[dilligras]

Quote by: Zinkovich Sorry, not to agree. To reach understanding. Your future posts obsfucated the context of your position through connotation, making it difficult for me to see where you stand.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads nor tails of this.......my apologies for being obtuse, but how could a "future post" be known to do anything? Connotation?


"Speak up!..........ah say quit mumblin', boy......ah cain't heah a thing while you're under that four-legged chicken, son....."[/Foghorn Leghorn]

So I continued to pester you, and now I understand where you're coming from. Isn't that a good thing?

Well, its not bad, but that isn't how I define good. It's about a 3.5 on the exite-o-meter.

For perspective on that value, let me say that my standard response to the question, "how are you?" is, "about an 8.5", and that a 10 would involve something like winning the lottery that I don't play while simultaneously reaching orgasm.

I was posting it not to indicate anything about homosexuals as a whole, but about to say something about me and my friends as homosexuals. Because I know that me and my friends exist as monogamous homosexuals, I know that the possibility of homosexuals being monomagous exists in the first place. I was trying to demonstrate that homosexuality is not hopeless when it comes to becoming a less promiscuous "lifestyle" for some adherents.

Don't be silly, who would ever question the probable existance of monogamy among any sexual orientation? Sex is, after all, all about attraction, which intuitively promotes adherence. I never would infer such improvement was immpossible, so demonstrating otherwise is unnecessary, though not particulary objectionable. Just not very profound, given what is at stake for those not among the "improved" sector of the population.

Should those who do not do things stupidly, be discounted as legitimate examples of what could be if those who were ignorant were not so about certain issues?

I was not only referring to misuse of condoms (or non-use) but also to the fact that even if they are used correctly in every instance of exposure, they are anything but inherently reliable as a barrier to pregnancy for heteros, right? Then it cannot be considered reasonable to expect a perfect product when the consequence might be the taking of life, rather than the mere invonvenience of creating one.

My post does not serve as a denouncement or a denial of the existence of the ignorant and stupid, but as a nod to their potential to no longer be so if they were to be properly educated by society and properly pressured to protect themselves correctly by both their peers and by popular culture. What we should not do is allow them to stew in further ignorance. They must be educated on correct methods of protection, instead of JUST being told that avoiding sex altogether would be the optimal method of doing things.

A laudable motive, I agree. It is only the method's apparent ignorance of the realities of human behavior, with so much at risk, that is the problem for me.



.