News-Record.com

I would agree that using a condom during nonmonogamous sex would not be nearly affective preventing AIDS as not having nonmonogamous sex in the first place. Can you prove otherwise?

ydog,
heaven forbid that we hold to a moral code....
when the bar is set so low, incentive goes out the window !

"To offer help based on religious conditions is stunningly cruel." Is that more cruel than not offering help? If someone - or some organization - wants to offer help, do they not have the right to set conditions - "attach strings" - to the help? Of course they do! But the writer continues the "I'm gonna do my thing regardless of consequences" attitude, and when called for the behavior, whining that he has every right to do whatever he wants and let others pay the bills.

Have either of you ever been to a third world country? The expectation that uneducated, unemployed people with no prospect of their lives going anywhere abstaining from the only entertainment that they don't have to buy (I know, it does come with a cost, but it's not an up-front, cash-on-the-barrelhead cost) is unrealistic.

kinda unrealistic that these same uneducated people are going to use condoms too.

but that isn't really the argument.

the argument is about looking a gift horse in the mouth. if you tell your mamma that you want a bunch of money to get rid of your headache, she'll probably stipulate that you use it for aspirin instead of crack cocaine. and since it's her money, it's her right to do so.

Ahh, the entitlement mentality. Screw you and your religious beliefs & give me my condoms now!

Once again, liberals cannot take personal responsibility for their actions and lack common sense. Most AIDS victims acquired the disease through risky behavior, such as unprotected sex with mulitple partners, both homo- and heterosexually and by drug use (their choice). Giving out condoms and free clean neddles for drug addicts is only a quick fix to a larger problem.

The Bush Administration has been FAR TOO GENEROUS in fighting AIDS, as they ear-marked $15 billion to African AIDS relief (our tax dollars for something that ISN"T our problem).

You smoke, you get cancer; you eat too much fast food, you get obese/diabetes/heart disease; you engage in unprotected sex and drug activity, you risk getting AIDS. It's about personal responibilty, so stop blaming Bush, conservatives, and Christians for something that is clearly an individual problem. That liberal attitude of "blame everyone else for my poor choices in life" makes ME sick beyond belief.

Actually, churches are probably the biggest proviers of free medical care in the developing world. Of course the letter-writer didn't say he was willing to drop everything and take all of his financial resources to go the the third world and hand out condoms, so how much moral authority does he have? It's the churches money so they get decide how to spend it. Mr. Gamble is just upset that they don't want to spend it on his agenda.

Thomas, you make too much sense to be taken seriously. Unlike cancer,stroke,diabetes,etc. AIDS is 100% preventable. It could be eradicated from the human race within one generation. But this will not happen because some people refuse to accept personal responsibility and insted blame soceity for their woes.
If the AIDS activists spent as much time focusing on this approach (prevention) insted of searching for someone else to blame for their plight,the disease would cease to be a threat to humans within one generation. But insted,they complain about not enough "free" (code name for someone else paying for)condoms.

Also,be on the lookout for Yvonne's prescription for that upset stomach: Sugar on a saltine cracker. (also code for "shut up and send in the money")

Looks like the LTE writer is not getting too much sympathy here. I guess that's to be expected when you politicize an issue like this writer does.

Imagine that!

Wrong bubba. I totally empathize and sympathize for what the letter writer is saying.

If Church-related organizations want money to "evanglze" then solicit the membership/attenders of their particular organization. The US Government has NO reason whatsoever giving my tax dollars to a faith-based (church-related) organization to give supposed "sex-education" (i.e. abstinence). Anyone that truly believes that abstinence is an effective birth, STD control means DOES NOT live in the real world.

The 21st Century citizen needs to address 21st Century problems with 22nd Century mentality; NOT 17th Century ignorance.

Shalom

Darryl,
There seems to be plenty of 17th century ignorance throughout this blog--especially when it comes to the marriage of politics and religion.

Practicing nondiscriminatory sex or sharing dirty needles to inject illegal drugs is 17th century ignorance combined with 21st century stupidity if you ask me.

"Anyone that truly believes that abstinence is an effective birth, STD control DOES NOT live in the real world."

With this liberal mindset, AIDS will always be with us. Pass out all the 'free' condoms in the world and it will not replace personal responsibility.
This mindset is also for responsible for the high number of unwed teenage mothers that are incapable of rearing their spawn and must turn to the state in order to feed and house them.

Insted of telling the people the truth that abstinence works 100% of the time, the liberal solution is to let them contract the deadly disease then show them how 'compassionate' they are by handing out 'free' rubbers while they are dying !!! Colossal 21st century stupidity !!

