From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.130822.8001@crd.ge.com>, doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>
>Well, I would say there are two classes of risks: health risks to the individual
>and the risk of decay in our values system (see below).  I agree that the
>health risks are able to stand on their own as you suggest.  The other class
>of risks, however, can not stand on their own by definition.

By what definition?  If our values aren't clearly Good, people won't follow
them.

>If we as a society hold as a certain value, then we can not present the risk
>of that value going away without at the same time encouraging that the value
>be continued.

Firstly, that's a big "if".  I challenge you to produce a set of values that
society holds.  If you get much more detailed than "good things are good, bad
things are bad", there will be precious few things that we can agree on.

Secondly, yes we can present the information about risk of not following values
without simultaneously encouraging them.  Many of our shared values are
codified as laws.  By all means, I encourage presenting information about laws
relating to sex as part of sex education or civics (e.g., rape, statutory rape,
illegal acts (if any), etc.).  Notions peculiar to various other belief systems
*not* legally accepted (e.g., premarital sex is a sin, homosexuality is a sin,
etc.) *could* also be presented, but clearly don't belong in the public school.

>I am all for presenting a balanced, accurate view of the benefits and risks
>of sex from a health perspective.  I would be strongly opposed to presenting
>a positive view of promiscuity from an ethical standpoint though.  To do
>so would undermine our values system.

Who ever suggested "presenting a positive view of promiscuity"?  Unless you
equate that with teaching so-called safe sex?  If what the public schools teach
undermines *your* (not *our*) values system, then I suggest *you* put *your*
children in a school that will properly indoctrinate them to your preferred
values.

>Perhaps you don't understand what I mean when I talk about our traditional
>values system.  I'm not including anything about Jesus Christ being the
>son of God, or don't eat meat on the Fridays of Lent, or any other
>RELIGIOUS belief or practice.

Wasn't it you that mentioned judeo-christian values?

>Our values system is much more fundamental than that.

There you go again with "our" values.  I'll thank you not to speak on my
behalf.

>Despite what you say, I think there are traditional values that
>just about everyone would agree with:

WRONG!

>	good things:                   bad things:
>	   honesty                       cheating

There are times when a white lie is Better than The Truth.  And I can imagine
scenarios where cheating would be Better than not cheating.  In general,
though, I agree.

>	   responsibility                stealing

OK.

>	   hard work                     unprovoked violence

Hard work is Good but easy work is Bad?  Leasure must be positively evil.

>           the "golden rule"             promiscuity

Hold on there just a second, pardner.  Just how do you define "promiscuity"? 
Sex outside of wedlock?  Sex with multiple partners?  Simultaneously? 
Recreational sex between consenting adults?  Sex with minors?  Sex with
non-humans?  Gay sex?  Oral sex?  What?

>...but for the most part people agree on most categorizations.

I agree, for the most part.  I disagree in the case of "promiscuity", and the
level of so-called promiscuity exhibited by the population seems to imply that
I'm not unusual in this respect.

I get the feeling you use the term "promiscuity" much in the same manner that
fundamentalists use the term "homosexual".  

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush