From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: AIDS info to kids? (was Re: separation of church and state)
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:14:38 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

> In article <L2a7NB1w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
  Winemiller) writes:
> >What I'm talking about isn't repression, and it doesn't fail nearly as
> >miserably as the "sex education" being pawned off in schools today.
> 
> 	You're asking that we not divulge information about condoms to
> our children. Your point is that it paints a "false picture" about
> sex. You argue, then, not to stop the information, but that the information,
> or its delivery, is flawed.
...
> Problems: Which is safer, to use a condom, or not?  Answer: To use one.

To some extent, yes.  We haven't established how much more effective it is. 
But read on, anyway.

> Which is safer, to have no sex, or "safe" sex? Answer:
> To have no sex.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which is the best course --- one which I've been advocating.

> We're nearing "repression", though, when you 
> don't want to try to change unprotected sex habits to protected sex habits
> because you don't want to appear to advocate sex.

I _have_ been advocating the change of sex habits!  I've been advocating
_abstinence_ as the change in behavior!  If that isn't a change in sexual
behavior, I don't know what is.

> Who goddamn cares if 
> we _are_ advocating sex, at this point, because, like it or not, Chris,
> they're doing it.

Yes, and we should encourage refraint from that activity.  How is it helpful
to say to a minor, "Well, we know you're sexually active, [and we don't
think it's any use to ask you to refrain], so here's something [condoms]
that will increase your safety by some factor [unknown], although if you
keep having sex over time, even with condoms you run a high risk of getting
STD's (and AIDS)".  You want to say all that, and not ask them to exercise
self-restraint?  That's the biggest glaring hole in the entire pro-condom
argument. (Pun not intended :-))  The assumption is that self-control is
unachievable and should not (cannot) be taught.  What a fallacy.  It's also
hypocritical because we are (or should be) teaching our kids to exercise
self-control by persevering in studies, keeping up their music lessons,
going to all the athletic practices, showing up for work on time, etc.,
etc., etc.   It's negligent _not_ to encourage self-control in bodily desires,
whether eating or sexual activity --- but _especially_ in sexual activity
because of its consequences.

Joe writes:
> >> What is your agenda? Righteousness, or results?
> >
> >Both.  One need not choose between the two.
> 
> 	This attitude is _the_ problem in a nutshell. It's quite easy to
> demonstrate righteousness w/o results, and results w/o righteousness. And
> so, a choice _must_ be made. ("Results" is used to mean "positive results").

Positive results based on doing what is right (righteousness) will produce
longer-lasting results because it's based upon one's world view and
corresponding moral code.

> Your pat answer indicates your choice is righteousness.

Come on, Joe.  It's not a "pat answer."  One's world view (and one's
corresponding moral code) has great effect upon one's behavior.


Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics