From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please read this one!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:24:33 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug25.082811.310@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

>
>    So who is bothering to tell these poor guys and gals about the
>    *proper* way to use condoms as they are being handed out by the
>    truckload?	How many *teenagers* know enough to fall in the
>    98% to 100% catagory?
>
>    And consider this while you stand on your self-styled pedastal.
>    All it takes is one mistake, and the person has HIV.  There is

Brilliant deduction. Did you notice that you have better chances WITH a condom
than without?

>    And please quote me the studies which show that condoms are *as*
>    *effective* in stopping HIV as they do sperm.  There are *no* such
>    studies of which I am aware.  An HIV is about 100 times smaller
>    than a sperm, and so such an assumption is quite groundless.

As is your psuedo-scientific bullshit implying that condoms are less effective
at stopping HIV as they do sperm. Your assumption is equally as groundless

>    I believe that's it's simply irresponsible negligence to promote
>    condom use as a key to "safe sex" in light of all the variables
>    that we don't know.

Its not promoted, its given as an option. An option you wish top remove

>>The problem is that condoms will give people a false sense of security
>>and the HIV infection rate will go up.  That's why decent minded citizens
>>oppose the distribution of condoms.  It promotes sexual activity in
>>teenagers by providing this false sense of security.  The *only*
>>*rational* preventive measures against AIDS remains abstinence and
>>*strict* monogamy.
>
This is stupid reasoning; kids fool around with sex weather you like it or not

>    True.  But abstinence never hurt teenagers, male or otherwise.

How are you going to enforce this? You think they're going to listen to how
dangerous sex is from the likes of you? Best of luck to you.

>
>  Read the August 3rd edition of _Newsweek_ for a
>  closer look at the facts.  Teenagers will have sex, whether you
>  approve or not.
>
>    And teenagers will have *more sex* with condoms thinking themselves
>    safe whether you like it or not.  And I seriously doubt that they

Gee, where do you get this? Quote me some studies, since you are so fond of
them...


>    Perhaps this pro-condom thing is really just a humanist plot
>    to promote hedonistic lifestyles regardless of the cost to
>    society?   What's ironic is that those who propose condom use
>    as a method of "safe sex" will do far more to "weed out the
>    moral undesirables in this country" than the Christian programs
>    to encourage monogamy and abstinence.  For all these gullible
>    people will practice this "safe sex" until they get AIDS, and
>    then they'll die.  Assuming a cure is not found first, of course.

Ahh AIDs is one of the best things to happen to xtianity in a long time eh?

>    Bull.  No person can be denied such *legally* under the law.
>    Some may in fact suffer such discrimination, just as some racial
>    discrimination in such instances still exists (the 20/20 report
>    on racial discrimination in America aired a few months ago comes
>    to mind), but it is not *legally sanctioned*, at least not under
>    Federal law.  (I can't speak for all states since I am not
>    familiar with the laws of all states, but it would seem that
>    state laws which would prevent equal rights to housing and
>    employment would violate federal statutes in these areas.)

Stupid; they can be discriminated against (and are due to small minded bigots
as it seems you might be) because there is no law to protect them
>
>  The local ACLU chapter in my
>  state did a news bit about the problem.  When a homosexual walks
>  into their office with a complaint about discrmination, all they
>  can do is nod their head in sympathy, pat the bloke on the back,
>  and send him on his way.  
>
>    Ah, the good ol' All-for Criminals Litigation Union.  What a shining
>    symbol of socialism that we have here in this country!  The only thing
>    I want to hear from them is that they've decided to move to the former
>    Soviet Union, except that I wouldn't even wish them upon our former
>    adversaries.  :)

ANd what a shining example of fascism you and your Pat Buchanin cronies have 
been. 

Former adversaries indeed...

-Scott

VOTE LIBERTY IN '92
Marrou/Lord

Newsgroups: alt.atheism