From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 19:16:31 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Michael Doel) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> > Michael Doel) writes:
|> > |> james.a.parker) writes:
|> > |> 
|> > |> 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.  Our values system is much more fundamental
|> > |> than that.  Despite what you say, I think there are traditional values that
|> > |> just about everyone would agree with:
|> > |> 
|> > |> 	good things:                   bad things:
|> > |> 	   honesty                       cheating
|> > |> 	   responsibility                stealing
|> > |> 	   hard work                     unprovoked violence
|> > |>            the "golden rule"             promiscuity
|> > |> 
|> > |> and so on.  Some people will try to put controversial things in one category
|> > |> or another (e.g. Pat Robertson and the like would surely put homosexuality
|> > |> in the bad things category), but for the most part people agree on most
|> > |> categorizations.
|> > |> 
|> > |> I believe that we as a society usually suffer when things move out of one
|> > |> category and into the nebulous middle.  There are exceptions of course,
|> > |> but I don't think that condoning promiscuity is one of them.  You are
|> > |> free to disagree.
|> > |> 
|> > I'll disagree.  Why is promiscuity necessarily bad?  It does not violate
|> > or interfere with others, it is not inconsistent with your list of "good
|> > things," and it is impossible to define.
|> 
|> This is starting to get off the subject of condom distribution, but I'll
|> give it a stab.  Promiscuity is the behavior of having sexual relations
|> with many people to whom you have little or no commitment.  Promiscuity
|> is bad because it cheapens both the sex act itself and the relationship
|> between spouses.  It cheapens the sex act because promiscuous sex is
|> rarely an expression of love, but rather it's just a way to feel good.
|> It cheapens the relationship because sex no longer becomes a unique bond
|> between its participants.
|> 
You are the one that inserted promiscuity into the issue.  Webster defines
promiscuity as having more than one sexual partner.  I was using that
definition when I took my position.  Your unsupportable re-definition
of the word helps your argument at the cost of honesty.

|> Now if you believe that promiscuity is really ok, then I doubt my
|> arguments will change your mind.  Nonetheless, I can assure you that
|> you are in the minority in this thinking.
|> 
Actually I agree that the behavior you described above is probably not
something I would encourage of my children, nor would I be upset if they
were promiscuous (per Webster).  Webster doesn't even require that you
have your "more than one sexual partner" in the same time frame.

I also doubt that I am in the minority.
|> 

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dogs, never my employers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections