AIDS/HIV on the rise... (blame the Shrub?) (spam-free)

[Mangle Me Elmo]

I don't see how the President can be blamed if people want to destroy each other with irresponsible sexual activity. It's a prent's responsibility to educate their children on such matters, and if they don't, natural selection always makes an example of those who are unfortunately ignorant of the danger (if one is unwise enough to be irresponsible about sex, one does not live to pass on their genes, thus the cycle of imprudence is eventually broken).

[Denethorn]

It is unfair to blame ignorance. Not only that, but you can be educated on STDs, and lied to by an uncaring sexual partner.

[Magrus]

I don't see how the President can be blamed if people want to destroy each other with irresponsible sexual activity.

He's enforcing the program of teaching only not having sex as a method of preventing aids in an attempt to get the support of right-wing religious fanatics. Now, it's all very well if someone chooses that way, but pressuring the nation's schools to abandon teaching children about condom's and safe sex is ludicrous.

As far as ...

It's a prent's responsibility to educate their children on such matters, and if they don't, natural selection always makes an example of those who are unfortunately ignorant of the danger

The parent's aren't always up to date on the correct methods of how things are done now. That's why we have schools and teacher's correct? Otherwise, parents would teach their kids everything if parents knew it all and save the country billions of dollars on public schools. Not only that, some people just aren't comfortable telling their children about sex.

[Mangle Me Elmo]

True Denethorn, which is why there is really no safe sex outside of marriage. Condoms even fail more than many people realize. I guess I'm the exception to the rule, seeing as how my mother and grandparents only had to tell me once about the dangers of sex out of marriage, and now I've sworn to myself to save it for the sanctity of marriage.

[Dottie]

It's a prent's responsibility to educate their children on such matters, [...]

The schools are there to ensure that any child, even those with parents who are religious fanatics, gets this information and therefor is able to make an informed choice on the matter.

[...] and if they don't, natural selection always makes an example of those who are unfortunately ignorant of the danger (if one is unwise enough to be irresponsible about sex, one does not live to pass on their genes, thus the cycle of imprudence is eventually broken).

First, It is completely incorrect that a person who is irresponsible about sex does not produce fertile offspring. I'm at a loss on just how you arrived at this quite remarkable conclusion.

Secondly, One might consider it to be rather ghastly to think a child deserves a painful death because its parents did not properly educate it regarding safe sexual conduct.

Condoms even fail more than many people realize.

They do? Tell me, how often do they fail? I had the idea that with a HIV infected permanent partner the consistent use of condoms reduced the infection risk by about 95%. This however does not account for instances where the infection is spread by other means than intercourse, witch makes the reduced risk a minimum value of sorts.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]True Denethorn, which is why there is really no safe sex outside of marriage.[/quote]

What's the magical difference between using condoms or the Pill in marriage, and using one of them without being married?

[Mangle Me Elmo]

The pill prevents pregnancy but not STDs. Condoms can break, or it can have even the smallest pinhole it in. It only takes the smallest bit of fluid to transmit a virus. I didn't mean to make a connection between marriage and contraceptives, that really doesn't make sense. I'm just saying there's no risk of STDs within marriage, unless one of them is a cheater, of course. Also, i never said anyone deserves to be sentenced to death, just that what happens, happens, regardless of what is deserved. Let me explain my natural selection theory. If a person is unwise enough to have sex outside of marriage, chances are they will get themselves killed before they can procreate, thus they cannot pass their foolishness onto their children. Eventually, only those with enough self control and prudence will remain to procreate.

[Denethorn]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]and now I've sworn to myself to save it for the sanctity of marriage.[/QUOTE]

I greatly admire that stance, if made for the right reasons. To me someone that can deny sex (intercourse or other) so as to remain "pure" for marriage has immense self-control and are admirably devoted to that principle.

But to abstain from sex as a method of protecting yourself from STDs seems rather foolish. It is like deciding to never cross a road to try and avoid being ever hit by a car - or you could "look, listen and live" and be acceptably safe.

Similarly, you can practice safe sex - with trustworthy (preferebly loving ) partners - be almost completely safe.

Incidentally, condoms are very safe as a barrier method - when used correctly. which is where education comes in .

EDIT: to further elaborate on that (in response to the above post) - I believe a properly used condom has something like less than 1% failure rate (breakage or holes). Latex is not permeable by STDs. And reputable manufacturers test their batches by filling a condom with something like 3litres of water . So don't doubt our little rubber companions!

[Mangle Me Elmo]

I miss your logic, Denethorn. If one abstains from sexual contact, it is nearly impossible to contract an STD. I've heard of people getting it through blood transfusions and sharing needles and such, but the former is very rare and as for the latter one would have to be pretty stupid in the first place. There are also spiritual and emotional reasons for my abstinence, which emerged later in life as I became more mature and able to understand the other dangers of sex before marriage.

[Magrus]

I'm just saying there's no risk of STDs within marriage, unless one of them is a cheater, of course.

*coughs* That's assuming your bride in white has abstained as well.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]If a person is unwise enough to have sex outside of marriage, chances are they will get themselves killed before they can procreate, thus they cannot pass their foolishness onto their children. [/QUOTE]

I think you're busted. This quote is so illogical, so...burlesque, that I can't accept that it was written with a straight face. Admit it. You're just arguing to have fun.

[Denethorn]

I apologise for the very crude traffic analogy . It is true that the only 100% effective system for protection from STDs is to not have sex . But it can be said that with proper protection and caution, there is a minimal risk from STDs when sexually active.

[Mangle Me Elmo]

@Magrus: Never marry some one that you don't know well enough to be certain about their past.
@fable: Doh! You caught me. That 'natural selection theory' was a joke I started in high school. Being the only conservative (I live in california), I gained acceptance by occasionally allowing myself to become the right-wing nut-job stereotype (being able to laugh at my own party). Of course, such sarcasm is much more obvious in a real life setting than a message board. My old youth pastor would do the same thing on occasional gatherings. Cuz let's face it, nut-jobs are funny no matter what side of the aisle you're on.

[Denethorn]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]There are also spiritual and emotional reasons for my abstinence, which emerged later in life as I became more mature and able to understand the other dangers of sex before marriage.[/QUOTE]

Which is what I admire

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]@Magrus: Never marry some one that you don't know well enough to be certain about their past.[/QUOTE]

Does that mean you'll be requesting paperwork?

[Mangle Me Elmo]

Yes, my prenuptual will say "In case she's lying, I reserve the right to put that 4-foot long sword hanging on my wall to some good use."

[Magrus]

Well, if that's what floats your boat. You can still remain safe through practicing safe sex, which is why it should be taught in school's. Not everyone holds those beliefs. I sure don't, I have no intention or desire to marry, so there's no point for me to wait for that. Sure, I'll save myself for a special woman who I happen to love and be with her and her alone, but marriage? Please. Not my thing.

If you have two people, who know they have no diseases, can take a test to prove it, and are faithful to each other, that is in no way different in safety from STD's than two married people. Nothing different at all except for a big, expensive, cliche ceremony.

[Mangle Me Elmo]

@Magrus: Fair enough. I could start a theological debate right about now, but it would be infinitely pointless.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Mangle Me Elmo]@Magrus: Fair enough. I could start a theological debate right about now, but it would be infinitely pointless.[/QUOTE]

Got news for you--so is SYM.

[Magrus]

Indubitably, and Cuch will smite us for spamming his thread.

Must retreat to my college, although I do believe you would be very uncomfortable there.