Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

Catholic Church renews ban on homosexual priests

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    pedr wrote:
    Perhaps it would have been slightly more accurate to say: Catholicism teaches that scripture is also quite clear ... But Kermit's statement is a true representation of the belief of the overwhelming majority of worldwide Christians on the matter.

    Whether it is objectively true, or not, in my opinion doesn't dent the weight of Kermit's argument: You can't easily criticise the Catholic Church for actively and strongly advocating the beliefs and moral standards it holds to be true. You can disagree with those standards, and you can even try to argue that the church ought to change its views. But until it does, it would be illogical to suggest that they should teach something other than what they believe.

    (this from a Christian who is increasingly unconvinced by arguments from Scripture regarding homosexuality - but quite convinced that religious groups should be able to live within their own moral codes)
    Is there any scripture that suggests that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Firstly, there is nothing wrong with being against co-habitation and pre-marital sex. If everyone waited until they were married then, as catholic doctrine states, everyone would be better off. AIDS is spread through pre-marital sex and through drug-taking- two things that are not desirable, and in the latter case is actually immoral. If everyone didn't inject heroin, and kept their pants on, then AIDS would disappear in a generation.
    Yes, and if everyone were nice to each other there wouldn't be disputes, fights, thefts, rapes or murders in this world. And fairies would say hello by the riverside as pigs flew overhead in formation.
    Scripture is quite clear that marriage is the joining of two people by God. Two people should not join without this. If you don't agree with scripture then fine, your choice, but to denounce a church for sticking to an important chunk of scripture is rather bizarre IMHO.

    Scripture is also quite clear that this joining should only be between man and woman, for the purposes of procreation. Doctrine is that men can be homosexuals, but they can't get married, therefore they can't have sex. To have homosexual sex is a sin simply because the two people are not married, and can never be married.

    You can disagree with scripture if you want, you can bring up the Old testament words about not eating pig on a Tuesday if you want, but the Church is following it's interpretation of scripture, and if you don't like it don't be a Catholic.
    Scripture also states clearly that anyone who works in the Sabbath should be destroyed; or that women who have the painters in are disgusting and should not be touched. Or that eating shellfish will earn you a one-way ticket to hell.

    Now, even the Catholic Church has come to recognise that such things are clearly bollocks, and that they can be safely ignored. In that sense the Church has modernised from the times when presumably working on the Sabbath could get you into a spot of trouble.

    So if the Catholic Church is prepared to admit that some unreasonable, unfounded and dellusional parts of the Bible can be safely ignored, it can do the same of others. In the real world people have same sex relations. In the real world people have premarital sex and sleep around. In the real world people will sometimes have more than one partner at the time or cheat on their spouses. And until the Holy Catholic Church recognises this it can be regarded as an out of touch, twisted, homophobic, sexist, dangerous piece of shit that deserves every last bit of condemnation it gets.


    The people responsible for AIDS in Africa are the Africans who shag around, and inject drugs. Nobody else is responsible for the spread of HIV and AIDS- the Africans who shag around and do drugs are.
    Though a fat bastard telling them they will go to Hell and burn for all eternity if they dare to use artificial contraception doesn't help one bit does it?

    And even if there was no cheating whatsoever and no AIDS, what of overpopulation? Are African couples supposed to stop having sex, or pop out child after child and see the whole family starve?

    Anyone who is against homosexual relationships or the use of condoms = utter cunt. Superstitions and bizarre and clearly wrong and irrelevant beliefs based on single quotes from 2,000-year-old texts are no excuse I'm afraid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Yes, and if everyone were nice to each other there wouldn't be disputes, fights, thefts, rapes or murders in this world. And fairies would say hello by the riverside as pigs flew overhead in formation.
    Why do these things exist?
    Scripture also states clearly that anyone who works in the Sabbath should be destroyed; or that women who have the painters in are disgusting and should not be touched. Or that eating shellfish will earn you a one-way ticket to hell.
    :rolleyes: No it doesn't.
    And until the Holy Catholic Church recognises this it can be regarded as an out of touch, twisted, homophobic, sexist, dangerous piece of shit that deserves every last bit of condemnation it gets.
    Can it "recognise" it and still disagree, or should it "modernise" such that it accepts and approves of these behaviours?
    And even if there was no cheating whatsoever and no AIDS, what of overpopulation? Are African couples supposed to stop having sex, or pop out child after child and see the whole family starve?
    What's your point?
    irrelevant beliefs based on single quotes from 2,000-year-old texts are no excuse I'm afraid.
    Oh, the irony.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was reading in the paper that the Pope is about to recognise that there is no such thing as 'limbo' - which seems to be a pretty significant theological development to me
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Carribbean dance?

    An important development indeed!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Why do these things exist?
    Because we are humans?
    :rolleyes: No it doesn't.
    Er... yes it does. :rolleyes:

    Women and menstruation: Leviticus15.19-24

    Killing those who work on the Sabbath: Exodus 35.2

    Eating shellfish: Leviticus11.10


    And I could have added:

    Selling one's daughter to slavery: Exodus 21.7

    Possessing slaves both make and female: Leviticus 25.44

    And a few other stupidities.


    So since the Catholic Church has clearly dismissed the above as nonsense, would you care to explain why it feels it should condemn homosexuality as an abomination and an abnormality based in some bullshit one liners from some loonie or other?
    Can it "recognise" it and still disagree, or should it "modernise" such that it accepts and approves of these behaviours?
    It can do the former, but then not complain when it is described as an odious, homophobic, dangerous, brainwashing, sexist odius sect; or it can do the latter and become a lot more decent than it is.
    What's your point?
    My point is telling people they shouldn't use condoms is evil. For far more reasons than just stopping the spread of HIV. And it is stupid. And senseless. And needless. And unjustified. And anyone who advocates it can safely be called a cunt, religion or no religion.

    Oh, the irony.
    Care to explain?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would suggest that the New Testament is far more relevant to the Christian faith than the Old Testament, which is more relevant to Judaism.

    If you don't agree with the Bible that homosexual sex acts, like any other sex act outside marriage, are sinful in the eyes of God then fine. But the Catholic Church believes sex should only be in marriage, and homosexuals cannot get married. C'est la vie.

    I don't believe the catholic Church is wrong to say that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS because they, er, don't. Clinically proven. They ease the spread of the virus, but don't prevent it in all cases. The only thing that does is cheating and doing drugs.

    I don't think cheating, sleeping around and doing drugs should be approved of, because they are deeply sinful things. Saying that its OK because you're wearing Durex is ridiculous; not saying its sinful because people do it is equally ridiculous.

    It's a fair belief. Just because you think that condoms will solve the HIV crisis in Africa doesn't make it so, and doesn't make those who disagree cunts. The three main things that cause HIV are homosexual sex, sleeping around, and injecting drugs. Cut out all three and we have no HIV problem!

    And over-population wouldn't be an issue if the West didn't screw the continent for cash crops instead of subsistence crops.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Because we are humans?
    Why does being human make those things inevitable? :confused:
    Er... yes it does. :rolleyes:

    Women and menstruation: Leviticus15.19-24

    Killing those who work on the Sabbath: Exodus 35.2

    Eating shellfish: Leviticus11.10


    And I could have added:

    Selling one's daughter to slavery: Exodus 21.7

    Possessing slaves both make and female: Leviticus 25.44

    And a few other stupidities.
    What is the relevance of these texts to Christianity or Catholicism? :confused:
    So since the Catholic Church has clearly dismissed the above as nonsense, would you care to explain why it feels it should condemn homosexuality as an abomination and an abnormality based in some bullshit one liners from some loonie or other?
    The Catholic Church has dismissed it has it? Maybe you should improve your theology before you spout out more lies.
    It can do the former, but then not complain when it is described as an odious, homophobic, dangerous, brainwashing, sexist odius sect; or it can do the latter and become a lot more decent than it is.

    My point is telling people they shouldn't use condoms is evil. For far more reasons than just stopping the spread of HIV. And it is stupid. And senseless. And needless. And unjustified. And anyone who advocates it can safely be called a cunt, religion or no religion.
    But there is no biblical basis for its disapproval of contaception so let's be clear exactly what the point you are making is.

    And one of the reasons why condoms will not prevent the spread of HIV is that they must be used every time somebody has sex, and if you knew anything at all about Africa and the developing world, you would know that people don't have the means to obtain condoms and as soon as they forget to use one once, the entire condom programme becomes meaningless.
    Care to explain?
    You have just cited "irrelevant beliefs based on single quotes from 2,000-year-old texts". How can you criticise the Catholic Church for standing by the bible? What exactly do you expect?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I would suggest that the New Testament is far more relevant to the Christian faith than the Old Testament.
    If only Kermit, if only. Practically all the good values of Christianity are in the NT. The OT however contains disturbing amounts bile, hatred, violence, prejudice, and by happy coincidence all the quotes that fundies use to support their warped arguments come from it.

    If you don't agree with the Bible that homosexual sex acts, like any other sex act outside marriage, are sinful in the eyes of God then fine. But the Catholic Church believes sex should only be in marriage, and homosexuals cannot get married. C'est la vie.

    No. Homosexuals might perhaps not marry in the church. The Catholic Church has absolutely no right (or authority while we are at it) to say homosexuals have no right to get married in a civil ceremony.

    If they want to bar homosexuals from marrying within their own sect it's up to them. But they should stick their tongues up their arse before saying homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, even when it is a ceremony conducted outside their sect.

    In any case, the Catholic Church's opinion of homosexuality goes far beyond whether they should be allowed to marry. Only the other day they claimed that homosexual relationships are "destabilizing people and society, had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman." Source

    Who the fuck are those cunts to suggest a loving same-sex relationship has no moral or social values?

    In the opinion of normal, decent human beings same-sex relationship have infinitely more moral and social value that than bunch of corrupt, hateful prejudiced deluded bigots.
    I don't believe the catholic Church is wrong to say that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS because they, er, don't. Clinically proven. They ease the spread of the virus, but don't prevent it in all cases. The only thing that does is cheating and doing drugs.

    Bullshit. They prevent infection in more than 99% of all cases. That's no good enough for you is it?

    Let's ban the use of helmets and seatbelts. Let's stop giving people medicine and operations. Seeing as they are not 100% effective, they're not worth it are they?

    The Catholic Church has the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (at least) in their dirty bloody hands, for threatening people with eternal damnation if they use condoms.

    End of.

    Nice to see that you are happy to condemn the wife and future children of an adulterous man (or simply one who has had sex before getting married- oh the fucking horror of it :rolleyes: ) to death.
    I don't think cheating, sleeping around and doing drugs should be approved of, because they are deeply sinful things. Saying that its OK because you're wearing Durex is ridiculous; not saying its sinful because people do it is equally ridiculous.
    First off they're no "sinful". Sins might apply to those who believe in them, not to the rest of us.

    Secondly, some of those things are not even "wrong". Sleeping around is not wrong. Doing drugs is not wrong. What makes you think it is? Who decides on whether that is wrong or not, if not the person who does it?
    It's a fair belief. Just because you think that condoms will solve the HIV crisis in Africa doesn't make it so, and doesn't make those who disagree cunts. The three main things that cause HIV are homosexual sex, sleeping around, and injecting drugs. Cut out all three and we have no HIV problem!
    Oh FFS! :mad:

    Can I suggest we execute every last priest and member of the clergy in the world? That way paedophilia would be all but solved, right? :rolleyes:

    Let's shoot all black people and crime will be reduced by 90% as well, correct?

    Jesus fucking Christ Kermit, I really can't believe you could use such odious argument. I can only hope you're just playing the devil's advocate and that you don't really believe in such obscene shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Why does being human make those things inevitable? :confused:
    Because, to use an old but appropriate cliche, we're only humans Kentish. :rolleyes:
    What is the relevance of these texts to Christianity or Catholicism? :confused:
    Er... they were written in a certain book that Christians and Catholics claim is the word of God and must be obeyed.

    Are you pretending to be thick this morning (when I know you aren't) or something?
    The Catholic Church has dismissed it has it? Maybe you should improve your theology before you spout out more lies.
    I am so glad you say this Kentish.

    You see, the Catholic Church does not really believe people who work on the Sabbath should be killed (I really fucking hope you're not suggesting any different, but if you are, go ask a priest). However the Catholic Church has perhaps failed to, at some point in recent history, issue an statement telling the faithful that naturally we should not kill people who work on the Sabbath or sell our daughter to slavery, even though it doesn't want us to do it.

    Why has it failed to make such statements? Because it doesn't want to admit that the Bible is not the full, total and infallible word of God and that some passages or 'advice' is wrong and should be disregarded or ignored.

    It's too much to admit, apparently... :rolleyes:
    But there is no biblical basis for its disapproval of contraception.
    Yes, it makes you wonder why do they have such unfounded, irrational and stupid opposition to them, don't you?
    And one of the reasons why condoms will not prevent the spread of HIV is that they must be used every time somebody has sex, and if you knew anything at all about Africa and the developing world, you would know that people don't have the means to obtain condoms and as soon as they forget to use one once, the entire condom programme becomes meaningless.


    The more condoms are used, the more infections will be prevented. Fact.

    Fat bastards sitting on gold thrones thousands of miles away telling people they mustn't use them or they'll go to hell don't help the cause.


    You have just cited "irrelevant beliefs based on single quotes from 2,000-year-old texts". How can you criticise the Catholic Church for standing by the bible? What exactly do you expect?
    I expect them to do what the majority of Christians and even Catholics actually do. Take the Bible as a guidance not as the ultimate and irrefutable word of God.

