By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Pope says condoms are sort of alright

Rath on 20 November 2010
neerdowell said:

You know what else prevents the spread of AIDS, abstinence. In fact, it's the only 100% method of prevention (barring accidental exposure/drug use). Now I couldn't care less about the AIDS epidemic, however, people need to quit trying to blame a system that is entirely irrelevant and face up to their own contributions to their issues. The Catholic church may have issues, and the non-support of contraception may be one of them (i'm not going to take a stance either way since it doesn't concern me), however, it is unrelated to the spread of AIDS.

If they were following the teachings of the church then they wouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, and if they married a carrier of HIV and had sex with them, well that's their own stupidity. Now if they married them not knowing they had HIV, that's not something the church's teachings really account for, and that still wouldn't be solved by the use of contraception. Also, what type of husband would have sex with their wife knowing they could put them at risk for HIV; how is that a practice of love?

Now as far as being realistic and facing the realization that people are going to be promiscuous, well then, that's still on them. The church didn't put a gun to their head and force them to make the decisions which led to their exposure; in fact, it does everything it can to promote the only form on control that actually works.

The lack of condom use in Africa has undeniably hugely contributed to the AIDs pandemic in Africa. The lack of condom use is quite largely down to the opposition of the Catholic church. Therefore a decision by the Catholic church has contributed to the AIDs pandemic in Africa.

Sure, you can say that they shouldn't have been having sex. It doesn't change the fact that the Vaticans position on condoms has cost many lives.



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 20 November 2010
Rath said:

Oh yeah, I completely agree with you Highway. The Vatican has many many deaths on their hands from their refusal to allow the use of condoms.

However this is a big step from just a year ago when the Pope was saying that condoms actually made the AIDs pandemic worse.

I suppose you have to give credit where credit is due too. The Catholic church is the single largest financial supporter of AIDS prevention*, which is good, and that this is a significant step in the right direction.

But it still doesn't deter me from the fact that their position on condoms is one of the main reasons why AIDS has ravaged sub saharan Africa in the first place. It would be admirable if this lead to a significant reduction in the AIDS pandemic, and I'll give them the respect once they start acting on this and saying condoms are ok.

 (*Although I think that's because it's such a big problem for sub Saharan Catholics, and they know their policies on condoms are one of the major causes of it.)



radiantshadow92 on 20 November 2010
highwaystar101 said:
radiantshadow92 said:

I dont ever remember any religious officials saying condoms were bad, just that sex is bad

Apart from the Vatican having a ban on using condoms and repeatedly saying condoms make the AIDS pandemic worse.


Well, they ban the use of condoms because that means people are having sex, and i don't know why the fuck they think condoms adds to AIDS, either way though, they just want people to stop having sex.



Rath on 20 November 2010
dany612 said:

I don't like it when people talk bad about my religion.


It's not the religion, it's some of the positions of the church itself.



neerdowell on 20 November 2010
Rath said:
neerdowell said:
 

You know what else prevents the spread of AIDS, abstinence. In fact, it's the only 100% method of prevention (barring accidental exposure/drug use). Now I couldn't care less about the AIDS epidemic, however, people need to quit trying to blame a system that is entirely irrelevant and face up to their own contributions to their issues. The Catholic church may have issues, and the non-support of contraception may be one of them (i'm not going to take a stance either way since it doesn't concern me), however, it is unrelated to the spread of AIDS.

If they were following the teachings of the church then they wouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, and if they married a carrier of HIV and had sex with them, well that's their own stupidity. Now if they married them not knowing they had HIV, that's not something the church's teachings really account for, and that still wouldn't be solved by the use of contraception. Also, what type of husband would have sex with their wife knowing they could put them at risk for HIV; how is that a practice of love?

Now as far as being realistic and facing the realization that people are going to be promiscuous, well then, that's still on them. The church didn't put a gun to their head and force them to make the decisions which led to their exposure; in fact, it does everything it can to promote the only form on control that actually works.

The lack of condom use in Africa has undeniably hugely contributed to the AIDs pandemic in Africa. The lack of condom use is quite largely down to the opposition of the Catholic church. Therefore a decision by the Catholic church has contributed to the AIDs pandemic in Africa.

Sure, you can say that they shouldn't have been having sex. It doesn't change the fact that the Vaticans position on condoms has cost many lives.

So you're saying that the catholic church should be held responsible for people disregarding what they say to begin with? Why do they choose to not listen to them on one end but listen to them on the other? I mean, if I decided to disregard the church's teachings on sex, why would I not just disregard them on contraception? And if I didn't, well then once again, that would be my own stupidity to blame, not the church.

