RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Mr. Bush does good!(71 posts)

Mr. Bush does good!eyebob
Apr 30, 2003 7:05 AM
Read this story in a few places today. It looks like Bush is trying to push through his AIDS initiative. Kudos to him. The story mentions that some on the whacko right are having problems with his initiative because it expressly recommends the use of condoms as a means to help prevent the spread of the disease. Please explain this to me. I'm trying really hard to understand what's wrong with the ABC approach (abstinence, being faithful wihtin your marriage, and condom use) I really want to believe that those who oppose this have a good reason (other than their whack "christian" right beliefs) to do so. Please enlighten me.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/04/29/bush.aids/index.html

BT
whatever it takesDougSloan
Apr 30, 2003 7:25 AM
I don't care what it takes, the epidemic is bad enough that everything should be tried, and if that includes casual sex with condoms, go for it.

I think it is really good that this is an administration priority (maybe not highest, but up there). What's a shame is all the flack I hear about this still not being enough, or that the money should funnel through some other organizations so someone else can control the spending. Sometimes you can never win.

Doug
Are they not really saying...eyebob
Apr 30, 2003 7:46 AM
"we'll help save you, but you must do it our way! (Read: according to our moral beliefs) It might be a bit of a stretch but, sh*t, the whacko right is playing "God" with their misguided sensibilities. Let's just solve the problem.

As an aside, I'm also pretty concerned that the Bush plan (though it was mentioned early on, but not lately) call for a filtering of the money to AIDS relief organizations which also only advocate abstenence. How f*cking arrogant.

Sorry about that, I guess my stripes shown through there, huh?

BT
just what I thought nmDougSloan
Apr 30, 2003 8:07 AM
I really don'tCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 8:08 AM
want MY tax dollars going to purchase condoms for some 16 year old so he can get his rocks off.
isn't this largely Africa?DougSloan
Apr 30, 2003 8:41 AM
I thought a major part of the problem is Africa, where mulitiple partners contributes to the spread.

To me, if AIDS is spread from unprotected sex, regardless of religious reasons, you gotta stop people from either having sex, multiple partner sex, or use protection. This is pretty simple, isn't it? Stop doing the thing that causes the epidemic.

While we certainly need research as well, we should also be doing what we can on the front lines where the spread is occuring. It would be stupid not to try, IMO.

Doug
so you'd rather ...sacheson
Apr 30, 2003 9:10 AM
... you tax dollars and insurance premiums go to support people with AIDS? It seems to me you can buy a heck of a lot of condoms for the price of treating one person once AIDS/HIV is passed to them.
Therein is the conundrumCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 9:34 AM
There are a lot of things the government could do to protect the lives of its citizens. For one, full airbags in cars (driver and passenger, headrest, and curtain bags on the sides) would save the lives of countless Americans; yet is it the government's responsibility to do this? How about providing children's bicycle helmets?

I would be concerned about the number of condoms which would be available to any kid, and would be passed around like candy between kids. Although it might save some lives, it would be at the expense of making teen sex appear to be socially acceptable and practically promoted.

I find it very interesting (and hypocritical) that sex can be discussed in public schools, yet prayer can't.
I'm totally baffled...TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 9:52 AM
How are sex and prayer related? I am completely flummoxed by this assertion, that there is a problem with one being discussed and not the other. Why should sex be discussed in schools?

1) It has serious, and possibly deadly, health effects. I don't think prayer has the same effect.

2) It has serious negative societal effects. Teenage pregnancy has the potential to be a very serious problem - stemming it ahead of time is probably a good thing. I believe prayer only has positive societal effects.

3) I have NEVER encountered a school program where abstinence was not offered as the first and best solution to #1 and #2.

Do you seriously believe that ignoring sex will make its resulting problems go away?
ExplanationCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 10:20 AM
These issues are very related:

The left asserts that the right tries to impose its morals on society, and as a result, does not want religion discussed in schools (even on a voluntary basis).

The right asserts that the left tries to impose its morals (or lack thereof) on society (for instance, sex ed).

Therefore, I find it hypocritical that the left does not want to have the right's morality imposed on them, yet in doing so it tries to impose its version of morality on the right.