    Emphasising the message of love and kindness towards others Jesus gave the world, instead of using irrelevant lines from a compilation of tales and stories that concentrate on hatred, vengeance absurd rules and impossible events.

    Most believers can do all of this and still see themselves as good Christians. Why can't the Organised Church follow suit?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If only Kermit, if only. Practically all the good values of Christianity are in the NT. The OT however contains disturbing amounts bile, hatred, violence, prejudice, and by happy coincidence all the quotes that fundies use to support their warped arguments come from it.

    Fundies use anything to justify a position.
    No. Homosexuals might perhaps not marry in the church. The Catholic Church has absolutely no right (or authority while we are at it) to say homosexuals have no right to get married in a civil ceremony.

    I quite agree.

    I don't think civil ceremonies are marriages. I'm arguing semantics, I know, but if you aren't married in front of your God then you are not married.
    Who the fuck are those cunts to suggest a loving same-sex relationship has no moral or social values?

    To play devil's advocate, if everyone was gay there'd be no human race left very quickly.
    Bullshit. They prevent infection in more than 99% of all cases. That's no good enough for you is it?

    Only if used correctly.

    And a lot of people don't use them correctly.

    To try and argue that shagging around is acceptable because you're using a condom is fairly ridiculous. We're getting lost here.

    If a man cheats on his wife, and then infects her with HIV, who is to blame? The Catholic Church says adultery is sinful. Why would a man willing to ignore this fairly huge point then decide that because the Pope says don't use condoms he won't.

    Men don't use condoms because they can get away with it, not because the Pope tells them not to. After all, they're happy to cheat and have sex before marriage, against Catholic teaching.
    Nice to see that you are happy to condemn the wife and future children of an adulterous man (or simply one who has had sex before getting married- oh the fucking horror of it :rolleyes: ) to death.

    The person who shags around and does drugs condemns their wife and children to death.

    The use of condoms doesn't. Especially as there are no children if using condoms;)

    Who is to blame? The man who cheats on his wife, and infects her knowingly with HIV? Or the Church for telling him not to cheat on his wife?

    I wonder :chin:
    Secondly, some of those things are not even "wrong". Sleeping around is not wrong. Doing drugs is not wrong. What makes you think it is? Who decides on whether that is wrong or not, if not the person who does it?

    It is if you're married.

    And it is also statistically proven to be bad for you, emotionally and physically.
    Can I suggest we execute every last priest and member of the clergy in the world? That way paedophilia would be all but solved, right? :rolleyes:

    :rolleyes:
    Jesus fucking Christ Kermit, I really can't believe you could use such odious argument. I can only hope you're just playing the devil's advocate and that you don't really believe in such obscene shit.

    I'm not commenting on what I believe.

    If everyone stopped shagging around and injecting drugs, then HIV would die off in a generation. True, or not?

    Well then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I quite agree.

    I don't think civil ceremonies are marriages. I'm arguing semantics, I know, but if you aren't married in front of your God then you are not married.
    Fine. You believe that. So long as you (or to be precise, the Church) doesn't try to stop others from getting married in the civil registry office everyone's happy.

    If only the Church could grasp such basic concept...

    If only they could try to stop ruling people's lives once and for all, even those who don't subscribe to their beliefs... two millennia of it is more than enough already.


    To play devil's advocate, if everyone was gay there'd be no human race left very quickly.
    Irrelevant to the argument though.


    To try and argue that shagging around is acceptable because you're using a condom is fairly ridiculous. We're getting lost here.
    Shagging around is perfectly acceptable if

    a) the person is not in a relationship

    b) they are in an open relationship

    The use of a condom, advisable as it is, actually plays no part on whether having sex outside wedlock is "wrong".
    If a man cheats on his wife, and then infects her with HIV, who is to blame? The Catholic Church says adultery is sinful. Why would a man willing to ignore this fairly huge point then decide that because the Pope says don't use condoms he won't.
    There's all sorts of fish out there. Some of them will not cheat on their wives because they believe is a sin. But others will succumb to temptation, but not use a condom simply to 'lesser the sin' as such.

    And what of men who might have been infected when they were unmarried and found out just as they were getting married? Are they supposed not to have sex with their wives ever?

    And of families that have already 3, 4, 5 kids, couldn't possibly afford more, and have no other means of contraception. Are they supposed to stop having sex as well, because the Catholic Church has rule that all artificial contraception is evil and wrong?
    The person who shags around and does drugs condemns their wife and children to death.
    No if they use a condom, they don't in 99.5% of cases or thereabouts.

    It is if you're married.

