I suppose this is the target audience for the condom message, the people who might get a transfusion you liberals are so dishonest it's breathtaking. Promiscuity is a reality. Sex without condoms is a reality. Lots of realities, but you somehow think of condoms as the magic bullet. Good, pat yourself on the back for having the courage to hand out condoms, then castigate the catholics when it fails. Why are you liberals so picky about which realities you try to change? Is it because you have some taboo about lecturing other people about their sexual practices? The moral messages coming out of ancient religions may have some basis in experience, of people learning lessons the hard way. Disregarding these messages isn't sophisticated, it's stupid.
So everyone who thinks condoms works is "you liberals"? Everyone who thinks the Catholic CHurch is outdated is "you liberals". Society changes over time and with it so does the morality of the population. The Catholic Church has failed to keep pace with society. That's why you have molested alter-boys and decrees that condoms "don't work". Spare the moral message of ancient religions, before we have to start smiting gays, muslims, hindus, alcoholics, pornographers...but I digress.
I've been wanting to stay out of this, but I've decided not to. I'd say I'm somewhere in between the two extremes of this debate. (Does that make me a moderate? ) Yes, abstinence is the best way to prevent STDs. However, not everybody believes in abstinence. Regardless of my personal belief, I also realize that condoms do, in fact, help reduce risk of getting AIDS and other STDs. They should be available to those that want them because people are going to do it either way. Does that mean I'm putting my "stamp of approval" on it? No. Does it make practical sense? Yes. If people are going to do wrong, doesn't it make sense for them to be able to do as little damage as possible (to themselves and others?) Also, even if someone contracts one of these diseases in an immoral manner, the ancient religions also preach compassion towards the suffering.
See, here's the thing. It wouldn't fail. If everybody with HIV used condoms, the spread of HIV would be reduced drastically. Now it's true that if everybody with HIV stopped having sex entirely, then the spread of HIV would be reduced even more. So which do you think is more likely? That people will use condoms, or that people will stop having sex? Go, ahead, pat yourself on the back for having the courage to preach abstinence, then castigate the liberals when it fails - as it already, clearly, has. Why are you liberals so picky about which realities you try to change? Is it because you have some taboo about lecturing other people about their sexual practices? Is anybody here saying that the Catholic church should not preach abstinence? Hint: no. Nobody would deny their right to teach abstinence, nor would anybody with any intelligence deny that abstinence is the surest way to prevent the spread of STD's. The church is not being criticized for teaching people to abstain; it's being criticized for lying to people. You seem to be operating on the assumption that the average individual, upon hearing that condoms are ineffective, will decide not to have sex. What makes you think that is the case?
1. How the spouse got HIV is immaterial to my argument. What matters is there are plenty of situations in which HIV+ husbands (usually) would put HIV- wives at risk were they to follow the Church in this matter. That, in and of itself, is wrong and apparently a matter of indifference to the Catholic hierarchy in Africa and Rome. The policies and comments described in the article suggest that J2-P2 and his cardinals are interested in market share, not the welfare of the flock. 2. Re: Liberals = promiscuity = AIDS is a worldwide pandemic. Hmm, where to begin on this one? Please point out the “liberals” in Africa who are responsible for the origin and spread of AIDS there? Please point out the “liberals” in Thailand, who are responsible for its spread there? Please point out…well you get the picture, maybe. I realize we Americans are supposed to be parochial, but let’s not go berserk with it, please. In the US? Yeah sure most liberals probably do profess to tolerance of a greater range of sexual behaviors than do conservatives. However, the range of actual sexual behaviors among conservatives is EXACTLY as wide as that among liberals, and it is behaviors rather than attitudes that transmit HIV. Unless you’re going to pony up some evidence that conservatives are less sexually active than liberals then that glass house is at your address, not mine. 3. Finally, for the past couple of years I’ve been working directly with people who treat HIV+ patients. Condoms are being promoted by AIDS workers (those, at least, who aren’t hypocrites) not to encourage people to “live life as promiscuous as they want” but to inhibit the transmission of HIV. This is a position that’s based on 2 truths: HIV is out there and people are going to have sex (in some cases even as they try to stop everyone else from having it). If you talk to an AIDS worker, you are almost certain to have at shot a scoring some free condoms. In my experience, you are equally certain to be told of your legal and moral responsibility to inform partners and limit if not eliminate risky behaviors.
Well, that, and the hypocrisy of the church preaching about this when they cover up for and enable priests who molest children.
Members of the Catholic clergy lecturing on sexual behavior ranks right up there with Aristotle lecturing on sub-molecular physics or Albert Einstein lecturing on small engine repair.
I have nothing against promiscuity especially if it involves me and 12 beautiful young girls of different races and beliefs. While, well, the kind of promiscuity you get in a turkish jail... but then again someone could even appreciate that kind of promiscuity. For example some catholic priests... p.s. I know a lot of catholic priests who are excellent persons devoted to help anyone needing. The problem is about those ones that want to "help" those that don't need it and don't ask for it.
Re: Condoms don't work??? And paternally suggested Galileo to change his mind. Galilelo, got a match? What were you saying, then? Luckily Galileo was smarter than Giordano Bruno. "Eppur si muove"
A few truths: 1) Condoms are effective in preventing the contraction of HIV, and are pretty darn effective in preventing pregancy. 2) All priests don't play with little boys, although a few pedophiles do.
NFP (Natural Family Planning) has advanced far beyond the "Rhythm Method". If you have ever taken a class in NFP, you would know.
Because they themselves can't live up to the moral standards of the church. People in the church do know that we are all the fallen Sons of Adam and that we are going to slip up. The Catholic response is to try to do the right thing anyway and when we slip, we confess our mistakes. The liberal response is to castigate the messenger because they don't even want to try to meet the moral standards as taught by the Church.