Imagine what could have been done with all the money spend during the war for those dying children.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed-aids30nov30,1,6394082.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

yeah, but if we really want to make a dent into the AIDS epidemic, we need to eliminate the global gag rule.

Bush doesn't care about the dying children because Bush is a Christian. Case an point, tell me a Christian organization that even cares about African children or has tried to stop the suffering. None. Bush was probably a decent person before Chrisitianity corrupted him with greed, ambition, and stupidity. If you want to get rid of AIDS in Africa you need to first get rid of religion and its morals. There wouldn't be an AIDS epidemic there if morals weren't there in the first place.

Here's a thought:

The whole AIDS epidermic could be eradicated simply by 1)Not having sex until the person is with their life partner (gay or hetereosexual), and then being completley faithful in the monogamous relationship. 2)Don't share needles

This is common sense. Whether you a religious person, atheist, homosexual, agnostic, etc. you could impliment these 2 rules in your life and stop AIDS. There is the myth out there that atheists don't believe in God to justify their sexual promiscuity. Atheists can prove these myths wrong by implimenting abstinence in their lives and respecting their monogamous relationships. The same is true with the gay community.

Atheists can prove these myths wrong by implimenting abstinence in their lives and respecting their monogamous relationships.

The idea that sex outside of marriage is unnatural and morally wrong (a Catholic invention) is entirely backward. Sex outside of marriage is natural by the very fact that nature created it. Marriage is man invented; it does not come from nature, and therefore it is unnatural by the very meaning of the word. Not that's it's wrong, mind you, just unnatural.

Were you aware that marriage between two people is not the natural state of human beings? Humans throughout history have a far more polygamist nature. Human societies have fostered all kinds of multiple relationships and marriage between two people is rather recent in history. Moreover, two-paired marriages have not proven very successful since only about 50% of married couples remain married. Marriage is spread through culture, especially religious culture, not biology. Moreover, our closest biological relatives, the chimpanzees show correlations to human sexual biology. Humans are naturally curious, pattern seeking animals and they have a varied sexual history (just like chimpanzees).

It's true that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. But many studies have shown that teaching abstinence alone is not effective. Only comprehensive, medically accurate sex education, which includes information on both abstinence and birth control, has been proven to prevent pregnancy and infections.

Many teens in abstinence-only programs are already sexually active and need information on safer sex to protect themselves. The abstinence-until-marriage platform excludes sexually active straight teens and all homosexual people, no matter how old they are. (Gay marriage is illegal in 49 states.) It implies that gay people should either marry straight people or go without sex for the rest of their lives. According to abstinence-only programs, even unmarried heterosexual adults should not be having sex! Abstinence only programs are usually funded by religious groups and this shouldn’t be surprising one bit. Dan, your religious ideologies do not side with scientific fact and reason, but rather conservative theological dogmas inculcated to you by society and your upbringing. What may seem as common sense to you is clearly the polar opposite of the data that exist against your view.

In Africa, certain Christians preach against condom use in villages where AIDS is epidemic, and where the only information about condoms comes from the ministry. Secular volunteers don’t spread ignorance and death in this way. A person need not be evil to preach against condom use in a village decimated by AIDS; he or she need only believe a specific faith-based moral dogma. In such cases we can see that religion can cause good people to be much less good than they might otherwise be. This kind of piety is genocidal.

Who Will Care for New U.S. AIDS Cases?

Should Sex Ed Just Teach Abstinence?

So if it's not from nature, it is unnatural?

What about written languages? What about philosophies? What about the cultures only humans are able to create and flourish?

Calling it a Catholic invention, and labeling it unnatural only provides for excuses to those looking for one.

Human has evolved from the rest of the animal kingdom with its intellects, and sustained itself by creating, and abiding to sets of laws.

Now why should they attempt to attack that foundation of society, risk spreading deadly diseases, and cause misery over many people, I might never understand.

But I think being able to resist the biological urges is what makes us human, what makes us different to animals.

I mean, if we had sex with whomever we pleased (which is biological, hormonal, etc), don't you think we'd have lots of problems?

Being aware of all those statistics through various sources, I still hold the belief that sex outside marriage is morally wrong.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals. Regardless of the origins of the marriage, it still is a contract. If you can't stay faithful, you shouldn't get married.

Although I agree with abstinence, I do not encourage it. But I do not think Dan is speaking about the abstinence that religious abstinence-only groups are speaking about.