Anyway, back to the point. Do you seriously believe that distributing condoms to kids in the US would make the AIDS problem go away?
That's the distinction -TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 10:25 AM
I don't see sex ed. as moral instruction - it's an issue of safety, disease prevention, and pregnancy protection; all of which, I think we can agree, are not good. The focus of sex ed. (at least when I took it, not that long ago), was not on how pleasurable sex was, how much fun it was, or anything else - it was mostly fact-based (including some NASTY VD photos), and, if anything, discouraged sex. It isn't a moral issue.

Do I believe distributing condoms in schools would make AIDS go away? No [I think the original issue was distribution in Africa, but that's another issue]. Do I believe that promoting abstinence first, safe sex later is a sound policy? Yes. Promoting abstinence only has never worked and will never work.
correction -sacheson
May 1, 2003 5:39 AM
The "left" (which in this argument is defined as anything that is not extreme right) asserts the religious right tries to impose its values, and nothing less than its values on society. There are a lot of "shades of gray" between what the religious right considers values and the "moral-lacking" left that most of the nation (including a great number of respected religious leaders) does not want to have imposed on them through legislation.

If the religious right wouldn't impose such an exclusive and one-sided view of Christianity (have you ever heard arguments of how other religions -even Muslims- or Athiests are treated in the Church's view in this issue?) on society, then I hardly feel there would be the reluctance to ban religious activities in school. Unfortunately, this is a situation the religious right has worked themselves into, and has tactfully employed great argument strategies to offset the responsiblity to the "left" (again, anyone that is left of the extreme right here), and say it's a breakdown in morals.

Which leads me to a question I have, if the true conservatives (of which, I consider myself) argue less government and less government intervention, then why is it there is a pull to increase a government's religious influence in society, increase government funding to right-wing Christian groups, and make government larger to manage these new government mandated morals? Reason 1 of about 1 that I am strongly against the Bush administration even though I am a conservative person - church should not influence the executive office this much.
another correction ...sacheson
May 1, 2003 5:50 AM
Sex Ed isn't about how to have sex. It's about what happens to the human body, and what happens in reproduction. In fact, little or no emphasis is actually put on intercourse itself. That's more religious right rhetoric designed to discourage people discussing natural human behavior.

Plus, as a responsible adult and parent, I'm sure you'd take it on yourself to discuss these topics with your children. There are people who aren't so lucky. What is offered in school is potentially the only thing they are hearing aside from influence to have it. That's not a breakdown in society because that group has always (and will always) exist, regardless of what morals are imposed on society.
I agree in partCaptain Morgan
May 1, 2003 7:02 AM
about the sex ed. comment. I NEVER said that I wasn't in favor of sex. ed. What I said was that I found it hypocritical that sex and condoms can be discussed in school, yet a minute of prayer cannot. What I said I was dead set against was the distribution of condoms.

However, I disagree with your comment that it is the fault of the religious right. I don't think the left is overly concerned that a one minute voluntary prayer would scar the system. As the gentleman said in this thread yesterday, sex could have negative repercussions, while prayer could only be a positive. This was used as his reasoning to allow sex ed. in school but not prayer. School prayer is not necessarily a big issue for me, but I laugh at the petty left for making it such a huge deal.

Although your previous post discussed the segregation of church and state, that is not the principles upon which this country and its laws were founded.
as I see it ...sacheson
May 1, 2003 7:39 AM
... the prayer thing is not recognized as a minute of voluntary prayer. In the arguments I've read about, there have been issues with Atheism and non-Christian denominations not wanting to practice a Christian prayer service in a public school.

My argument is that IF it was simply a minute of time to recognize whatever spiritual guidance you're seeking, then there would be less people against it.
No, I'd ratherpurplepaul
Apr 30, 2003 9:52 AM
my tax dollars go for neither and that people act more responsibly.

I really think it's appalling how sex among 12 year olds has become acceptable. If my kid did that, I'd lock them up (I don't have any kids). Perhaps if parents and teachers didn't tolerate such behavior, we wouldn't have the problem with diseases and 30 year old grandmothers that we do now.
Wouldn't that be grand?TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 10:05 AM
One of my favorite things about society and media is the perception that things are always getting worse. There's more violence, more disease, more teen pregnancies, blah blah blah. The fact is that things are better now in almost any category than they have ever been.

"If parents and teachers didn't tolerate such behavior, we wouldn't have the problem with diseases and 30 year old grandmothers that we do now"

Did parents and teachers tolerate such behavior in the 1950's? The rate of teen childbearing in the US peaked in 1957 - at 96 per 1,000. In the year 2000, this rate hit an all-time LOW of 49 per 1,000 (and don't blame it on abortions - the abortion rate among teens is the lowest it's been in 20 years).

