Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS in Africa. (3 Viewers)

[kalamari]

Sex in marriage is all well and good, but why should people who don't abide by this rule receive anything else but shame? What the Catholic Church does, in condemning the use of condoms, is punish people who do not abide by their oh-so-sacred marriage law by increasing the risk (by a large margin) of them getting AIDS. Disproportionate much?

This is exactly why i don't understand how the Catholic Church can be blamed. People who do not "abide by their oh-so-sacred marriage law" can hardly be called faithful Catholics at all. These rules appear on the original 10 commandments and it is understanding and practicing rules like these that make people faithful in the first place. Thus, despite all the other factors in the end it is still the individual who decides to ignore the guidelines about sexuality and it is still the individual who chooses not to wear a condom.

 

[Tully B.]

This is exactly why i don't understand how the Catholic Church can be blamed. People who do not "abide by their oh-so-sacred marriage law" can hardly be called faithful Catholics at all as this appears on the original 10 commandments and it is understanding and practicing rules like these that makes people faithful in the first place. Thus, in the end it is the individual who decides to break the rules and not wear a condom.

Then why should these "non-Catholics" be affected by Catholic Church? (Which they are, by the way). It is irresponsible for the Church to say that using condoms is wrong when they know that there are many out there who have sex with promiscuous partners. The individual can be blamed only to an extent; one must also look to the source of their decisions. That source, in this case, is the Catholic Church. People often look to the Church for moral guidance, and follow as many laws as their will (aka their lust) will allow them. People want sex, people have sex, and because of the Church, they decide not to use condoms. Even if this is only true in some cases, this still places guilt on the Church to a certain extent for the magnitude of AIDs in Africa.

That's my last post for tonight, as I'm babysitting. I'll get back to you later.

 

[kalamari]

Then why should these "non-Catholics" be affected by Catholic Church? (Which they are, by the way). It is irresponsible for the Church to say that using condoms is wrong when they know that there are many out there who have sex with promiscuous partners. The individual can be blamed only to an extent; one must also look to the source of their decisions. That source, in this case, is the Catholic Church. People often look to the Church for moral guidance, and follow as many laws as their will (aka their lust) will allow them. People want sex, people have sex, and because of the Church, they decide not to use condoms. Even if this is only true in some cases, this still places guilt on the Church to a certain extent for the magnitude of AIDs in Africa.

That's my last post for tonight, as I'm babysitting. I'll get back to you later.

In your opinion this may hold true. But for me it just doesn't cut the mustard. Just because they have some influence on society doesn't mean they are responsible for the many people "out there who have sex with promiscuous partners" and choose not to use a condom.

"People want sex, people have sex, and because of the Church, they decide not to use condoms." No, it is because of peoples selfishness that they choose not to wear a condom. The fact of the matter is that some people don't care about their spouses, but instead are interested only in their own personal pleasure. If they truly cared about their spouses i think they would wear a condom regardless.

 

[Tulipa]

Its a good statement. However, how can the Catholic Church be blamed when people don't use condoms. In the end despite whatever influence the Catholic Church has it is still the individual who chooses not to use a condom and therefore I fail to understand why fingers are being pointed at the Catholic Church.

Because they actively don't provide sexual education. They don't let these uneducated masses know the truth about condoms. Instead they only teach abstinence. And again, back to my very first point in this thread, considering that religious organisations are often the only tie these people have to the Western world, how can you blame them for being misled?

 

[kalamari]

Because they actively don't provide sexual education. They don't let these uneducated masses know the truth about condoms. Instead they only teach abstinence. And again, back to my very first point in this thread, considering that religious organisations are often the only tie these people have to the Western world, how can you blame them for being misled?

I don't believe the Catholic Church is misleading anyone. They teach the sexual principles of their faith. Principles such as abstinence before marriage. If an individual chooses to make a commitment to a faith but fails to uphold its moral principles then the faith can not, in my view, be held accountable.

 

[moll.]

Its a good statement. However, how can the Catholic Church be blamed when people don't use condoms. In the end despite whatever influence the Catholic Church has it is still the individual who chooses not to use a condom and therefore I fail to understand why fingers are being pointed at the Catholic Church.

lolwut?
Yes, it is the individual who ends up making the choice, but the factors which influence the choice are to be considered as well. If the poor man or woman is told by the Church that they should not use contraceptives and knows no better, then it is entirely the Church's fault of they contract AIDS.
I realise that there exists a certain paradox in them ignoring the Church's teachings on intercourse without marriage whilst upholding that on contraceptives, but you in turn must consider that it is not a biological and evolutionary imperative to use contraceptives. The same cannot be said for intercourse.

