, how do you go about proving who gave what to who? This could eventually turn into a he-said-she-said right away.

 

[Delmar]

...Here's a problem: The disease could be passed along without the cheating spouse's knowledge (not everyone knows right away they have an STD and some can be asymptomatic). In that case, how do you establish a criminal offense? Certainly there's no intent involved. Also, how do you go about proving who gave what to who? This could eventually turn into a he-said-she-said right away.

You make a compelling argument for adultery to be recriminalized.

 

[Rusha]

I don't see any comparison between beating your spouse and passing along an STD.

Both cause physical harm. Both are done without the spouse's consent. Do you really believe if the spouse was informed his/her spouse had something that could harm them, they would consent to having sex? IF they did, they would be an idiot.

Indeed. Bad form, to say the least. I'd hesitate to call it a criminal matter.

I think if you are going to poison the well, a spouse has the right to decide whether or not they wish to ingest the poison. They have a right to know their spouse's body is a potential killing machine.

Well you might as well ask how many folks would get married on the off-chance their spouse might just one day kill them with a meat cleaver.

The time to potentially kill them with a meat cleaver would prior to taking the marital vows. Those vows pretty much indicate there will be no meat-cleaving towards the other spouse.

Here's a problem: The disease could be passed along without the cheating spouse's knowledge (not everyone knows right away they have an STD and some can be asymptomatic).

I know that ... which is exactly why it's up to the cheater to immediately inform their spouse that they are the potential carrier of some deadly cooties.

In that case, how do you establish a criminal offense? Certainly there's no intent involved. Also, how do you go about proving who gave what to who? This could eventually turn into a he-said-she-said right away.

The intent involved is the fact that information is being kept from the other spouse that they have a right to know about. I never said there wouldn't be a problem with proving who did what. That isn't any different than any other type of abuse.

 

[PureX]

That is just silly. All just law is based on morality. What is freedom if not a moral principal?

Freedom (liberty) is an actual condition, and a founding legal principal of the U.S. of A. Whether or not you see it as a moral principal is up to you. Same as any other moral principal you might choose to accept or reject. The problem, here, is that you can't understand the difference.

 

[Delmar]

Anybody notice how much bolder and prominent the pro sodomy perverts have become in the yaer and a half since I made these predictions :idunno:

 

[TracerBullet]

Anybody notice how much bolder and prominent the pro sodomy perverts have become in the yaer and a half since I made these predictions :idunno:

by bolder you mean refusing to accept discrimination and hate based attacks on them and their families