[Chris Fawkes]

If society took the view that monogamy was consistent with reducing the spread of aids: (recognising that it is not always but mostly sexually transmitted).

A/ Would it?

B/ If so is monogamy an obligation on us for the consideration of the community at large?

C/ If so (again) is marriage whilst not always perfect the best medium to bring this valuse into sharper focus?

[Botany Bay]

Uhm, condoms, anyone? I use them and believe me, they work good.

[MissionTrek08]

One could extrapolate the logic: if monogamy is a great weapon against AIDS, then marriage rights should be extended to all couples, not just male/female.

On the other hand, how does marriage or society 'enforce' monogamy anyway. There are plenty of examples in medical records of one partner in a marriage not being monogamous and either contracting HIV or worse, giving it to their married partner (just like STDs, etc.).

Blaming sex for AIDS is an easy cop-out. What would have gone a LONG way to help slow or stop the spread of AIDS would have been a 1980s administration that didn't ignore the disease because it was a "gay problem."

Blood bank services and healthcare corporations who agreed to test their blood transfusion supplies instead of worrying about their profit margins would have slowed the spread of AIDS a great deal, too.

If we want to end AIDS, we don't need to promote monogamy or abstinence... that is simply old-style Victorian repression of the human sexual function. Instead, continue funding for treatment and vaccines, and increase funding for education and preventative methods which are clinically proven to reduce the risk of spreading or contracting HIV.

Fear and willing ignorance of a problem are never effective weapons to defeat it.

[Botany Bay]

And worse, by declaring marriage and monogamy the only solution for the problem and therefore demanding marriage and monogamy as a social responsibility one excludes other solutions that fit other people needs better.

By this one would just exchange the one problem against another. Health is not only a matter of the body, but also of the psychology. Let me explain the obvious result:

Sex exposes people to the risk of AIDS. The more partners, the higher the risk. Thats a fact. To make monogamy and marriage the only solution leads automatically to the no-sex-before-marriage rule and also to the no-new-partnership-after-marriage.

We had that in former times. And if you allow yourself to read biographies of men and women from the thirties or the fifties you will realize the problem this creates for peoples psychology.

It just doesnt work as a rule that applies for everyone. Face it: Most people need good and satisfying sex to lead a happy life. And most people need experiences with different partners during their lifetime to achieve that.

And by the way: If one marries to be protected from certain risks in life I ask myself, wasnt partnership about love?

[Berengarius7]

Originally Posted by Botany Bay

And worse, by declaring marriage and monogamy the only solution for the problem and therefore demanding marriage and monogamy as a social responsibility one excludes other solutions that fit other people needs better.

By this one would just exchange the one problem against another. Health is not only a matter of the body, but also of the psychology. Let me explain the obvious result:

Sex exposes people to the risk of AIDS. The more partners, the higher the risk. Thats a fact. To make monogamy and marriage the only solution leads automatically to the no-sex-before-marriage rule and also to the no-new-partnership-after-marriage.

We had that in former times. And if you allow yourself to read biographies of men and women from the thirties or the fifties you will realize the problem this creates for peoples psychology.

It just doesnt work as a rule that applies for everyone. Face it: Most people need good and satisfying sex to lead a happy life. And most people need experiences with different partners during their lifetime to achieve that.

And by the way: If one marries to be protected from certain risks in life I ask myself, wasnt partnership about love?

How do you define "love"? I personally don't believe in love as a noun, not as some inconceivable force floating around that just lights some kind of spark between two individuals. That kind of love is complete total and utter balderdash! The only love i believe in is a verb, not a noun. It's whatever you can do for someone else that helps their life not suck so much. That's about the best definition i can give. But romantic love? It's as much a myth as Zuess, Apollo and Hercules.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by Berengarius7

But romantic love? It's as much a myth as Zuess, Apollo and Hercules.

Or as much as marriage being a demand of God?

However, what I tryed to adress is, that I find it strange to see marriage as a matter of staying physically healthy, as if it where a medical drug, instead of a bond for life between complex individuals with their very individual and complex needs, hopes and wishes.

PS: And by the way, love is an emotion, not an action. You do not decide to love or hate someone. Emotion is the result of experiences. You may have influence on your experiences as they are the result of your actions.

[Berengarius7]

Originally Posted by Botany Bay

Or as much as marriage being a demand of God?

However, what I tryed to adress is, that I find it strange to see marriage as a matter of staying physically healthy, as if it where a medical drug, instead of a bond for life between complex individuals with their very individual and complex needs, hopes and wishes.

It almost hurts me to say this, because i know where this is going to go. And it's not my intention to begin some sort of religious debate. But i only believe in what i experience. And i believe in God because i have felt His presence, and heard His voice and seen Him work in my life and the lives of others. I don't believe in Bigfoot, U.F.O's, or The Loch Ness Monster because i've not seen, heard or otherwise experienced them in any way. Neither have i ever felt anything like some kind of "love force" for anyone. There are people i like, there are people i like so much that i'm willing to do things for them that i'd normally balk at if i didn't. But i've never seen some woman on the street or in a crowded room or anyplace else and felt some sort of mystical attraction toward her, or anyone else. It just hasn't been part of my personal experience. Oh, i've felt chemistry allright, i've experienced biological attraction to some female i thought was good looking. Yes, i've felt that, but some sort of immediate knowledge that "This is it! She's the one for me! The one i've waited for all my life! I'm in *L-O-V-E*!"? Nope, never encountered such a thing. And i've lived over half my life expectancy. That's the point i'm trying to make.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by Berengarius7

Oh, i've felt chemistry allright, i've experienced biological attraction to some female i thought was good looking. Yes, i've felt that, but some sort of immediate knowledge that "This is it! She's the one for me! The one i've waited for all my life! I'm in *L-O-V-E*!"? Nope, never encountered such a thing. And i've lived over half my life expectancy. That's the point i'm trying to make.

I have experienced that, several times in my life for several people.
However, perhaps you misinterprete the emotional state most people call love: Its not eternal or immediate by definition. The feeling can be enduring, for sure. It can stay long enough to base a lifelong relationship on it in some cases and they are not as rare as news papers want to make us think (but rare enough, they allways where). That the emotion of love can come and go doesnt make it not love. The colour red is red, eventhough the rose changes colour over time.

[Berengarius7]

Originally Posted by Botany Bay

I have experienced that, several times in my life for several people.
However, perhaps you misinterprete the emotional state most people call love: Its not eternal or immediate by definition. The feeling can be enduring, for sure. It can stay long enough to base a lifelong relationship on it in some cases and they are not as rare as news papers want to make us think (but rare enough, they allways where). That the emotion of love can come and go doesnt make it not love. The colour red is red, eventhough the rose changes colour over time.

I can't understand this elusive thing you and others say you have experienced, simply due to the fact that i haven't experienced it myself. Until i do, i'm going to have to say i'm from Missouri on this one. That having been said, that last sentence of yours has to be one of the most touching things i've ever read. It should be part of a song or sonnet somewhere. Wonderful words my friend. Bravo.

[CaptRay]

Let me make sure I understand this, so if everyone waited till marriage till they had sex.
then if they stayed in that monagamous relationship that AIDS woulndt have slowed down? Also we would have all have psychological problems? Maybe its just me but I really dont see your point. And how you you justify not promoting abstence & monogomy? People have got to take responsibilty for thier own actions. Ohh Wait no we dont we were suposed to wait for the government to take of all us "free sprited" people.
Im sorry those "victorian" principles founded this great country and by ignoring those is our downfall.

You might be a very knowledgeble person just not very wise.