 

[kalamari]

lolwut?
If the poor man or woman is told by the Church that they should not use contraceptives and knows no better, then it is entirely the Church's fault of they contract AIDS.

The poor man and woman are also told by the Church to abstain from sex before marriage. It astounds me that you use the word "entirely" How on earth can it be "entirely" their fault?

If I said jumping off a cliff was good and you jumped off a cliff and died, would I be held "entirely" accountable for your death? After all, in the end you made the decision to jump.

 

[moll.]

The poor man and woman are also told by the Church to abstain from sex before marriage. It astounds me that you use the word "entirely" How on earth can it be "entirely" their fault?

If I said jumping off a cliff was good and you jumped off a cliff and died, would I be held "entirely" accountable for your death? After all, in the end you made the decision to jump.

If I didn't know any better, if I didn't know that it would kill me, yes.

 

[Iron]

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre


The falcon cannot hear the falconer;


Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;


Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,


The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere


The ceremony of innocence is drowned;


The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity...

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

 

[Iron]

Only after he had a little panic attack in the garden and the father needed to send an angel to settle him down.

Nice, gaytern. Real nice

 

[kalamari]

If I didn't know any better, if I didn't know that it would kill me, yes.

But they do know better. They get taught to abstain from sexual activity before marriage and to only have sexual relations with one partner. They choose to ignore these teachings.

It is true that their education may not reflect what we as a western culture see as a decent education but this doesn't mean the African people are so uneducated that they don't know what's wrong from what's right. The things we perceive to be wrong and right differ from individual to individual and I admit the Church may have some influence on defining these things but to hold them "entirely" responsible, I think not.

Another analogy:

I join the army, complete my necessary training and goto war. During the war I choose to disobey protocol and do not implement the skills I have been taught during my training, as a result I end up dead. Can the army be held responsible? No they can not. They provided me with the necessary skills to prevent the situation from happening but in the end I made the decision to ignore what I learned and went about it in my own way.

 

[Lukybear]

This thread is absurd. We should not blame the catholic church. If everybody listened to their authority and not had sex outside marriage with perfect and virgin partner, then HIV wouldnt be a problem.

INFACT if you look at how HIV/AIDS is transmitted (high porportionate of sexual intercourse), thus we should OBVIOUSLY blame our URGE to interact in the horrendous ritual of sex. If we all sustained from SEX in general, then AIDS would never occured in the first place.

I BLAME our evolutionary urges. DAM DARWINISM!

 

[SylviaB]

This thread is absurd. We should not blame the catholic church. If everybody listened to their authority and not had sex outside marriage with perfect and virgin partner, then HIV wouldnt be a problem.

OR. OR. If the US had continued to be the largest and most effective donator of contraception to Africa, then the HIV problem would be greatly reduced.

BUT, Catholics pressured the government to stop this, and so now they instead have abstinance education programs which are both expensive and useless.

Teaching abstinance, here OR in Africa, NEVER works. It's unreasonable to expect human beings to go against their most fundamental instincts.

Contraception is roughly a trillion times more effective, and your inability to consider this as an option is a testament to your delusional religion.
As long as there's no diesease spread, then there's nothing with sex outside of marriage, and the fact that you value your own crazy beliefs over the lives of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE is quite smply disgusting.

INFACT if you look at how HIV/AIDS is transmitted (high porportionate of sexual intercourse), thus we should OBVIOUSLY blame our URGE to interact in the horrendous ritual of sex. If we all sustained from SEX in general, then AIDS would never occured in the first place.

Okay that's cute and all, but telling people not to have sex is, in the long run, like telling people not to eat. It's not going to happen. It's nobody's fault but your god's for our urges.

I BLAME our evolutionary urges. DAM DARWINISM!

That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Darwin, well, "discovered" evolution. That's like blaming newton for gravity.

If god didn't want us to have the desire to fuck anything that moves, then why the hell make us evolve to have these desires.

 

[moll.]

This thread is absurd. We should not blame the catholic church. If everybody listened to their authority and not had sex outside marriage with perfect and virgin partner, then HIV wouldnt be a problem.

INFACT if you look at how HIV/AIDS is transmitted (high porportionate of sexual intercourse), thus we should OBVIOUSLY blame our URGE to interact in the horrendous ritual of sex. If we all sustained from SEX in general, then AIDS would never occured in the first place.

I BLAME our evolutionary urges. DAM DARWINISM!

Someone's a virgin!

 

[kalamari]

OR. OR. If the US had continued to be the largest and most effective donator of contraception to Africa, then the HIV problem would be greatly reduced.

BUT, Catholics pressured the government to stop this, and so now they instead have abstinance education programs which are both expensive and useless.

Teaching abstinance, here OR in Africa, NEVER works. It's unreasonable to expect human beings to go against their most fundamental instincts.