AND THEY HAVE THE B---S TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS 17th CENTURY IGNORANT !!

Liberal attitudes seem to be the realistic ones. While abstinence is surely the best way to prevent disease and pregnancy, does anyone believe people will not have sex? Is neocon ready to give up sex? Condoms help prevent disease and pregnancy. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, IMO.

Carol, I am not ready to give up sex,however it is monogamous sex with my wife ,who is neither a prostitute nor a drug addict that shares needles with other addicts.

If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then abstinence is priceless when you are risking your life.

Again you promote reckless behavior by suggesting "they're going to do it anyway,might as well give them 'free' rubbers". With this coming out of the mouths of adults,what are the kids going to think? Did you let your children play with loaded guns when they were too young to know this was a danger to them and others? Did you say "they are going to play with guns anyway,might as well be ready and have the car gassed up and ready for a trip to the emergency room"? Same thing with AIDS,it's just slower.

neocon,
i agree with your thought process. like you said, a gazillion condoms can be distributed ( which in & of itself gives license to use them ) but that is like putting a band aid on a shot gun blast to the gut. man is not inexcusable and we all eventually will give account. i was about to say their isn't an easy solution...but after a little more thought, i believe there is a solution and those who read htese blogs know where i am coming from.

Neocon, I think you are basically a good man who tries to live his life according to his beliefs. For this I applaud you.

We also agree that morals should guide the decisions we make on a daily basis. Where we part ways is whether or not we can legislate morality. As a realistic person, I think not. I strongly believe if we stopped any form of welfare, needle exchange, free condoms, free education or any of the other interventions, it would not stop promiscuity, drug use, unwanted pregancies, STD's or teen sex. But these interventions, if they save only a few lives, a few unwanted pregancies, are worth the effort, imo.

I also believe, with my heart, my soul and my money, that God did not put mankind on this earth to benefit the individual. It is my belief that all of us were put here to help one another. That includes the drug addict, the pregnant teen, the person affected by STD's, the physically and mentally handicapped, the poor.

Does this mean I think it absolves the individual of personal responsibility/accountability? Certainly not! It means I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It means I don't believe in turning my back on someone because they make stupid mistakes. It means I am living my life based on my convictions, to the best of my ability. It means I am trying to serve God in the ways I believe He wants me to. It means I give God all the glory for all my blessings and try to share my blessings with all His children.

If this makes me a far left a wacko, a nutzoid, a liberal, a goodie two shoes, a nazi or any of the other adjectives you would like to attach to me, so be it. I do not answer to you or any other human being. And my deeds will be judged by the only One who really matters.

Yvonne, I don't believe we should punish people for their mistakes either, but I also don't think a church group (or any group for that matter) should be condemned for not wanting to give anyone the idea that making that mistake is all right and here, we'll help you try to avoid the consequences.
When we give in to our appetites and let them dictate our actions, we lose. We also send the message to our children that it's ok to do whatever you want to do to feel good with whoever you want to. Eat, drink, take drugs, spend money you don't have, have sex, don't do homework, don't help around the house, don't go to school, whatever feels good, do it. As adults, we don't live in a vacuum. Everyday, kids are watching our actions and looking at the choices we make in order to figure out what kind of choices they should make. I can't see why we shouldn't expect adults to be able to exercise some self-control. Anything else is lowers the standard for behavior. Everybody knows that people rise to meet the standard that is set for them. Let's make them work a little bit harder to meet it.

spooge,
you made really good points !!

Neocon thinks June and Ward Cleaver are your typical parents these days. His misconception is along the same lines as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrinch, and Jimmy Swaggart. I remember Swaggert talking about HBO being being the equivalent of bringing "rot in the living room" then he was arrested for watching live prostitutes.
I remember Newt talking about monogamy, marital fidelity and orphanages---then he resigned due to loose morals.
Neocon, your cure is for everyone to think just like you. Hate to tell you, but you cannot put your morality on someone else by just preaching it to them. You cannot legislate YOUR morality.
For that, we are all the better.

World traveler, you cannot dispute the facts that I have presented-AIDS ,by and large,is the result of immoral behavior- so you resort to immature rants against Jerry Falwell,etc.

I'm not preaching morality to anyone. What other people do is their business. I was simply pointing out that this disease can be wiped out in one generation if those who seek free condoms for the dying would shift their attention to the PREVENTION side. But at the same time ,I realize that because of narrow minds and bleeding hearts like your's, this has little chance of seeing the light of day.

So go ahead and pass out the "free" rubbers and tell yourself that you are doing 'the right thing' and sleep well at night while hunderds of thousands die needlessly.