AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[The Gaffer]

And one last contribution for now, then I'll shut up.

Last year, 3 million people died of AIDS worldwide, 14 million children were orphaned and 5 million were newly infected with HIV.

I'd recommend that people read the keynote statement from the AIDS conference in Bangkok in July: UNFPA Statement

Note the emphasis that sex education which promotes condom use also incorporates education that promotes abstinence from sexual activity. It also includes tackling gender discrimination and violence against women.

We need a fully integrated approach if we are to have any chance of stemming this terrible suffering.

There's also a good review piece by George Monbiot in The Guardian. If you can stomach the leftist spin early on, there are some interesting facts further on down. Like, for example, countries where they have no interest in abstinence-only education having the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy.

Here's choice quote:

...what Bush has been up to. When his cherished abstinence programmes failed to reduce the rate of teenage births, he instructed the US Centres for Disease Control to stop gathering data. He also forced them to drop their project identifying the sex education programmes that work, after they found that none of the successful ones were "abstinence only".

Monbiot refers to this systematic review from the British Medical Journal which shows, rather depressingly, that none of the educational programmes had a statistically significant impact on reducing teenage pregnancies, apart from one "multifaceted" approach (not sure what that means). The pooled estimate for abstinence education showed an increase in pregnancies, though it's not statistically significant.

There's not enough evidence here to be categorical, but it's not good news for educational programmes in general and it's looking particularly grim for abstinence-only.

[brownjenkins]

thanks for taking the time to look up the stuff i was to lazy to gaffer... and many good points too

[The Gaffer]

No bother. Ah, the joys of "working at home"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Firstly, we can agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: just because there is no evidence on the effectiveness of something doesn't mean that it's not effective. What would be needed would be studies which showed that it didn't work.

Agreed.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
However, as others have pointed out, a couple of millenia of very strict, intensive, one-on-one abstinence coaching doesn't stop some priests from getting up to what they ought not to. Obviously, this is a minority, but perhaps we can rule out the possibility that abstinence education ALWAYS works.

Actually, there is a difference here that you haven't recognized. Not every person that attempts to become a priest has good intentions. When one is a priest, he has massive influence and automatic respect from the community. If some altar boy complains about such an individual, which of them is going to be believed? Positions of religious authority give a person automatic respect and to some extent, reverence. Naturally the office attracts plenty of bad characters. Not that all or even many of them manage to get into the position, but some can, and the lure for people to try is great.

That said about the priest example though, I will nevertheless agree with you that abstinence education will not always work. I'd have to be an extremely idealistic individual to believe that.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Secondly, it's a natural human tendency to seek out evidence that confirms what we believe. For this reason, all studies are potentially biased and must be subject to strict methodological filtering. It also means that, right across all areas of health care and education, we end up doing things which are ineffective or even harmful. Drug companies are particularly expert at getting us to adopt new technologies on the basis of flimsy evidence.

Agreed.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Thirdly, there IS good evidence that "safe sex" education works. There is also pretty detailed evidence about HOW to do that education most effectively. (i.e. men don't like using condoms, women are pressurised into sex by men, so lots of deeply held beliefs and cultural norms have to be challenged for it to work)

Those safe-sex methods don't have complete success either, though, even when implemented. So you've got two groups that are problems, one being the group that used condoms and contracted STDs anyway, and one being the group that didn't use them.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
So, IMO, it would be immoral to abandon these proven methods and, indeed, immoral to undermine their effectiveness by promoting a message which works against the values that the condom education is trying to establish.

What values is condom education trying to establish?

Originally posted by The Gaffer
EDIT: I agree that politics should be influenced by religious beliefs, if you have them, but this isn't about politics: it's about health care. People are dying by the million in sub-Saharan Africa, you know. Should we trash a proven preventive intervention in favour of one that is, at best, unproven just because it fits our religious beliefs?

It's a decision every individual should consider and make for themselves. The government shouldn't have the right to decide votes are invalid, or support for certain programs is invalid, or other decisions made by individuals are invalid based upon the government's view of the individuals' religious influences. The government shouldn't have the right to say, "this vote is made for religious reasons; let's throw out that one. This vote is made because the person's religion causes them to want abstinence-only taught in Africa- religion shouldn't be a part of this- let's throw that one out." The government shouldn't have the authority to look upon the reasons for peoples' voting and decide whether they're good or bad reasons. The government should simply accept that that is the way a citizen of the country thinks, and that person has a right to just as much influence as any other, whatever his motivations and beliefs.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
EDIT: I agree that politics should be influenced by religious beliefs, if you have them, but this isn't about politics: it's about health care. People are dying by the million in sub-Saharan Africa, you know. Should we trash a proven preventive intervention in favour of one that is, at best, unproven just because it fits our religious beliefs?

I would add one final point by means of example.

Let's say our government became highly religious. Religious people gained office everywhere. Health care became extremely religious. The religious people decide that people making votes based upon secular views are to be excluded from the voting process. Atheists and Agnostics are having their votes carefully observed to see whether they're based upon secular or religious viewpoints. People that aren't religious don't have any say in health care. Their votes are thrown out because they're making them from non-religious standpoints.

This clearly isn't right. So why should the reverse be fair? Religious people being excluded from having an impact upon health care because they're religious?

[Lief Erikson]

I read the articles from "The Guardian" and the AIDS one that you posted, Gaffer. Quite interesting material, it is. I feel a little tentative about accepting George Monbiot's words though. That's largely because Republicans and Democrats frequently try to tear down each others' nominees in favor of getting votes. The apparently compelling information from the Swiftvets doesn't seem to be doing too well, on a closer inspection. Hmm. When it gets into politics, referring particularly to President Bush, I tend to be somewhat more cautious.

[The Gaffer]

LE, I agree about the priests, the lack of certainty in any approach, and would reiterate that there are no guarantees in this life generally!

Condom values? Using condoms can protect you from STDs and prevent unwanted pregnancy. IMO there are associated values around honesty, openness, discussion with your partner and respect for his/her values.

Sure, Monbiot is a leftie and proud of it. At least he's fairly honest. As far as I can tell, though, he has got his facts straight, including that the CDC programmes he referred to were dropped under pressure from the executive. You have to decide for yourself whether that had anything to do with the executive wanting to suppress information that might reflect badly on its favoured policy.

As far as I can tell, no-one is openly suggesting that we organise health care along religious lines, nor that we discount certain views because they're made for this reason or that. What I do argue for is that policy should be informed by the best available evidence about what works and what doesn't.

By all means argue for it if you believe in it, and see how many people you get on side. At least, again, you'll be being honest and open about it, which is more than can be said for the current incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But in health care, there is often a tension between what's good from the individual's perspective and what's good from the population's. Witness the furore surrounding MMR vaccination recently. (Basically, there was a totally unfounded suggestion that the MMR vaccine caused autism, which got into the media and resulted in some areas of the UK losing its "herd immunity". As a result, children are getting measles again)

So, who should put forward policy on these things? Health professionals or theologians? How about pressure groups with a particular axe to grind?

There's also the question of whether it's right for any state to promote views that are based on any particular religious denomination.

[Lief Erikson]

Whoops. In an earlier post I said, "I will nevertheless agree with you that abstinence education will always work. I'd have to be an extremely idealistic individual to believe that." What I meant was, "I will nevertheless agree with you that abstinence education will not always work. I'd have to be an extremely idealistic individual to believe that."

I must have been rather tired when I was writing that post.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Condom values? Using condoms can protect you from STDs and prevent unwanted pregnancy. IMO there are associated values around honesty, openness, discussion with your partner and respect for his/her values.

Abstinence organizations do more than just tell teens to say no to unwed sex: they teach young people the skills they need to practice abstinence. Classes cover many topics including self-esteem building, self-control, decision-making, goal-setting, character education, and communication skills.

You make an accurate point that the abstinence-only teachings completely miss important portions of discussion (safe-sex). Most places where abstinence-only is taught don't allow safe-sex to be discussed, unless it's where its shortcomings are criticized.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Sure, Monbiot is a leftie and proud of it. At least he's fairly honest. As far as I can tell, though, he has got his facts straight, including that the CDC programmes he referred to were dropped under pressure from the executive. You have to decide for yourself whether that had anything to do with the executive wanting to suppress information that might reflect badly on its favoured policy.

You're probably right.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
As far as I can tell, no-one is openly suggesting that we organise health care along religious lines, nor that we discount certain views because they're made for this reason or that. What I do argue for is that policy should be informed by the best available evidence about what works and what doesn't.

That makes a lot of sense.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
By all means argue for it if you believe in it, and see how many people you get on side. At least, again, you'll be being honest and open about it, which is more than can be said for the current incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Out of curiosity, what is that about?