Anyway, the video is a great example of making something more appealing...

P.S. From what I know, polygamy usually involves wealthy or powerful males abusing one's power for lust, not a relationship we'd like to call marriage in today's society.

Erick said: The idea that sex outside of marriage is unnatural and morally wrong (a Catholic invention). Erick, Seriously you have to be one of the stupidiest people I ever heard. I sure hope you don't have a relationship with a woman or guy, because they definitely deserve better. Perhaps jealousy and love, according to Erick are unnatural feelings. I don't think you are really an atheist. You are one of these people who use the athiest tag to justify your lack of self control and respect to other humanity. I know of plenty of gays and atheists who are very faithful to their partners. Perhaps you are a republican trying to discredit this website. I have to agree with Kura and Dan on this one. AIDS could be stopped with abstinence.

Once again Erick has failed to read my post, made ridiculous assumptions about me, and then did his best to stick his head up his butt. Erick, get off the religious bashing high horse. I said LIFE PARTNERS, not marriage. Abstinence and faithful monogamous relationships are not exclusively to religion. If religious people are faithful to their partners, that's great, but don't act like religious people are the only people who have a moral code. I don't pertain to any religion, but I choose to be faithful to my wife. I care about society and want to end AIDS. Abstinence education, safe sex, and being faithful to your life partner definitely will eliminate AIDS. 13% of married African males have sex with prostitutes, and their wives get AIDS from their infidelity. That's not right. Erick, what do you do good for society, seriously?

Knock off the personal attacks, or risk being banned from commenting.

is that real? did that happen?

that has to be the first time i've ever heard him endeavor to say anything so wholly noble.

i hope he's telling the truth about what he intends for once in his life. you have to imagine that at some point anyone the least bit good would have to look back on what potential they weilded and what disaster they wrought and feel some real sense of shame, feel some need to make your final moments gracious and kind.

But... you never know.

There is the myth out there that atheists don't believe in God to justify their sexual promiscuity.

Not only patently false, but paradoxical in the same way as the "you don't believe in God because you hate God" chestnut is. If I thought not believing in God was necessary to justify certain behavior, then I couldn't really be said to not believe in God. That would be denying the person of God, not the existence of God. Believers are often confused about the difference between the two. I don't believe in God because there's no such thing as God. That doesn't mean the things God says are wrong become right. It means God is a nonfactor either way. Things are right or wrong on their own merits.

With that out of the way, here you go: I am an atheist and I am a very strong proponent of monogamy. My position is that monogamy may not be natural, but neither is using toilet paper. It may not be what your primative forebears did, but it's so much more pleasant for you and everyone around you when you do.

I also certainly support avoiding promiscuity, but total abstinence until marriage (or equivalent commitment) is ludicrous. Sexual compatibility is an important part of overall compatibility. Telling people to avoid sex completely is entirely too simplistic. You can commit to practicing it yourself, but good luck getting the rest of the world to go along. Heck, even the "practice what you preach" rate is pretty low when it comes to abstinence, so it's better that people know how to do it safely.

It's an unfortunate truth that people in the world are going to make some decisions you or I wouldn't make, even decisions we might consider unwise. Unless you support turning that into a death sentence in some cases, something has to be done for those people apart from a stern lecture about personal responsibility.

As one possible remedy in the case at hand, I might suggest pulling out the Christian missionaries who tell Africans that condoms cause AIDS, but neglect to unseat the local superstition that raping virgins cures it. Think that might have an impact on infection rates?

I am confused. Was this video manufactured or did Bush actually express that much concern about AIDS in Africa?

Agreed that abstinence is a full proof prevention to AIDS transmission, but in the many styles of living in our world today, an irrational one.

Regardless, not only is the problem the transmission of AIDS, but also the fact that many in our world carry the deadly virus.

So as easy as it is to blame religions, politics, and our own personal morals, we need to separate from attacks on those general categories of people, and focus on the problem.

Yes, we need to rid of persons in Africa stating condoms cause AIDs.

Yes, we need to relay more safe sex information and the excruciating consequences of sexually transmitted diseases.

And as Gelf stated, these are problems based on their own merits, and that's what we need to focus on. Support HIV/AIDs organizations and donate to HIV/AIDs prevention and remedy causes.

This is about helping those in need, not pressing blame on others (especially by placing such wide stereotypes on people).

My point wasn’t to commit a naturalistic fallacy by implying that simply because it is found in nature it is morally good or bad.

