From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
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 92 13:08:22 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1992Aug26.190745.10678@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:

> I am suggesting we neither encourage nor discourage promiscuity.  If the risks
> are as great as you suggest (compared to the benefits) then you have nothing
> to worry about in presenting a balanced view without drawing conclusions.

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.  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.

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.



> As for "our" traditional value system, I suggest that such a monolithic beast
> does not exist.  You yourself cited the values displayed in the media; were
> this "traditional value system" anywhere near universal, the media would find
> such matters unprofitable and cease displaying them.
> 
> I submit that the "traditional value system" you make reference to is actually
> held by a small minority of Americans, and that this minority is attempting to
> impress it upon the American people by asserting its near universal acceptance
> and shaming people into not challenging it in public.

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.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3388 alt.rush-limbaugh:4075 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4895