Similarly, infection rates for almost all venereal diseases (excepting HIV/AIDS, which is a relative newcomer), are not at higher levels than they have historically been since the Civil War (around 10%).

Nowadays we publicize problems that 50 years ago would have been swept under the rug - and the perception becomes that these are new problems.
If it's truepurplepaul
Apr 30, 2003 10:11 AM
I'd be thrilled if your statistics were accurate, but I'm skeptical. When I was in grade school in the late 70's, it was not acceptable to talk about having sex with the other kids, let alone actually doing it and having a kid. Can't speak about high school because I went to an all-boys. But, it does not make sense to me that when there was a stigma attached to teenage pregnancy, like in the 50's, there were more of them, and when that stigma was erased, like now, there are fewer.

Peer pressure is a very motivating thing, good or bad. So I'd like to know the source of your statistics and how they were derived.
SourceTJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 10:16 AM
The source was the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit group that studies these things. Their methodology appears sound:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib_1-02.html
difference, thoughDougSloan
Apr 30, 2003 10:24 AM
I think there is a difference between an 18 year old getting married and then having a child, and a 14 year old having an out of wedlock child. As study indicates, the former was vastly more common 40 years ago, and rare now. Unwed mother pregnancies are sharply up.

Doug
True.TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 10:27 AM
I think this has more to do with a change in the marriage dynamic in society today than it does with sex. Historically, having a child meant that the two were going to get married, whether they wanted to or not. I don't think that scenario is always preferable to an out-of-wedlock birth.
but with respect to AIDS, etc.DougSloan
Apr 30, 2003 10:31 AM
True, and I'd bet that for the most part, teen pregnancies 40 years ago were resulting from more often monogomous relationships; regardless of marriage, I think it's the promiscuous, multiple partner aspect of today's youngsters that causes the concern for disease spread, not so much their legal relationship.

If everyone were monogomous, or at least serially so with testing between partners, the problem of AIDS would be nearly wiped out, right?

Doug
but is that something ...sacheson
May 1, 2003 6:05 AM
... Christian morals being imposed on society will change, or is it fundamental changes in society itself that religion will have NO impact on?
I don't see this as a positive statistic at allCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 10:30 AM
When I just read your post, I was thinking that the stat that you quoted did not reflect how many of the teen pregnancies are planned/wanted. As you might know, in 1950 it was common (and even expected) to marry right after high school and have kids immediately. This is not the same society we live in, where the average age of first marriage is well into the 20's.

The following line from your source tells it all:

"Even though teen childbearing overall has declined steeply over the last half-century, the proportion of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased equally dramatically, from 13% in 1950 to 79% in 2000."

It really says something about the morality of kids today.
Morality...TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 10:41 AM
It does say something about morality. It says that the marriage framework is becoming outdated and will see dramatic changes in my generation. Furthermore, your statistics are apparently guesses, because the Census indicates that the median female first-marriage age was 20.3 in 1950 - it may have been common, but it was not average, for teens to marry. In 1992, this number had increased only to 24.

And I will further point out the societal trend towards out-of-wedlock births is not exclusive to teens. In fact, the age group with the highest OOW birth rate is the 20-24 (followed by 25-29) year old group.

So teen pregnancy is O.K., as long as there's a shotgun wedding follow up?
StatisticsCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 11:00 AM
"your statistics are apparently guesses"??????

If the average age was 20.3 in 1950, then that means almost half of all marriages were teenage back then. However, if you use an average of "only 24" today, using a fairly normal distribution (which is probably a fair assumption), teenage marriages are WELL under half of all marriages today. Statistically that is a material (i.e. HUGE)difference.

Anyway, I never implied that "teen pregnancy is O.K., as long as there's a shotgun wedding follow up." What we were debatinig in this thread was that the morality among teens today is much worse than in the 1950's. Your statistics were very informative, but they did not support your argument that morality has improved. In fact, I would say that the statistics show that the have declined.
I misunderstood the discussion...TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 11:06 AM
A few quick points:

1. I said nothing of the average age of 20.3, that was the median age. Big difference, but one that actually works in your favor.

2. Without knowing the standard deviation (or variance), you cannot say that teenage marriages are "well under" half of all marriages today. I couldn't find the S.D. statistic - maybe you know it?