    And it is also statistically proven to be bad for you, emotionally and physically.
    How about the case scenarios above? People infected before they were married? Or people infected after they were married through something not "sinful", such as a blood transfusion? Or people simply trying to have some kind of family planning in their lives?

    Because the bottom line remains that the Catholic Church does not allow the use of condoms in any cases. Not even for the people above. That's another reason why their stance against condoms is evil and odious.
    I'm not commenting on what I believe.

    If everyone stopped shagging around and injecting drugs, then HIV would die off in a generation. True, or not?
    Not entirely. HIV is transmitted through other means too.


    The Church is a powerful entity (regrettably) and as such it has responsibilities. And some of those responsibilities are to live in the real world and to try to alleviate people's suffering instead of making things worse.

    And by continuing to spout their despicable homophobic filth, and by continuing to speak against artificial contraception, they are indeed making things needlessly worse for countless millions of people throughout the world, often with fatal consequences for those concerned.

    As I asked to Kentish earlier, if they are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings to the letter, why don't they demand that we kill anyone seen working on the Sabbath or that we acquire slaves? Can we pick and choose the rules we have to follow or not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I don't think civil ceremonies are marriages. I'm arguing semantics, I know, but if you aren't married in front of your God then you are not married.

    All civil ceremonies, or just gay ceremonies?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Because, to use an old but appropriate cliche, we're only humans Kentish. :rolleyes:
    But what do you mean? Why do humans do these things?
    Er... they were written in a certain book that Christians and Catholics claim is the word of God and must be obeyed.

    Are you pretending to be thick this morning (when I know you aren't) or something?
    Christians and Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and therefore what Jesus says supercedes whatever is written in the OT. So whilst much of it stands, the OT Law does not. You only need a simple grasp of Christian theology to understand that.

    No, I'm not being thick, are you? Or just argumentative?
    I am so glad you say this Kentish.

    You see, the Catholic Church does not really believe people who work on the Sabbath should be killed (I really fucking hope you're not suggesting any different, but if you are, go ask a priest). However the Catholic Church has perhaps failed to, at some point in recent history, issue an statement telling the faithful that naturally we should not kill people who work on the Sabbath or sell our daughter to slavery, even though it doesn't want us to do it.

    Why has it failed to make such statements? Because it doesn't want to admit that the Bible is not the full, total and infallible word of God and that some passages or 'advice' is wrong and should be disregarded or ignored.
    The bible speaks for itself, and if you have a disagreement with the Church, then at least separate that from your argument with the Bible.
    Yes, it makes you wonder why do they have such unfounded, irrational and stupid opposition to them, don't you?
    It's based on a misunderstanding, imho. And yes, it is irrational and counter intuitive.
    The more condoms are used, the more infections will be prevented. Fact.
    Don't know, maybe. The supply of condoms would have to be guaranteed, and their purchase would have to be prioritised by users. There are a lot of myths and stigma attached to condom use and it is not a simple solution to suggest that condoms will stop AIDS. There is something that will though...
    Fat bastards sitting on gold thrones thousands of miles away telling people they mustn't use them or they'll go to hell don't help the cause.
    True, if that's what happens.
    I expect them to do what the majority of Christians and even Catholics actually do. Take the Bible as a guidance not as the ultimate and irrefutable word of God.
    The bible calls itself the word of God. How would Christians decide which bits to follow and which bits to ignore, and how would that choice to obey or disobey scripture separate the Christians from non-Christians?
    Emphasising the message of love and kindness towards others Jesus gave the world, instead of using irrelevant lines from a compilation of tales and stories that concentrate on hatred, vengeance absurd rules and impossible events.

    Most believers can do all of this and still see themselves as good Christians. Why can't the Organised Church follow suit?
    The church is the people. The Catholic Church and Church of England are both losing congregations, whilst the non-denominational and non-conformist churches are growing worldwide. Does that answer your question? The Bible is more powerful than the Catholic Church.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i wonder how blags communal world would cope with you lot.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    i wonder how blags communal world would cope with you lot.

    I wonder indeed. 'tis a good question. I guess religion has corrupted them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    But what do you mean? Why do humans do these things?
    Because we're not perfect?
    Christians and Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and therefore what Jesus says supercedes whatever is written in the OT. So whilst much of it stands, the OT Law does not. You only need a simple grasp of Christian theology to understand that.

    Well seeing as Jesus didn't have much to say against homosexuality, artificial contraception or premarital sex, then the Church is completely wrong to speak against homosexual acts or the use of condoms. Isn't it?