Contraception is roughly a trillion times more effective, and your inability to consider this as an option is a testament to your delusional religion.
As long as there's no diesease spread, then there's nothing with sex outside of marriage, and the fact that you value your own crazy beliefs over the lives of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE is quite smply disgusting.

Okay that's cute and all, but telling people not to have sex is, in the long run, like telling people not to eat. It's not going to happen. It's nobody's fault but your god's for our urges.


That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Darwin, well, "discovered" evolution. That's like blaming newton for gravity.

If god didn't want us to have the desire to fuck anything that moves, then why the hell make us evolve to have these desires.

Would you be able to provide references to documents that justify the pressure Catholics put on the US Government so I can assess this statement?

I find it incredibly hard to believe that contraception is "roughly a trillion times more effective" then abstinence. Oh wait, it's not.

Furthermore, as I have already stated:

The rationale behind Christian thinking stems from the fact that God designed sexual relations to happen in a safe environment, where two people share the same love and devotion for each another. Its only in marriage that sex is at its best.

 

[SylviaB]

I find it incredibly hard to believe that contraception is "roughly a trillion times more effective" then abstinence. Oh wait, it's not.

Furthermore, as I have already stated:

Firstly, it's "...more effective than abstinance."

secondly, how much better contraception is than the teaching of abstinance is unquantifiable, and thus any number would be just arbitrary. DUH. Though, it might as well be a trillion, given how poorly abstinance works.

However, different people have different morals. The rationale behind Christian thinking stems from the fact that God designed sexual relations to happen in a safe environment, where two people share the same love and devotion for each another. Its only in marriage that sex is at its best.

1. prove it. Seriously, it is Completely batshit insane and backwards to base descisions that affect millions of people on a book of dubious authorship and that is completely unverifiable.

2. It' possible to share love with someone without being married.

3. We evolved, there's not denying it, if you disagree you're a fucking moron, period.
If god exists, then he must have caused us to evolve. If so, he is responsible for our urges, and it's bullshit that he should blame us for them. If he didn't want us to have sex with anyone we can then he should have been a bit more careful wwhen he made us evolve.

4. Inherently, sex is meaningless. Any meaning you associate with it is completely created by humans. Sex is merely evolution's ways of making organisms want to procreate. Nothing more.

Someone's a virgin!

Oh snap!

 

[kalamari]

Firstly, it's "...more effective than abstinance."

How can not having sex at all be less effective then having sex with a condom?

secondly, how much better contraception is than the teaching of abstinance is unquantifiable, and thus any number would be just arbitrary. DUH. Though, it might as well be a trillion, given how poorly abstinance works.

For abstinence not to work, people are not abstaining in the first place.

1. prove it. Seriously, it is Completely batshit insane and backwards to base descisions that affect millions of people on a book of dubious authorship and that is completely unverifiable.

2. It' possible to share love with someone without being married.

3. We evolved, there's not denying it, if you disagree you're a fucking moron, period.
If god exists, then he must have caused us to evolve. If so, he is responsible for our urges, and it's bullshit that he should blame us for them. If he didn't want us to have sex with anyone we can then he should have been a bit more careful wwhen he made us evolve.

4. Inherently, sex is meaningless. Any meaning you associate with it is completely created by humans. Sex is merely evolution's ways of making organisms want to procreate. Nothing more.



Oh snap!

Way to respect the opinions of others....

1. Prove that it's not and that your interpretation is not "Completely batshit insane and backwards."

2. I never said it wasn't possible to share love with someone and not be married. I said it wasn't possible to experience the true joy of sexual interaction outside a monogamous marriage.

3. I don't ever recall mentioning evolution at all. This thread isn't about questioning God, predestination or any other issue you may have with Christianity. Also i think you will find (as shown in the quotes below) that people are free to do as they choose.

Simple fact: The Catholic Church does not PHYSICALLY stop people from taking or using condoms. If people want them, fine, their choice to use them, but the Church has it's opinion on these matters and it has simply voiced its opinion.

The Catholic Church does not impose any laws on anyone. It simply suggests an idea which is wholly unrealistic and could only happen in a perfect world. The reason it's unrealistic is because it comes down to an individuals choice. Therefore, stop bagging the Church and start blaming the individual.

Exactly broseph. Free will is just a fact. I mean, even Christ knew that Judas would betray him and thereby cause his violent and painful death, but he respected the freedom Judas had to make this terrible choice

4. "Sex is merely evolution's ways of making organisms want to procreate. Nothing more."

I'm sorry to read that this is your interpretation on sex as I believe there is much more to it.

 

[SylviaB]

How can not having sex at all be less effective then having sex with a condom?

