[Botany Bay]

Yeah, funny post Berengarius7, really. Why dont you just ask why I did put comunity value in this funny thingies, I dont even know what they are called in english.

I did, because comunity value is a term that I find highly problematic. Whats that supposed to be, a comunity value? The sum of all the values of all the individuals who live in this and that comunity? What comunity? And how do they agree on this values? Who watches this values and how to enforce them, and by whom?

But make your fun of it before thinking about it. You are welcome.

[Berengarius7]

Wasn't poking fun at the disease dude, just trying to lighten the mood and break up the monotony (no pun intended). No offense intended either BB. I just thought the thread had gotten a bit too serious. I'll be happy to delete the post if you desire it, sir.

[Botany Bay]

No, but you will now kneel down in front of all my glory and ask for my forgiveness.. ahem.. never mind

[MissionTrek08]

I guess I'm still puzzled how monogamy will be the greatest weapon against a disease?

If someone has three sexual partners in five years, but none of them have HIV, will AIDS mysteriously spread anyway because they were unmarried partners? Or are those people simply smart about protection and prevention, refusing to endanger themselves or others?

I don't see how stigmatizing groups accomplishes anything positive in the battle... especially since such an attitude was most responsible in allowing AIDS to flourish in the first place.

[Oregon_Coast_Trekkie]

While monogomy would certainly be helpful, what would be an even better weapon against AIDS would be a CURE!

[Chris Fawkes]

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?

[Chris Fawkes]

Originally Posted by Oregon_Coast_Trekkie

While monogomy would certainly be helpful, what would be an even better weapon against AIDS would be a CURE!

God grant me the wisdom to accept the things i cannot change.

The wisdom to change the things i can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

[NCC-73515]

Science is the best weapon.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by 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?

No. Humas by nature, are not monogomus. They choose to enter into monogomus relationships. Are you willing to give up sex until you find "the right one?" I doubt it.

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

No. See A.

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

Marrige/Monogamy are not mutally exclusive terms. I know lots of folks who have "open marriges", while not my bag persoanlly, they seem to like it. We have allways had STD's. The only diffrence is now we have one that kills, with minium protection you can avoid it. there's plenty of safe sex products out there ot cover every orafice.

[FanWriter45]

Yes, monogamy is the answer! It's all the fault of those evil promiscuous people... and uh, introveineous drug users... and blood transfusions... and...

The problem here is, you think the disease cares about your moral stance.

It doesn't.

All it wants to do is transfer from one bloodstream to another. I've heard this argument before... AIDS would disappear overnight, if gays stopped having sex! Or if people refrained from anything deviating from the missionary position with the lights off! It's all a bunch of BS.

So, what if we redefined "monogamy" to include swing groups who have all had their six month STD panels done? Wouldn't a group of, say, 20 people, all having sex with one another, but still not going outside that group, be just as safe as two? If that's the case, then isn't your pushing monogamy (the two partner only system) just your attempt to limit other people's freedom of sexual expression?

I've lost far too many friends to this insideious plauge. And to ad insult to injury, we had to put up with messages from the religious right telling us that it's "God's judgement" upon us. Now to hear people STILL talking about how the answer is to just limit other people's freedom just infuriates me.

We know what causes it. We know how it's transmitted. There are simple, cheap countermeasures that will slow, stop, and reverse the rate of people being infected. If anything will stop the spread of AIDS, it's more and better sex education, and the use of safer sex techniques. (condoms, rubber gloves, dental dams)