    Is the Bible the word of God and the base for the Christian faith or not? Make your mind up.
    The bible speaks for itself, and if you have a disagreement with the Church, then at least separate that from your argument with the Bible.
    How could I? The Bible claims some pretty absurd or plain horrific things, and the Church is more than happy to use some of those quotes to justify its hate-filled agenda. Even though most Christians safely ignore such quotes and concentrate on the positive message the Bible offers.
    Don't know, maybe. The supply of condoms would have to be guaranteed, and their purchase would have to be prioritised by users. There are a lot of myths and stigma attached to condom use and it is not a simple solution to suggest that condoms will stop AIDS. There is something that will though...
    Condoms will help stop the spread of AIDS much more efficient than anything else- especially impossible and unrealistic utopian concepts.
    The bible calls itself the word of God. How would Christians decide which bits to follow and which bits to ignore, and how would that choice to obey or disobey scripture separate the Christians from non-Christians?
    You seem a bit confused and appear arguing for two opposing sides at the same time. Just above you were saying that Jesus' teachings supersede OT mantra, and that OT Law does not need to be obeyed. So can Christians pick and choose or not? One moment you say yes, the next you appear to suggest no. :confused:
    The church is the people. The Catholic Church and Church of England are both losing congregations, whilst the non-denominational and non-conformist churches are growing worldwide. Does that answer your question? The Bible is more powerful than the Catholic Church.
    I would say that declining numbers amongst the Catholic Church has got far more to do with their unchanged, antediluvian, Dark Age position the insist on maintaining. As centuries go past the human race becomes more intelligent, more evolved, more understanding and tolerant. No decent human being, Catholic or not, believes homosexuality is an abomination or that the use of artificial contraception is wrong from a moral point of view. The longer the Catholic Church continues to embrace barbaric, bigoted, stupid and hateful policies, the fewer members it will have left.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Fine. You believe that. So long as you (or to be precise, the Church) doesn't try to stop others from getting married in the civil registry office everyone's happy.

    I'd agree with that.
    If only they could try to stop ruling people's lives once and for all, even those who don't subscribe to their beliefs... two millennia of it is more than enough already.

    They don't.

    Do you do as the Pope says?
    Shagging around is perfectly acceptable if

    a) the person is not in a relationship

    b) they are in an open relationship

    But if they get the clap then they can't blame anyone but themselves, can they?

    They were warned it was bad.
    There's all sorts of fish out there. Some of them will not cheat on their wives because they believe is a sin. But others will succumb to temptation, but not use a condom simply to 'lesser the sin' as such.

    Bollocks.

    Do not commit adultery is one of the Ten Commandments, ffs. It's one of The Big Rules, up there with murder. Using a condom is not.

    Men don't use condoms because they don't like them, and there is stigma attached to them. It's not because the Pontiff says they're bad. Even if the Pope decreed condoms were a gift from God, people would not use them. fact of life.
    And of families that have already 3, 4, 5 kids, couldn't possibly afford more, and have no other means of contraception. Are they supposed to stop having sex as well, because the Catholic Church has rule that all artificial contraception is evil and wrong?

    If they believe in that then, yup.

    AFAIK there's nothing in doctrine about the man having the snip, either...
    Not entirely. HIV is transmitted through other means too.

    Only because of druggies, adulterers and gay men donating blood.

    Without the druggies, adulterers and gay men donating blood, then there's no HIV.

    Which is exactly why the National Blood Service prevent gay men from donating blood. Odd how you have condemned this in the past as "homophobic".
    And some of those responsibilities are to live in the real world and to try to alleviate people's suffering instead of making things worse.

    Ever heard of CaFOD?

    Nope?
    As I asked to Kentish earlier, if they are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings to the letter, why don't they demand that we kill anyone seen working on the Sabbath or that we acquire slaves? Can we pick and choose the rules we have to follow or not?

    You can't pick and choose to obey the Ten Commandments.

    But doctrine is clear; the word of Jesus supercedes anything that comes before it or after it. The New Testament is the crucial bit of The Bible, because it is the word of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Any theologian will tell you that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    They don't.

    Do you do as the Pope says?
    I do (mostly) as the law allows.

    And what institution, since the beginning of time, has had a pivotal influence in law-making and dictating what should and should not be allowed?

    Take a wild guess.


    But if they get the clap then they can't blame anyone but themselves, can they?

    They were warned it was bad.
    That doesn't mean they should infect others should it?


    Bollocks.

    Do not commit adultery is one of the Ten Commandments, ffs. It's one of The Big Rules, up there with murder. Using a condom is not.
    Nothing in the Ten Commandments about having premarital sex though is there?
    Men don't use condoms because they don't like them, and there is stigma attached to them. It's not because the Pontiff says they're bad. Even if the Pope decreed condoms were a gift from God, people would not use them. fact of life.
    If condoms didn't have the stigma they have thanks to the demonisation they get from the Vatican they would be more used in some countries.