I am not in any way saying that monogamist relationships are bad. When did I say that? I even clearly added in my earlier post this line: “not that it’s wrong, mind you, just unnatural.” I fail to see everyone’s uproar for things I did not say. Don’t put words in my mouth. By the way, let’s put aside childish sandbox-quarrel comments like these: “you have to be one of the stupidest people I ever heard.”

The fact that I defend gay rights does not make me homosexual nor does the fact that I advocate for black rights makes me a black person—which, by the way, I would have no problem in being either. Likewise, just because I don’t condemn polygamy, doesn’t make me a participant. You people are seriously filled with hasty generalizations and straw mans today, but I’ll just blame it on my lack of explanation.

Look, I don't see how one could conclude ethics based on just evolutionary evidence alone. We can, however, inform our ethical behavior by knowledge of our genetic and social behavior. Yes, human societies have been polygamist in the past but not all. This suggests social evolution (memes) rather than genes. Humans do, however, have very strong sexual urges (genetic) which could very well account for a direction toward polygamy or cheating in monogamous relationships. Does your inborn sexual interests conflict with monogamy? Then don't marry. Some successful married couples allow multiple sex partners. Many married couples don't have strong sexual urges or have sowed their oats. Having children dramatically reduces sexual urges (genetic). Marriage might work for these people but not for all.

It's not irrational for you to be mad at your husband if he cheats because you both made a contract that your husband would have violated. Note that only about 50% of marriages in the U.S. are successful. Of these that are happy marriages, the numbers surely are much lower. This does not sound like a workable system to me, and one that I would personally avoid.

Monogamy could certainly reduce viral infections but total abstinence would work even better. Unfortunately, neither works in actuality because of the reasons stated above. Education about sex and social behavior, however, has proven to work to reduce sexual transmitted diseases. To take an extreme example, some of the most promiscuous people in the world are actually much safer than most married couples-- actors in the sex industry. They understand the risks and know how to prevent sexual diseases.

As for promoting sex in Africa, how about promoting safe sex? Note that prostitution in Nevada is legal and safe because the sex workers take the proper precautions. Why couldn't this work in Africa? Not only would it satisfy human sexual urges but it would help improve their economy! And the people who wanted to get married could still get married. Unfortunately religion prevents this very workable solution from even being talked about.

The upshot of all this is: Design your ethical behavior to allow your genetic behavior to express itself to the degree that satisfies your nature but learn about the risks and how to prevent them. Your ethics should also not conflict with your partner's (or partners) ethics.

For further illumination, please read Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule.

"Knock off the personal attacks, or risk being banned from commenting."

You are a hypocrite Norm. Your personal attacks on me on a regular basis have hurt me personally. Many time your vicious attacks are too much to bear and I have to get away at my Crawford ranch.Why don't you knock off your personal attacks or I'll use the Patriot Act on you and show you that the US doesn't torture.

^ you forgot your cackle at the end George. lol

I'm betting he'll refuse to fund it, or he'll distribute aids tests and literature made by haliburton.

This is the administration that only funds you if you preach abstinence and discard condoms from being an instrument against the spreading of AIDS.

There is no abstinence. Abstinence is a lie that is spreading the diseases (not only AIDS, by the way) like nothing else. Nobody is abstinent, believer or atheist.

Well, there ARE people that are abstinent but it is not in any way an effective system to preach and teach to others.

Teaching people about sex and the way sexual transmitted diseases are begotten is the best way to attack the problem.

When you do not teach this, myths will spread through out the human population. Such as, pulling out is an effective way for birth control. That you can not get a STD from anal sex or from oral sex.

When people become educated about the different dangers and you make safe sex a highlight and a priority as in easily attainable condoms, it WILL decrease the spreading of STD's.

The whole abstinence routine is similiar to the whole communism doctrine.

In that, it is WAAYY to idealistic to be implemented into society successfully.

When teaching about STD's and such, they always say, "The only 100% way not to get them is to not have sex." That is fine, but they then go on to say, "But if you do, learn how they can be transmitted, ways to safeguard against it, etc."

sigh

Well, there ARE people that are abstinent but it is not in any way an effective system to preach and teach to others.

Exactly. Just like the analogy of not letting a teen drive their car because they could potentially crash, instead of teaching them precausionary measures, wearing seatbelts, looking both ways, driving the speed limit, etc. Abstinence-only education is naive and harmful.