Originally posted by The Gaffer
But in health care, there is often a tension between what's good from the individual's perspective and what's good from the population's. Witness the furore surrounding MMR vaccination recently. (Basically, there was a totally unfounded suggestion that the MMR vaccine caused autism, which got into the media and resulted in some areas of the UK losing its "herd immunity". As a result, children are getting measles again)

So, who should put forward policy on these things? Health professionals or theologians? How about pressure groups with a particular axe to grind?

There are some doctors and health officials that practice demon exorcisms. Currently people are allowed to act according to their religious beliefs in the medical field, at least in some ways. When a challenge of ethics comes up because of what the state says (such as abortion), it's time for the doctor to think about their religious convictions and make a decision. Will the doctor withdraw from that area of the medical field, will he try to change the law or will he ignore the law? It's up to him.

People who advance in the medical field, those who put forth policies, are health professionals. Whether they're religious or not. What decisions they make can be influenced by religious beliefs or by the lack of them. These are professionals using their professional judgment. That judgment shouldn't have to be scrutinized and judged based upon the individuals' connection with religion. At least I don't think it should. I'm not very knowledgable in this area.

Originally posted by The Gaffer
There's also the question of whether it's right for any state to promote views that are based on any particular religious denomination.

Yes, that's a big issue. I don't really have time to discuss it now.

[Insidious Rex]

The freedom in this country must be equal from one citizen to another. I am strongly against the country becoming an anti-religious one, one that forces people to keep their religion as only their own affair without allowing them from it to influence those around them. I think that, which you seem to be advocating, is an encroachment upon religious freedom.

that’s absurd. How is saying that you cannot IMPOSE upon OTHERS what YOU deem as the right way of being infringing on YOUR liberties? The day I tell you that YOU are not allowed to live under your own ideals and raise your children under your ideals is the day you can say im encroaching on your religious freedom. But you cannot dictate to others how they shall live their life as long as how they live their life does not cause undo harm to you or others. You just need to let them live as they wish. Ive never really understood the double standard of some religious people who insist they should have the right to impose restrictions on other people because its their right as a free citizen. That sends my irony needle off the charts quite frankly.

That is most incorrect. Homosexual marriage, if made legal, is equated with the traditional marriage. The state says they are the same. I think that is wrong.

marriage is marriage. “homosexual marriage� and “traditional marriage� are non terms. Adjectives at best. End of semantics discussion.

I think we should be allowed to attempt to impose our views upon others.

man that just sends chills down my spine just reading that sentence… you can attempt to “impose your views on others� all you like but you should never be allowed to do it if it directly effects the civil liberties of others. Its just dead wrong. And its almost always unconstitutional. Even if the majority of citizens want to treat certain people unfairly because of what their religion tells them they still should not have that right. You cant create legislation that imposes unfair standards on others. Of course we were talking about sex education here and I think we are moving more toward more controversial topics with this discussion so Ill stop here.

Homosexual marriage being legalized is a way of imposing views of some upon others. It's the state saying that heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage. The state equates the two legally, which in court will impact me and everyone else who sees the two as very distinct things. The state equates the two parentally, which says that adopted children will grow up just as well with a homosexual couple as with a heterosexual one, and that people putting the kids up for adoption have no say in which environment they'd rather the kid grow up in. The state equates the two spiritually, which means that people growing up in society will know that homosexual relationships are considered just as good as heterosexual ones; polygamy or other kinds of relationships may follow as being classified as marriage because the line has been crossed and the boundary no longer exists.

Man I could have so much fun with this paragraph but like was stated before, different topic. Feel free to paste this in the gay thread though if you want to see the full scalpel effect on this.

Although I WILL comment briefly on your conclusion here:

This decision (where accepted) based upon the beliefs and desires of some will impact many more people. If you think that it's fine for this decision to be made, you should be willing to say that our religious convictions should be able to legally impact others' lives as well.

No. incorrect. Gay marriage doesn’t effect you or your marriage. No matter how much you believe it does. It doesn’t. but YOU telling OTHERS who is allowed to get married and who isn’t because of what your religion tells you DOES directly effect others. So the logic in this statement is flawed from the outset.

Not everything that's legal is right or good for you to do. Take smoking, for example.

and you don’t see that as a patent inconsistency? At least theres a legitimate age limit with smoking. Such that if you tell 17 year olds not to smoke the law backs you up. But if you tell that same 17 year old that they can NOT have any sexual contact with someone their own age the law disagrees with you. And society in general for the most part. So there is an inconsistency in your approach that will cause confusion or real doubt among those you are attempting to enforce it on. This in and of itself would go a long way to undermine an abstinence only sex education system.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Interesting point Rian. The relativist cloak suits you, you know

Gaffer - I know you put a winkie smilie in, but I really don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean? And when you use "cloak", to me, that's a criticism, and I don't see what you're criticizing. Could you please explain what you meant by that comment? I respect your opinion, and would seriously consider any criticism that you have to offer.