No, I mean it's "than", not "then". Basic grammar here.

For abstinence not to work, people are not abstaining in the first place.

I meant the teaching of absintance.

Way to respect the opinions of others....

Fact: Claims of the bible are unverifiable.
Fact: Who wrote what's in the bible, and when, is completely debatable.
Fact: We evolved.
Fact: Basing descisions that affect other people on your personal idea of morality is immoral.
No disrespect here.

1. Prove that it's not and that your interpretation is not "Completely batshit insane and backwards."

Opinion based on an ancient book with absolutely ZERO to back it up, and common sense. Which one seems insane to base a descision on?

2. I never said it wasn't possible to share love with someone and not be married. I said it wasn't possible to experience the true joy of sexual interaction outside a monogamous marriage.

You have no way of proving this, AT ALL. You're doing HSC this year, which suggests to me you aren't married, meaning you don't even know what sex with a wife feels like, and likely what it feels like at all, which means you're just receiting bullshit you heard someone else tell you.

3. I don't ever recall mentioning evolution at all. This thread isn't about questioning God, predestination or any other issue you may have with Christianity. Also i think you will find (as shown in the quotes below) that people are free to do as they choose.

You're saying sex outside of marriage is bad. I'm saying that our desire to do so is god's fault if he exists.

4. "Sex is merely evolution's ways of making organisms want to procreate. Nothing more."

I'm sorry to read that this is your interpretation on sex as I believe there is much more to it.

There's not. Sex is because of evolution, evolution is not sentimental, and uses sex only so organisms produce offspring.
Humans have been having sex thousands and thousands of years before the idea of marriage was even conceived.

 

[Iron]

Fact: Basing descisions that affect other people on your personal idea of morality is immoral.

.: Morality is immoral.

I find it interesting that many argue something like "if you cant 'prove' it, it doesnt exist" - as in all culture and morality is relative, therefore there is no culture and morality... This is a false distinction! A gap in the fence exploited by a few wolves in order to devour the lambs.
I think you'll find that there's a broad consensus across all good and enduring cultural norms that seek peace, love and compassion rather than violence, hate and greed.

This is God's way and it must find external expression in the way we lead our lives. Such damaging, relative and selfish views as expressed by Sylvester all started with those pesky protestants. Men are not saved by faith alone - a mere internal flicker of a thought - but this must be matched with deeds. We must not be of the world, but we cant help but be in it!

 

[kalamari]

No, I mean it's "than", not "then". Basic grammar here.

The fact that i used 'then' instead of 'than' has nothing to do with anything. I admit that i used the wrong one however it didn't make what i said invalid. On the contrary, by pointing out my mistake it further emphasizes the fact that you were comparing the effectiveness of condom use to the effectiveness of abstinence. Basic grammar indeed.

I meant the teaching of absintance.

The teaching of self-discipline is probably one of the most important factors in enabling individuals to make healthy lifestyle choices. Also, condoms are useless if individuals choose not to use them.

Fact: Claims of the bible are unverifiable.
Fact: Who wrote what's in the bible, and when, is completely debatable.
Fact: We evolved.
Fact: Basing descisions that affect other people on your personal idea of morality is immoral.
No disrespect here.

Fact: Claims that the Bible is unverifiable are unverifiable.
Fact: Historians class the Bible as an historical document. Although it is true that it is a debatable topic, it will always be classed as an Historical document.
Fact: I never said we didn't evolve.
Fact: Individuals have free will.

Opinion based on an ancient book with absolutely ZERO to back it up, and common sense. Which one seems insane to base a descision on?

There is just as much evidence supporting the integrity of the Bible as their is against it. Also wouldn't it be common sense to abstain from sex until marriage in a society that is riddled with HIV/AIDS?

You have no way of proving this, AT ALL. You're doing HSC this year, which suggests to me you aren't married, meaning you don't even know what sex with a wife feels like, and likely what it feels like at all, which means you're just receiting bullshit you heard someone else tell you.

You're saying sex outside of marriage is bad. I'm saying that our desire to do so is god's fault if he exists.

My way of proving this comes from the Bible and everything it tells us about sex. Since you question the Bible then I doubt you will accept this as proof. Once again, you also have no way of proving that it is not.

There's not. Sex is because of evolution, evolution is not sentimental, and uses sex only so organisms produce offspring.
Humans have been having sex thousands and thousands of years before the idea of marriage was even conceived.

Again my opinion reflects the ideas expressed in the Bible. In genesis we see that man was made in God's image and not in the image of the animals. Man is distinct from the animals and thus sex should not merely be seen as an animal instinct.

God commanded man to be productive and increase in number. The fact that sex is pleasurable allows man to fulfill God's wishes in an intimate, enjoyable way.