    And indeed if the Vatican weren't waging a war against them, condoms would be far more widely available than they must be in many areas.

    The damage down by that evil organisation is two-fold.


    If they believe in that then, yup.
    Oh FFS get real :rolleyes:

    Sorry Kermit, I don't usually ask personal questions of everyone. In this case however, and for the sake of the argument, perhaps you would like to consider stating whether you have ever had sex before you got married.

    Seeing as you are adopting such fundamentalist position regarding when and how the human race should have sex, that is...

    But if you don't want to say, that's fine.
    AFAIK there's nothing in doctrine about the man having the snip, either...
    Even if it wasn't against 'the rules', a vasectomy is about as realistic prospect for your average poor African family as a Bentley.


    Only because of druggies, adulterers and gay men donating blood.

    Without the druggies, adulterers and gay men donating blood, then there's no HIV.
    Bullshit times a hundred fucking million.

    Heterosexual HIV transmission is the fastest growing type of HIV transmission.

    And regardless of how the virus first spread or by whom, HIV can now be passed to or from anyone.

    I really had you as a different person to one prepared descend to "it's all druggies, adulterers and poofters' fault" type of 'argument'. :no:
    Which is exactly why the National Blood Service prevent gay men from donating blood. Odd how you have condemned this in the past as "homophobic".
    And still do, seeing as HIV is spreading nice and easily amongst god-fearing "normal" heterosexual people.


    Ever heard of CaFOD?

    Nope?
    Do they brainwash people as they feed them?


    You can't pick and choose to obey the Ten Commandments.

    But doctrine is clear; the word of Jesus supersedes anything that comes before it or after it. The New Testament is the crucial bit of The Bible, because it is the word of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Any theologian will tell you that.
    Well in that case, the Catholic Church has no reason, motive or authority to tell people they shouldn't use condoms or that homosexuality is wrong. Has it?

    And since it does, we are justified in calling them hateful bigoted cunts. Are we not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I do (mostly) as the law allows.

    And what institution, since the beginning of time, has had a pivotal influence in law-making and dictating what should and should not be allowed?

    Take a wild guess.

    In which country?

    It could be argued with some conviction that the Moors had a big influence in Spain, for instance. And the Pope doesn't have much sway in saudi.
    That doesn't mean they should infect others should it?

    I agree.

    The only guaranteed way of not infecting others is to keep it in their pants, no?
    If condoms didn't have the stigma they have thanks to the demonisation they get from the Vatican they would be more used in some countries.

    I actually doubt it.

    Much of Africa isn't Catholic anyway. Condoms have a stigma because they are horrible and expensive, and are very easy to render completely useless.

    When Witch Doctors and folklore says having sex with a virgin is the way to cure AIDS, that's where the problems start.

    A large minority of men over here don't use condoms- because they don't like them, not because Razinger says they're naughty.
    And indeed if the Vatican weren't waging a war against them, condoms would be far more widely available than they must be in many areas.

    To an extent I'd agree.

    But for the most part I don't think its that accurate- condoms aren't available because Western countries won't pay for them, not for any other reason.#

    US foreign policy isn't determined by the Catholic Church, mostly because most christians in the US aren't Catholic.
    The damage down by that evil organisation is two-fold.

    I do wish you'd cut out the libel.
    Sorry Kermit, I don't usually ask personal questions of everyone. In this case however, and for the sake of the argument, perhaps you would like to consider stating whether you have ever had sex before you got married.

    Seeing as you are adopting such fundamentalist position regarding when and how the human race should have sex, that is...

    You know exactly what my sexual history is.

    I'm not saying that "no sex before marriage" is realistic, but the point is that the more sexual partners you have the more open you are to danger.

    Saying "no murder ever" is unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that the Church should start saying its OK to murder, as long as you are humane about it.

    For the record, I did lose my virginity to the woman who is now my wife:)
    Heterosexual HIV transmission is the fastest growing type of HIV transmission.

    Caused by what?

    Oh yeah, promiscuity.

    Homosexual sex isn't a sin, but gay men who engaged in a lot of sex with many different sexual partners are putting themselves at risk. If they donate blood they are putting me at risk.

    I'd also point out that you cannot donate blood for twelve months after being sexually active with someone who has been sexually active in Africa, or after being sexually active with a man who has had sex with another man.
    And regardless of how the virus first spread or by whom, HIV can now be passed to or from anyone.