To me, this is a VERY important issue. I hear so often from people that are "non-religious" that "religious" people should somehow not be able to vote on issues. Well, I say that until the "non-religious" people can show me convincing proof that God does NOT exist, then THEIR beliefs are on par with mine, and we should BOTH be able to vote based on what we think is right.

And let me clear something up - the way I vote on issues that affect society does NOT always reflect what I think is right for ME, PERSONALLY. For example, altho I think that sex outside of marriage is very hurtful to everyone involved, I would NOT vote for a LAW that penalizes sex outside of marriage, mainly because I don't think it's enforceable, and I think it is counterproductive. I think there are more important things to concentrate on in our legal code.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

There's also the question of whether it's right for any state to promote views that are based on any particular religious denomination.

States should promote views that its free citizens support via a fair, legal vote. That's our system, and I think it's a good one.

What tends to get overlooked here is that the VAST majority of Americans consider themselves Christians. It amazes me when "non-religious" people have the gall to actually suggest that this vast majority of Americans should meekly surrender their right to vote just because a minority has an opinion that they should not vote if the issue has any "religious" tinges, in their opinion. Like somehow a "non-religious" person is more right than a "religious" person, when both base their opinions upon beliefs? The first time someone floated that idea and someone bought it ... they must have stayed up the whole night laughing at how easily people rolled over. Well, I don't intend to roll over and buy that line, since I think it is both illogical and hypocritical, and against what our country was founded for.

As I said in the previous post, I say that until the "non-religious" people can show me convincing proof that God does NOT exist, then THEIR beliefs are on par with mine, and we should BOTH be able to vote based on what we think is right.

And if someone sincerely believes in Islam, and wants women to wear veils, then all power to them to get the issue on the ballot and vote according to their beliefs. It's a free country. And people are free to leave if they don't like what the majority of citizens like.

Really, it amazes me how illiberal the liberals are. Their opinion seems to be "If you disagree with me, especially on issues that I consider to be "religious", then don't vote!" I would be considered a conservative, and yet I say "If you disagree with me, then go ahead and lobby for your position, and vote your position!"

And I also repeat that I vote on society issues based on what I think is right for SOCIETY, not necessarily for ME.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What values is condom education trying to establish?

(I see what you were trying to say, but this line just cracked me up!! )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

that’s absurd. How is saying that you cannot IMPOSE upon OTHERS what YOU deem as the right way of being infringing on YOUR liberties? The day I tell you that YOU are not allowed to live under your own ideals and raise your children under your ideals is the day you can say im encroaching on your religious freedom. But you cannot dictate to others how they shall live their life as long as how they live their life does not cause undo harm to you or others. You just need to let them live as they wish. Ive never really understood the double standard of some religious people who insist they should have the right to impose restrictions on other people because its their right as a free citizen. That sends my irony needle off the charts quite frankly.

See my previous two posts.

No. incorrect. Gay marriage doesn’t effect you or your marriage. No matter how much you believe it does. It doesn’t.

If Lief thinks it affects him or his marriage, then that's his opinion, no matter how much you try to say otherwise. It's YOUR opinion that gay marriage does NOT affect those around them. Based on his worldview beliefs, Lief's opinion is quite right. Based on your worldview beliefs, your opinion is quite right. Lief has just as much right to his opinion, based on his beliefs, as you do (or are you suggesting that Lief should not think for himself and just mindlessly adopt your opinion? I hope not!! You, who sometimes claim that Christians don't think for themselves, should SURELY support Lief's right and efforts to do just that. )

[Janny]

I find it concerning that at no point in my sex education was there a link between having sex and having children. Sex is not portrayed as a good thing to have when you want children. It was something you will have. But you just have to make sure that you don't 'get pregnant'. That's the worst thing! I don't know what it is, but it's bad and I shouldn't do it.

Perhaps a connection between sex and its natural function in sex ed classes and maybe there will be fewer pregnacies.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

See my previous two posts.

what do your posts have to do with overtly "IMPOSING upon OTHERS" something that restricts their liberties? you like to avoid the distinction between living according to your religious beliefs and making rules based on them that restrict others. thats a big distinction there. the first is just fine. you also like to make the erroneous comparison between your imposing said restrictive beliefs on others and me saying let them live as they wish. show me who is being the overt active party here and telling OTHER people how to live and who is actually attempting to be fair and consistent? if i tell you that you are not allowed to go to church or openly worship god anymore THEN we would have an equivalent situation. because that would be just as wrong as someone dictating who can and cant do something that causes NO harm to any one else.