3. I don't believe that morality has "improved"; only that it has changed. I would argue that teen pregnancy is a problem regardless of marital status. If two sixteen year olds have a kid, this is NOT good for society. Your view seems to be that a marriage makes everything better. I don't view this as a moral issue (as I said above) but as a public safety/well being issue.
Well, not exactlyCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 11:47 AM
Well, there have been a number of subtopics branched off in this thread. My comments related to the posts between you and purplepal originally about how good the statistics are nowadays.

1. If the distribution is normal (I stated that I was assuming it was a normal distribution), then the mean would equal the median. IF you were to assume that the distribution were positively skewed, then you would be correct, it would work in my favor.

2. I have no information on the standard deviation. If there were an unproportional number of marriages between the ages of 20 and 20.3 years, however, then my statement about "nearly half" would probably not be very accurate.

3. I am not saying marriage makes it better. I am saying it is MY responsibility as a parent to talk to my child about morality and sex, NOT the government or its agents.
FWIW, here's a website that has all the stats you 2 want....eyebob
Apr 30, 2003 11:57 AM
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/america/statisticsDisplay.asp?ID=4&sID=30
It's mixedpurplepaul
Apr 30, 2003 10:41 AM
Can't argue that there are fewer teens having kids, and that's good. But 79% is a horrible statistic, and it shouldn't be acceptable by peers, parents or schools. It's just awful.

I have often wondered how people could afford to have kids. I mean, for many years after graduating college, there's no way I could afford to have them, if I wanted them. So, when I saw all these kids have kids, I just couldn't understand why they felt comfortable bringing a kid into the world without the resources necessary to care for them. Sure, anybody can have a kid. But that certainly doesn't mean they should.
Having kidsCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 11:04 AM
It seems weird that you need a permit to drive a car, yet anyone can have a kid.
Won't touch that with a 10 foot pole (nm)TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 11:07 AM
I will.czardonic
Apr 30, 2003 1:13 PM
When are we as a society going to come to terms with the negative implications of indiscriminate pro-creation? It should be obvious by now that encouraging people to have as many children as possible will not deliver us to the Christian panacea of a buslting, family oriented community in service to God (religion being the usual proponent of high birth rates).

Why shouldn't there be a set of minimum requirements for having children? I'm liberal, and even I am no longer swayed by the argument that having children should not be a "priviledge" limited to those who can afford to support them. Anyway, the typically low birth rates of the upper classes would have to be supplemented, and who better to do so than the millions of existing poor who are already literally dying to become Americans?
It's all part of the neo libs conspiracyNo_sprint
Apr 30, 2003 10:49 AM
to expand the dependent, to grow the non tax paying group, increase the welfare state, increase social programs, the mainstay of liberal dems voter base. Evil incarnate. This is how our country's power will fall.
Cripes. You are talking about "liberals", not "neo libs". (nm)czardonic
Apr 30, 2003 12:25 PM
one more point on HIV/AIDSsacheson
May 1, 2003 5:59 AM
It's a falacy that condoms stop the spread of it. The virus that transmits HIV/AIDS is small enough to pass through the membrane of most condoms.

And great post TJeanloz.
now come on ...sacheson
May 1, 2003 5:56 AM
where has sex between 12 year old become acceptable? It exists, but acceptable? No. I'd go so far to say there's been a pull away from it the last 100 years ... know what the average age of a bride on the prarie was at the turn of the century? 13. More arguing the extremes to make a point that doesn't exist.

I think the problem is greed and the pursuit of money in our society. People (including some very religious folk) would rather have dual incomes and the nice house, import SUV, and posh lifestyle than raise their family. That's not a lifestyle of the non-ultraconservatives, that's everyone.
So you'd rather pay MFIP, AFDC, and welfare for 18 yrs?filtersweep
Apr 30, 2003 11:31 AM
I really didn't want to pay for bombs over Bagdad either... trouble is, this is a democracy ;)
"Whacko right?"moneyman
Apr 30, 2003 7:46 AM
Are they "whacko" because they hold opinions that are different than yours? Are their opinions worth less than yours? Please enlighten me.

$$
Yes, they're wacko becausepurplepaul
Apr 30, 2003 8:59 AM
they believe that people should be responsible for their own actions.

They're wacko because they don't want to spend money over there instead of over here when there is no clear benefit to the US.

They're wacko because their religious beliefs state that the behavior that spreads Aids is morally wrong and, therefore, shouldn't be enabled.

Now, I don't agree with all those things, but they don't seem wacko to me. What seems crazy is to spend more money fighting a disease that can be easily prevented by changing one's behavior than on finding a cure for cancer, which affects hundreds of millions more people and can't be prevented (in many to most cases) regardless of what one does.
Yes, Moneyman "whacko right"eyebob
Apr 30, 2003 11:46 AM
To infer that they will not get the money/resources needed to help with a problem (which in real terms is all or ours problem) because of ideological differences set forth my some "moral" edict is wrong and exactly the opposite of what they (the Christian Right) esposes. Exactly why wouldn't (and I'm speaking hear of the "christian" right, not the "conservative" right, I think there's still a difference, right?) we try to help when we could? Isn't that the good and right thing to do? Wouldn't the "good book" speak to this? Naw, screw em. We'll just wait another 30 years when most of the continent is dead and then have to answer for why we sat by an watched. Yep, God'll love that one. Huh?

PS As I think it can be safely defined, a "Whacko right winger is Captain Morgan. What that person has to say regarding this subject is so irrelevant it's shameful.

BT
Wacko right? You're not seeing very well, doctor.Captain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 12:08 PM
Just because I am against the distribution of condoms??? Heck, although I am anti-abortion, I have no problem with it being legal. I would LOVE gun control. And although I was for the Iraq war, I think the neo-Cons are way off base in trying to extrapolate the strategy to the entire world. I would love to pull out of Korea, Germany, AND the ME. Wacko right because I don't think we should be handing out free condoms to kids???

I do not want to impose MY morals on someone else. However, I do not want them to impose theirs on me as well. We live in a society in which I am trying to raise children according to MY morals. And, having free condoms floating around is NOT the answer.
Ummmm, the condoms are to help prevent AIDS in Africa,eyebob
Apr 30, 2003 1:23 PM
not "floating around." I think that we may be dealing with two different thread topics here.

If we're to talk about the distribution of condoms in this country, then why not? I hear your argument, now hear this. First off, you'd have to show me the stats (those things again) that show that distributing condoms actually increases sexual activity. Intuitively, I could believe it, but show me first. Secondly, if the kids are gonna screw, would'nt you like to have the sex ed stuff in place along with condoms to decrease the chance of pregnancy or are you just against them having sex? And be careful about how you think about our "culture" and such. Times have changed. The simple fact is that despite plenty of arm twisting, brow beating and hell-fire threats, kids are screwing more today than in the 50's (your time reference). So in effect, our "culture" has changed and those who'd advocate that we not teach sex ed., not distribute condoms, and not talk about the consequeses (sp?) have lost the battle. Why not take a look at what's going on and devise real solutions to the problem.

BT

PS I'll give you a dollar if you have kids and they are not sexually active before they're 18. Truly. Teach them well, teach them to care, and teach them about the consequences and at least they'll be well informed 16 year-olds having sex.
Wow! I'm gonna be rich!Matno
May 5, 2003 1:26 PM
Well, if I have a big enough family that is... A dollar for each one? Can I hold you to that?

Sheesh! Talk about a pessimistic approach. I happen to know a TON of people who have never had sex outside of marriage. You've already established that you are not religious, but just so you know, people who ARE religious don't find abstinence impossible. I went to a university with over 30,000 students at which every single student is required to sign an honor code which prohibits any extra-marital sex. In addition every single student had to get yearly interviews with an ecclesiastical leader to make sure they were on the right track. This is not to say that none of them had ever had sex or never did while they were there, but it was extremely rare. Unmarried pregnancy was almost unheard of. You just have to give kids the right REASON not to have sex (and teach them by example). I didn't have sex until I got married at 27. Not because I wasn't tempted, but because I knew there was something better, and because unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, I can control myself. It appears that you think that just because you can't control your body, nobody can. That's really sad. I now go to a mostly Jewish medical school and there are a lot of people here who don't even TOUCH members of the opposite sex until they're married. It's really not even a question because their parents taught them well and they know they're not supposed to. Pretty simple really.

As for stats, you'll find stats to support both sides of the condom debate. Some say that condom distribution has no effect on sexual activity and other say it increases it. You can guess which sides publish which information, but in my experience, the religious, conservative side tends to be much more honest with the numbers. Think of it in terms of kids who have never had sex (we're talking junior high here). If someone hands them a condom and says "It's okay to have sex, as long as you use this," they're going to have a much higher chance of doing it than if the only influence they get is their parents telling them not to. While I have no problem with schools pointing out the dangers of unprotected sex, Sex Ed is rarely "just the facts." I know mine wasn't. We got the full "how-to" lectures on a lot more than just procreative sex. Certainly more than my parents would have wanted me to hear (for good reason) had they known about it. Interestingly, I got my first sex ed in a Christian private school in the fourth grade. It actually WAS just the facts. No moral lectures, just a simple "This is how it's happens and these are the possible risks." Later, I transferred to a public school where we didn't get sex ed until 7th grade (already too late for a lot of my classmates), and I had my eyes opened to a lot of stuff I'll NEVER need to know about.

At any rate, even if those kids who aren't well taught by their own parents only try it once because of free condoms and encouragement at school, there's going to be a lot increased sexual activity. (Once you start, it's a heck of a lot harder to say no).

Condoms are not a "solution to the problem." They are like much of modern medicine: merely symptomatic treatment that does nothing for the underlying disease and often allows the disease to progress unnoticed.
What you believe is right/wrongmoneyman
Apr 30, 2003 1:31 PM
Is not what they believe is right/wrong. Because their opinions of how to spend money are different than yours, you label them "whacko" and dismiss their views. yet if they took your point of view, you might label them enlightened. I would label you as narrow-minded and reactionary, as well as an an angry person.

Tolerance is not a one way street.

$$
Okay, I'll just call them hypocrites.eyebob
Apr 30, 2003 2:31 PM
Their stance to deny the condoms is self-defeating, intolerant and morally deplorable.

If their goal is to help these people then not providing for the use of condoms and/or the education with which to use the device is self-defeating. Why would'nt you want to use this simple, cost effective tool to help curb a deadly disease? If for no other reason you might think that it makes better economic sense to prevent the disease rather than deal with it's effects? Perhaps they can't (this time) put their etherial notions of "right" ahead of the real world facts in front of them.

If they are to help, they must be tolerant and enlightened. Generally that means forward thinking, not backward. Say, 50 years ago, all the condoms were available to these folks and were used. Would we be talking about this now?

The bottom line is that I find it hypocritical that those who might hold up the positions (however misguided) and beliefs as the "right" and "only" (my emphasis) way things should be done is in fact counter to what their "good book" (again my emphasis) would actually teach.

PS, it's not simply a matter that their ideas of how to spend money are different than mine that had me post the original thread. It's that their obvious hypocritical, malicious and morally bankrupt stance needed to be called into question. Don't assume anything else, that's assinine.

BT
Pretty heady chargesmoneyman
Apr 30, 2003 2:51 PM
"hypocritical, malicious and morally bankrupt stance"

They might say the same thing about you. The people you are referring to might disagree with your basic premise - i.e., that condom distribution saves people from AIDS. They may argue, as one other poster did, that condom distribution in fact increases incidence of AIDS by encouraging sexual activity under the false assumption that covering one's penis with latex is a sure way to prevent the spread of disease. Condoms are not 100% effective. The only 100% effective method of AIDS prevention is to eliminate the sharing of body fluids. One way to do this is to not have sex. While asking for self-control and self-discipline may be too much to ask, abstinence works every time. The people you denigrate believe that their system of prevention and personal responsibility works better than distribution of condoms to people who have no sense of sexual self-control. Therefore it is you, not them, who is encouraging the spread of AIDS and promoting a policy that is "self-defeating, intolerant and morally deplorable."

Tolerance is not a one way street.

$$
That is goldenCaptain Morgan
Apr 30, 2003 5:16 PM
People who are against the distribution of condoms are morally bankrupt. That's a hoot. Talk about being hypocritical...
Possible.eyebob
May 1, 2003 7:47 AM
However, show me the proof that distributing condoms

a) increases sexual activity
b) increases the spread of AIDS

otherwise, um, you'd, sorry they'd be wrong.

Got proof? If not, then, yes, they're not helping a thing by not permitting the use of condoms.

BT
Eyebob, do you still beat your wife?Alpedhuez55
May 1, 2003 7:29 AM
I think the WHacko right is a bit harsh. Are we calling you part of the "Whacko Athiest Left" because you agree with the condom handouts? It is like a few weeks ago when someone made a post saying are you against the war or do are you fo you favor "Killing a Muslim for Jesus". It is like that onld do you still beat your wife question.

