[Zinkovich]

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?

When you started going on about "lefty" media and homosexual "lifestyles", I wan't sure if your previous post was an honest one or one that served as a "hey, I'm reasonable" segue into you making yourself look like you understand where gays are coming from.

Nothing against you, I do it a lot. Ever since I read my first Worldnetdaily article(or was it my first freerepublic post?) I've been a bit paranoid when it comes to one's true honesty on where they intellectually stand.

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.

Jesus, you have high standards. My 10 is "drinking tea while watching Heroes and reading my books during commercials". Perhaps I need to raise my standards a bit.

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.

The best way to make sure the ignorant are not "at stake" is to make them no longer ignorant, rather than attaching culture negativities to those who are not ignorant but also fall under the group being impersonified as an example of this "promiscuity".

And no, I am not saying you are the one doing such a thing, necessarily. What I am instead saying is that is what is currently being done on the cultural level by the some of those who are politicially "right".

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.

Most studies show the failure rate to average one percent. Fluid transmission, when used correctly, is downright nonexistant as well. I have already posted studies to demonstrate this as the accepted conclusion amongst those who do deal statistical majorities in terms of experience.

That being said, with improvements in manufacturing and design we will someday likely reach a point where the chance actually does go down to zero. Research is, in fact, currently being done in attempts to do so.

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.

If someone has sex with an HIV infected person and wears a condom, they will most likely not catch the HIV infection. Keeping this in mind, educating people about condoms and encouraging widespread us will lower the stakes, while abstinence woold simply ask them to ignore the ability of them to "take bets"(which in and of itself is something that ignores human behavior).

-Edit for removal of obscenity for fear of moderation reprisal and for my horrific sentence structure.