I mean, is the church running around like a fairy and ripping people's condoms right out of their hand before they do the deed?



How do you breathe again?

Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 20 November 2010
neerdowell said:
highwaystar101 said:

The Vatican's view on on condoms has always made me feel a little sick.

Quite frankly, 1.5 million people in sub saharan Africa die every years from AIDS/HIV and the reason is largely down to the Vatican. Millions are at risk due to their views on contraceptives and the propaganda they've spread throughout sub saharan Africa.

It's sickening.

It's sad that the Vatican favours their scriptures over human life. They know condoms are a proven method of containing the spread of AIDS, and yet they still outright lie to their followers, even when they're dying in their millions.

It's a step in the right direction to say that condoms could be used to stop infection. But until they act on it and promote the use of condoms as an effective way to stop AIDS, and show some positive results from it, I'll kick up a fuss.

The church (in general) needs more forward thinking leaders like Bishop Desmond Tutu, and less fanatical leaders endangering the lives of their followers like the pope.

You know what else prevents the spread of AIDS, abstinence. In fact, it's the only 100% method of prevention (barring accidental exposure/drug use). Now I couldn't care less about the AIDS epidemic, however, people need to quit trying to blame a system that is entirely irrelevant and face up to their own contributions to their issues. The Catholic church may have issues, and the non-support of contraception may be one of them (i'm not going to take a stance either way since it doesn't concern me), however, it is unrelated to the spread of AIDS.

If they were following the teachings of the church then they wouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, and if they married a carrier of HIV and had sex with them, well that's their own stupidity. Now if they married them not knowing they had HIV, that's not something the church's teachings really account for, and that still wouldn't be solved by the use of contraception. Also, what type of husband would have sex with their wife knowing they could put them at risk for HIV; how is that a practice of love?

Now as far as being realistic and facing the realization that people are going to be promiscuous, well then, that's still on them. The church didn't put a gun to their head and force them to make the decisions which led to their exposure; in fact, it does everything it can to promote the only form on control that actually works.

P.S. Way to take a statement out of it's context to further support your own views.

People should have the right to have sex, whether it be recreational or for procreation. If people choose to have recreational sex then you should not pressure them into not using a condom, which is what the Cathoilic church has done (they didn't put a gun to their head, but they put a lot of pressure on them). That's just going to cause a whole host of problems. Condoms may not be 100% effective, but they are damn close. They are a very effective form of prevention, especially for those who choose to have recreational sex.

If the Catholic church wants to say "Yeah, we support condoms as a method of AIDs prevention, but we favour abstinence" then that would be fine. But they haven't done that, they've gone out of their way to spread the lie that condoms actually make the situation worse, which isn't the case.

If people want to promote abstinence, fine, the more the merrier; but don't bring the anti-condom propaganda with it, that's just going to make the situation a whole lot worse.

 

Also, what statement did I take out of context if I may ask?



scottie on 20 November 2010
dany612 said:

I don't like it when people talk bad about my religion.


We aren't. Your religion is excellent. Some of those who represent your religion however...

 

On topic - this is incredible news and I hope it gets spread as far and wide as it possibly can.



Soleron on 20 November 2010

So, yesterday, using condoms was a terrible sin.

Today it's fine.

If they can change their interpretation of the Bible so easily, how do believers know which stance is correct? Why is the Church absolutely right in all cases?

I'd like to hear what Catholics think of this - was the Church correct in its complete opposition up until now, and still correct in its new policy?



highwaystar101 on 20 November 2010
dany612 said:

I don't like it when people talk bad about my religion.

I don't mind Catholicism. But it's one of the policies that the church hold that I have problems with I'm afraid. You shouldn't see it as a direct assault against the religion itself, just one of the policies.

Similarly, I'm sure you don't mind Muslims, for example. But I would bet that you don't agree with everything the religion promotes and that you might have issues with, again as an example, sharia law. (This is just an example, the words "muslim" and "Sharia law" are interchangeable).

This is the same, I don't mind Catholics, but I don't agree fully with some of their actions and policies.

Either way, I hope I haven't offended you, please understand that is not my intention.



Mr Khan on 20 November 2010
Rath said:

My guess is that like in everything else the Vatican will slowly come around to new social ideas two centuries late. We might see female priests next century.

You have to remember its a gerontocracy, an institution where only the very old ultimately have the final say, so you see a lot of ideas about 50 years out of date because these people basically left society quite some time ago



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.