You are trying to insult anyone who would dare to disagree with you. You could have made your point just as well without the "Whacko" to describe the Christian Right. Whether you agree with them or not, some of the arguments are valid.

As far as the issue goes I am not against the condoms. I think trying to teach and encourage that abstinance or single partners is more effective though. Make sure they get a brochure or lecture before you give them condoms. Condoms are not perfect and let them know that the Aids can still be spread even with them.

If you have an authority figure people condoms it makes them think any type of sex is OK. THat is why I am against giving them out at schools. As long as education is given with the condoms, I do not have a problem.

Mike Y.
How'd you know?eyebob
May 1, 2003 8:23 AM
That was funny. Nice Subject line. Okay, but my point is essentially that you're whack to think that despite all the lecturing in the world (in the short term) you're going to get people to stop promiscuous sex in a region that apparently condon's it (I might be off here, but what else could explain the spread?) So if given the alternative to preach and withhold the condoms and preach/teach and give them, why not? That's not what the whacko right wants? You said it yourself.

It is whacko to withold options to help curb the problem, that, plain and simple is what they're wanting to do.

BT
How'd you know?Alpedhuez55
May 1, 2003 9:18 AM
I basically agree with you on the issue. I think education can be a good start and should be included with with it rather than just hand out condoms. It is a behavoral disease for the most part. THe way to change the behavor is through education. I say both educate and distribute the condoms.

Condoms alone wont work. You know the old joke, Condoms are like Democrats, they give you a false sense of security while you are being screwed :-) With out education, it may just increase sexual activity and slow the spread as much as people want.

Sorry if I offended you with the subject line. I think you knew in was in jest. I think the point is not so far gone that it is "whacko", but disagree with it. Education alone is not enough.
No worries.eyebob
May 1, 2003 10:16 AM
I know you. You're not prone to flat out ripping someone. I simply thought that it was funny.

I'd think that no one could believe that free condoms will solve much without the educational component. The article that I referenced originally didn't suggest that either.

BT
They're wacko because ...sacheson
May 1, 2003 6:24 AM
... they feel that anything less than their "values" results in a degredation of morals in society and want to increase the size of government where it benefits them and their cause.

They're also wacko because while they are imposing their views on society, they themselves can't abide by thier own structure. Greed, pride, envy, lust, anger, and sloth run rampant within the Christian political structure ... they just find tactful ways redirect the attention away from themselves.
Doesn't the left do the same thing?Captain Morgan
May 1, 2003 7:16 AM
For example, by allowing homosexual marriages and getting rid of the word "God" which has been used for ages, aren't they trying to impose their morals as well? It goes both ways.

The comment above about greed, etc. in church is silly. There are individuals, both inside and outside the Christian political structure, that this applies to. It also applies to people on the left (Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton).
everyone does the same thing - that's always my point!sacheson
May 1, 2003 7:53 AM
The right loves to say they are moral people and everyone else is a guilt-laden sinner. My point is (and has always been) that there are just as many on the right guilty of what they accuse others of. By that ration, you arguing that people on both sides of the spectrum acting in that manner does nothing for your argument since I've never argued that way, it simply supports the argument I've always made.

If you're referring to getting rid of the word "God" that has been used for ages I'd argue it's

a) been used for ages in Western Christian society, and previously forced on those who didn't practice Christianity (see any text about colonialization of the US). So curbing its use now is showing respect for those religious, value conscious individuals who don't happen to be Christian.

b) if you're referring to the Pledge of Allegiance, it originally didn't have a reference to God.

c) just because people don't think the word God should be forced on those who aren't Christian (or of a faith that doesn't believe in "God"), doesn't mean they don't believe in God themselves. It just means they aren't into ramming their beliefs down other's throats. So, I'd say NO, it doesn't mean they are imposing their morals as well.

I should also reiterate that the individuals that encompass the "Left" when the religious right is referring to them is anyone to the left of them. That is most of society, including conservatives that don't agree with their views.
Whackos, hypocrites <i>and</i> moral reletavists.czardonic
May 1, 2003 9:58 AM
How funny that these people who are so convinced of their moral superiority insists that they should be held to no higher standard than what they consider to be immoral left-wing atheists.
Whackos, hypocrites <i>and</i> moral reletavists.Captain Morgan
May 1, 2003 10:28 AM
C'mon czar, you wouldn't take the deviant behavior of a few and extrapolate that to a whole class, would you? That would be downright stereotyping, and not a practice that a leftist (or any rational individual for that matter) would normally promote.
What stereotyping? What extrapolation? (nm)czardonic
May 1, 2003 11:02 AM
stereotyping & extrapolationCaptain Morgan
May 1, 2003 11:55 AM
Your post begins by referring to "these people." Since you did not define "these people," the reader would assume this was defined in the post you were responding to (i.e. sacheson's post). Sacheson was referring to certain individuals on the religious right who do not follow the morality which they preach.

