AIDS on the rise for boys 13-29

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So who decides what is 'proper and acceptable behaviour'? I'm sure my definition would be different from yours. For example, sex outside of marriage is not an issue for me in the slightest, I partake on a regular basis.

I am sure you do but that is your affair, our morality is different. My standards are Biblical, yours a product of your own conscience i suspect.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
If I was to devise a sex education programme, it would basically teach people:

1) Don't have sex until you're really sure it's the right choice for you.
2) If you do have sex, make damn sure you use protection.

wow, and that provides what kind of moral imperative?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sure you do but that is your affair, our morality is different. My standards are Biblical, yours a product of your own conscience i suspect.

So who decides what is 'proper and acceptable behaviour'? That was your solution to the problem remember, for 'patents to inculcate what is proper and acceptable behaviour and what is not'. But as I pointed out, you and me will have differing views, you subscribe to Jewish mythology and I don't. Sex out side of marriage is acceptable behaviour for me yet not for you. Who decides?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So who decides what is 'proper and acceptable behaviour'? That was your solution to the problem remember, for 'patents to inculcate what is proper and acceptable behaviour and what is not'. But as I pointed out, you and me will have differing views, you subscribe to Jewish mythology and I don't. Sex out side of marriage is acceptable behaviour for me yet not for you. Who decides?

I will ignore your irrational and unscientific assertion of Jewish mythology, there is nothing mythological about Biblical principles. Each family must decide what is good for them, certainly it is my view that parents have a responsibility to inculcate morality in their children through principles upon which their children can reason so as to act as a moral imperative. One hopes that these principles will remain with the child so that when pressed with a situation that demands a decision, the young person will act on the faculty of conscience in harmony with those principles and make a sound evaluation.

you have a better suggestion perhaps?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
If I was to devise a sex education programme, it would basically teach people:

1) Don't have sex until you're really sure it's the right choice for you.
2) If you do have sex, make damn sure you use protection.

Would you consider that a disclaimer be #3 that no known protection is entirely safe.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Well, morality is demonstrably a relative concept, since not everyone shares the same morals. On the other hand, "Do no harm" seems a fairly universally accepted precept, and it's on that basis that the state can encourage the practice of safe sex.

Truly safe sex would have to be enjoyed by monogamous couples, who entered their relationship clear of STDs. Any breach of that moral code, brings with it risk of sex being unsafe.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How many does 'multiple' constitute? How many people does someone have to sleep with to be termed promiscuous in your eyes?

Multiple means two or more, as far as I know.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are talking about a statistically insignificant factor. You can contract HIV from dentist tools, or from accidental mixing of blood in a car accident.

However, you do illustrate that total safety is illusive, perhaps unattainable, so it is really false advertising to promote "safe sex". Sex has risks, the question then being how to minimize those risks to acceptable levels.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So who decides what is 'proper and acceptable behaviour'? I'm sure my definition would be different from yours. For example, sex outside of marriage is not an issue for me in the slightest, I partake on a regular basis.

Barak Obama.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Same question to you as for Robbie, what's your solution?

I don't want my government endorsing what appears to be an unhealthy lifestyle. Government should have nothing to do with marriage and the President should not be calling up some NBA player congradulating him on being gay while cheating on his girlfriend the entire time.

As I have said, history shows that the more socially acceptable it is the more widespread it becomes.

Originally posted by normbenign
Would you consider that a disclaimer be #3 that no known protection is entirely safe.

I know we are of a different generation, but during my sex ed courses the reliability of contraceptives was extensively covered.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't want my government endorsing what appears to be an unhealthy lifestyle. Government should have nothing to do with marriage and the President should not be calling up some NBA player congradulating him on being gay while cheating on his girlfriend the entire time.

As I have said, history shows that the more socially acceptable it is the more widespread it becomes.

So you think the government ought to take steps to reduce the social acceptedness of homosexuality?

Originally posted by normbenign
Would you consider that a disclaimer be #3 that no known protection is entirely safe.

Seems like Kazet's provided an answer to that.