Originally Posted by Botany Bay
Besides that victorian is not a dirty word, of course monogamy as a "comunity value" would diminish the spread of AIDS. But it comes with a prizetag on it:
To make it a "comunity value", one would have to engage in major public campaigns that declare sex before or outside of marriage an irresponsible act.
That would start the question why gays arent allowed to marry (wich I do not understand anyway). So one has to change the law from that perspective too.
The price tag is surely worth it if it saves lives.
A community value is not something it becomes but something it already is as it would benefit the community wether that community acknowledges it or not.
Education would be stage two of the discussion but we are not talking about a small problem here.
To simply acknowledge that monogamy would save lives is surely the beggining of obligation.
I agree that it then raises the question of homosexual marriage.
I never said Victorian was a dirty word but it has been used that way as a means to negate the idea of monogamy as a value for modern society.
Here then is my next question. If say half the community believed that monogamy was in the interest of all and promoted that as a means to several ends including the fight against aids would we see the spread of aids diminish within that half of the population?
Fact is sex is great but we all want to apply some rules as to what is acceptable and what is not. A paedophile should not have sex with children. We know the damage to the children and it is in their interest that we make that rule.
So who makes that rule? The fact that it is detrimental on numerous levels to the children who are a valued part of our community .
Sex between two consenting adults is not offensive in that way but the idea of determining if there is value to the community as a whole is the same. There will be those who benefit by not contracting a virus that will kill them.
If half the community were on board would it have an effect?