If Lief thinks it affects him or his marriage, then that's his opinion, no matter how much you try to say otherwise. It's YOUR opinion that gay marriage does NOT affect those around them. Based on his worldview beliefs, Lief's opinion is quite right. Based on your worldview beliefs, your opinion is quite right. Lief has just as much right to his opinion, based on his beliefs, as you do (or are you suggesting that Lief should not think for himself and just mindlessly adopt your opinion? I hope not!! You, who sometimes claim that Christians don't think for themselves, should SURELY support Lief's right and efforts to do just that. )

No Im just stating the fact that lief is incorrect here. Please show me how two guys getting married effects his or your marriage (if he was married of course). Show me what it did to your marriage and how it weakened or tainted the bond between you and your husband. And then show me the direct cause and effect of how a same sex couple marrying directly caused this damage in your marriage. until thats done you cant say that such a marriage does anything at all to yours. It’s a ridiculous statement. Its like saying because prostitution exists, ALL sex has been devalued. And that suddenly and somehow the sex you have with your partner (that you’ve always had) is somehow completely different and effected. Well actually NO it hasn’t because the two have nothing to do with each other.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Janny

I find it concerning that at no point in my sex education was there a link between having sex and having children.

Is THAT how I ended up with my kids?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
that’s absurd. How is saying that you cannot IMPOSE upon OTHERS what YOU deem as the right way of being infringing on YOUR liberties? The day I tell you that YOU are not allowed to live under your own ideals and raise your children under your ideals is the day you can say im encroaching on your religious freedom. But you cannot dictate to others how they shall live their life as long as how they live their life does not cause undo harm to you or others. You just need to let them live as they wish. Ive never really understood the double standard of some religious people who insist they should have the right to impose restrictions on other people because its their right as a free citizen. That sends my irony needle off the charts quite frankly.

Everyone is able to impose restrictions upon other people through legal means. When someone sues a company for selling you bad products, he's imposing restrictions on other people using his rights as a free citizen. What you seem to be saying though is that the person's rights to attempt to impose such restrictions are to be thrown out when the effort is made from a religious conviction. That view of yours is simple and plain religious discrimination.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Quote:
I think we should be allowed to attempt to impose our views upon others.

man that just sends chills down my spine just reading that sentence… you can attempt to “impose your views on others� all you like but you should never be allowed to do it if it directly effects the civil liberties of others. Its just dead wrong. And its almost always unconstitutional. Even if the majority of citizens want to treat certain people unfairly because of what their religion tells them they still should not have that right. You cant create legislation that imposes unfair standards on others. Of course we were talking about sex education here and I think we are moving more toward more controversial topics with this discussion so Ill stop here.

There is such a thing as minority rights. I'm not saying that my religious beliefs should have automatic success in everything I attempt to push them into. Fight using these legal rights, put a stop to me. That's what the Christian would do to the atheist that attempts from his non-religious standpoint to push his beliefs. There are legal means that these battles should take place. However, it is simple discrimination to say that people with religious views shouldn't be allowed to lobby, shouldn't be allowed to press their views on others (as you have the right to do), shouldn't be allowed to use the rights of a free citizen of the country. That's blatant discrimination.

However, I don't see how I can possibly make you see that. Doubtless I will soon stop arguing it, as a consequence. In all some of my recent posts I don't feel that I'm making any progress. You restate the same points again and again, and so do I. Nothing productive is being done, and it's rather sad. One of us just can't see how his arguments fail, so we probably would do well to both quit.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Man I could have so much fun with this paragraph but like was stated before, different topic. Feel free to paste this in the gay thread though if you want to see the full scalpel effect on this.

No thanks. I already posted exactly those views in the gay/lesbian thread at an earlier point, and it was to no purpose whatsoever.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
but YOU telling OTHERS who is allowed to get married and who isn’t because of what your religion tells you DOES directly effect others. So the logic in this statement is flawed from the outset.