Therefore, by referring to the religious right as "hypocrites," you are extrapolating the actions of some to the whole group, are you not?

Anyway, are you saying that the morality in principle of the religious right is not higher than the left, or are you saying that the morality in action is not higher?
Ah. I don't see that as either.czardonic
May 1, 2003 12:09 PM
I was indeed referring to the same certain hypocrites mentioned in sacheson's post. I don't think that you could reasonably accuse me of extrapolating my view of their actions to the religious right as a whole. My comments apply to any individual believes him/herself to be of higher moral fiber yet protests that others should not hold him/her to the same high standards.

In principle, I don't think that the morality of the right is greater than the morality of the left, unless you define morality strictly by the 10 commandments and by selective interpretation of the Bible. In action, I think that the morality of the right is in fact lesser, regardless of the definition, to the extent that the right does not live up to elevated level of its own self-appointed standards.
It's pure smoke screencarnageasada
Apr 30, 2003 8:56 AM
After reading the article I realized I was going to have to agree with and support Bush 100% on something. But upon further reflection I felt comforted with these thoughts . . .
Everybody knows the majority of condoms are manufactured from petroleum by-products. This is obviously a plot to sudsidize oil companies. It's the Bush, "Hump Across America for Amoco" plan.
Get out much?TJeanloz
Apr 30, 2003 9:09 AM
It is always interesting when something that everybody knows is wrong. The vast majority of condoms are made from natural latex, and are in fact damaged by contact with petroleum (which is why you shouldn't use a petroleum-based lubricant). There is currently ONE model of condom which is made of a non-natural substance (polyurethane, which I don't believe is petroleum based) and sold under the Avanti brand name in the US.

If this is a subsidy for anybody, it's the latex harvesters in southeast Asia.
Get out much?IFTreedog
Apr 30, 2003 9:34 AM
Just as I suspected...the powerful Karnataka lobby in Washington DC once again seeking to line its pockets.
You sound like you've been studying rubbercarnageasada
May 1, 2003 6:20 AM
instead of burning it.
LOL (nm)eyebob
Apr 30, 2003 12:02 PM
There's a little irony in ...sacheson
Apr 30, 2003 9:14 AM
... the groups of spiritual and religious leaders that denounce the use of condoms, premarital and extra-marital sex, yet it seems they themselves can't keep to the values they want Federal policy to uphold.

*I'm assuming we've all been subject to the stories of affairs and abuse of congregation members. If someone wants me to post links for proof, I will.*
Can anyone say "Newt"?.........cycleaddict
Apr 30, 2003 12:55 PM
re: Cant isolate the Gay Republican Constituencyjrm
Apr 30, 2003 1:23 PM
Just in time for re-election now can you. Thas the bottom line initiative or not. The christian right probably doesnt like they think that the initiative says its OK to have underage, gay, or premarital sex as long as you use a condom.
off baseDougSloan
Apr 30, 2003 2:26 PM
I think the idea is to get the US into Africa, become the "white knight," then convert the continent to Christianity before the Muslims get all of them.

Doug
LOL DougCARBON110
Apr 30, 2003 5:15 PM
When I was in High school I headed up the student body as its rep to the school board and school admins. A few friends of mine and I brought forth a proposal to put condoms in school. We held school board meetings, got outraged parents, etc news media. Eventually we became I believe the second school in the USA to have profolactics available in school. Some place in CO beat us to it. We offered a great deal of studies on how condoms in school did NOT promote sexual promescuity etc. but in the end it came down to this, if condoms in school save one life from HIV its worth it. Since it has been proven it does not promote sex but educates, the same should apply to Africa. If it saves a life its worth it. TJ is right that all schools in any case use abstinence (sp) as the best advocate for safe sex...... by the way it was fun being in front of my GF dad pleading for jimmys, in a high school school board meeting, while he was sitting on the other side of the table across from me voting against it. Made dinner discussions very interesting at her house when I was invited LOL