The government saying that their marriage is just the same as mine causes several problems to me and to society in general (of which I am a part), problems I brought up already in the gay/lesbian thread and which I mentioned here in brief. I know it's impossible to restate those problems or support them in such a way that they'll make any sense to you, so why try? (Gives up)

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Not everything that's legal is right or good for you to do. Take smoking, for example.


and you don’t see that as a patent inconsistency? At least theres a legitimate age limit with smoking. Such that if you tell 17 year olds not to smoke the law backs you up. But if you tell that same 17 year old that they can NOT have any sexual contact with someone their own age the law disagrees with you. And society in general for the most part. So there is an inconsistency in your approach that will cause confusion or real doubt among those you are attempting to enforce it on. This in and of itself would go a long way to undermine an abstinence only sex education system.

With smoking, the government says, "you can do this, but it's bad for you." With sexual abstinence-only teaching it is clear that the students can do this, but it's bad for them. Where's the patent inconsistency?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(I see what you were trying to say, but this line just cracked me up!! )

Lol!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

you like to avoid the distinction between living according to your religious beliefs and making rules based on them that restrict others. thats a big distinction there. the first is just fine.

As long as you say that NEITHER ONE OF US can impose rules on others based on our beliefs, then I'm fine with that. What I'm shooting for here is equality, which is what our country is based on.

And if you're willing to agree to that, then I expect and hope to see you lobbying to remove ALL laws that impose restrictions on other people, including laws about murder and theft.

Then you'll come back and point out that you think that only laws that stop people from hurting others should be imposed. And I'll point out that I totally agree with you, and that our only difference is that based on our worldviews, we don't agree on what hurts people.

So I think this discussion is at an end. And I'd like to point out that I seem to be the most tolerant one here, because I would say that if you sincerely think it's best for society to make a law that says it's illegal for me to go to church, then I would hope that you lobby for that law and vote for it. Just like you support laws against murder because you sincerely think it's harmful.

And I would also like to point out that YOU are the one making a distinction between one group of my beliefs and another. I do NOT make that distinction, and I reject your attempt to make it for me. ALL of my beliefs are based on my worldview. ALL of your beliefs are based on yours. I don't accept your distinction.

Or I will accept it, and insist that you let ME characterize YOUR beliefs as all being religious, too, because IMO, they are. But I imagine you'll say I'm wrong, which really mystifies me, because you seem to be saying you can have an opinion and I can't.

you also like to make the erroneous comparison between your imposing said restrictive beliefs on others and me saying let them live as they wish. show me who is being the overt active party here and telling OTHER people how to live and who is actually attempting to be fair and consistent?

But you DON'T say let people live as they wish. I imagine you support, for example, laws against murder. You only say let people live as YOU think they should, and according to what YOU think is harmful or not harmful.

I'm the one that's fair and consistent. I say let EVERY person in this country vote for what they think is right for society.

if i tell you that you are not allowed to go to church or openly worship god anymore THEN we would have an equivalent situation.

And I repeat - if you sincerely think that it's harmful for society for me to go to church or openly worship God, then it would be wrong of you to NOT lobby for a law about this.

What's your answer to that one?

because that would be just as wrong as someone dictating who can and cant do something that causes NO harm to any one else.

Again, you're using YOUR definition of harmful. Mine is different. I say let people vote according to what their definition of harmful is. Do you?

No Im just stating the fact that lief is incorrect here. Please show me how two guys getting married effects his or your marriage (if he was married of course).

I already did, and you didn't accept it. But I can understand that, because it's consistent with your worldview (altho your worldview is WRONG, IMO ).

Again, it seems that I'm the tolerant and consistent one here. I am willing to accept that you have a different worldview than I do. And I'm gracious enough to assume that you have put some thought into your worldview. I certainly have put a lot of thought into mine. And I am openminded enough to see that according to your worldview BELIEFS, your position makes sense. But you don't seem to be able to do this with me. Why not? Cannot you, the agnostic, grant that my worldview might be the correct one? It's certainly not a minority worldview; MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people think it the correct one. Why can't you, the agnostic, encourage someone of different beliefs to vote according to what they believe is harmful or good for society? You certainly vote that way.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(altho your worldview is WRONG, IMO ).

Cannot you, the agnostic, grant that my worldview might be the correct one?

Just want to see how this looks. OK, You IMO him he is wrong, but then you want him to say you *might* be right.

I'm jealous! I never got a sex education! My mom didn't even tell me about menstruation, till it happened. I always wondered what those packages wrapped in plain brown paper were at the PX. I haven't read this entire thread, so please excuse me if I put my foot in my mouth. Aids is too scary to trust to just abstinance talk IMO. I would talk that first, but also back it up with condom talk, and anything else that works. What works anyways? Getting tested and then trusting your partner will be faithful? I was lucky that aids wasn't around when I was a swinging single.