    No it can't.

    It is passed by blood or sex, basically. You know damn well you can't catch it off toilet seats.
    I really had you as a different person to one prepared descend to "it's all druggies, adulterers and poofters' fault" type of 'argument'.

    I don't think that that behaviour is wrong per se, but lets get real here.

    You don't catch HIV by sitting next to someone on a bus. You catch it, largely, from having sex with infected people, and by sharing needles when injecting drugs. That's a fact of life. To say its their "fault" isn't right, and true Catholics do not do that, but they ARE responsible for it.

    The more times you have sex with a new person the more at risk you are putting yourself, and your spouse if you have one. The more times you inject drugs using shared needles, the same. You don't get HIV from toilet seats or toothbrushes.

    It's all about personal responsibility. You sleep around, you inject drugs, and you put yourself at risk. The Pope isn't at fault for that, especially given condoms do not have a 100% effectiveness rate even when used correctly (which they often are not).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    You don't catch HIV by sitting next to someone on a bus. You catch it, largely, from having sex with infected people, and by sharing needles when injecting drugs. That's a fact of life. To say its their "fault" isn't right, and true Catholics do not do that, but they ARE responsible for it.

    Quite a lot of infections come from injections/IV's in African hospitals too, they dont have the ability or money to sterilise needles properly. Infection this way is WAY more likely than drug related infections in Africa.

    This isnt the case in China though because the government wont pay for needle exchange because they feel it encourages drug use.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Quite a lot of infections come from injections/IV's in African hospitals too, they dont have the ability or money to sterilise needles properly. Infection this way is WAY more likely than drug related infections in Africa.

    Fair enough that, and that's why so many African problems can be blamed solely and squarely on the West.

    The West in general treats Africa poorly. The bleating about condoms misses the point in a huge way, IMHO.

    They're better than nothing, but they are not perfect.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Fair enough that, and that's why so many African problems can be blamed solely and squarely on the West.

    The West in general treats Africa poorly. The bleating about condoms misses the point in a huge way, IMHO.

    They're better than nothing, but they are not perfect.

    There is supposed to be a project to supply African nations with one use only cheap surringes funded by the UN based on a British invention I think. But there's no money in it so its not going anywhere fast.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    There is supposed to be a project to supply African nations with one use only cheap surringes funded by the UN based on a British invention I think. But there's no money in it so its not going anywhere fast.

    Sounds about right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Sounds about right.

    In fact some experts think that injection infections account for more than unsafe sex, but its debatable.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3014763.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    In which country?

    It could be argued with some conviction that the Moors had a big influence in Spain, for instance. And the Pope doesn't have much sway in saudi.
    The Church, be Catholic or Anglican, and its Islam equivalent has had and still has a massive influence on the laws of countries everywhere. From abortion to euthanasia to sexual orientation discrimination, the Church has an influence on one or the other (and in some cases, all) issues and how the law treats them.

    Some Churches are worse than others. The Catholic is certainly one of the worst.

    The only guaranteed way of not infecting others is to keep it in their pants, no?
    Might as well kill themselves and remove the infection. Only way to guarantee they won't infect anyone by accidental blood transfer.

    People have a right to a decent life. And for most people a basic need for a decent life is being able to have sex. Especially if they are marrying someone and are going to spend the rest of the lives together.


    I actually doubt it.

    Much of Africa isn't Catholic anyway. Condoms have a stigma because they are horrible and expensive, and are very easy to render completely useless.
    They wouldn't be expensive if they were provided for free by charities or health organisations. But that's another issue.
    When Witch Doctors and folklore says having sex with a virgin is the way to cure AIDS, that's where the problems start.
    Yes, ignorance and superstitions help no one. That is the root of the problem.
    A large minority of men over here don't use condoms- because they don't like them, not because Razinger says they're naughty.
    True. But there is also a large minority of men in Africa who are a bit more responsive to mantra from Rome than their UK counterparts.


    I do wish you'd cut out the libel.
    I can honestly say without being funny or anything that I believe the Catholic Church is an evil repugnant organisation, and that I would be able to successfully defend such claims in any Court of Law.

    We could start with the little enigma of why does the Catholic Church campaign against the use of condoms, in effect restricting its use and promoting STDs and death.

    Seeing as there is nothing in the Bible to justify such position, you can argue that the only reason has to be pure malevolence, ignorance and bigotry.

    We could then move to their position towards homosexuals, its sexism and treatment of women, its historical ties with fascists and nazis, its shameful covering up of child rape by Catholic priests...

    The more I look at it, the more evil it seems.

    You know exactly what my sexual history is.

    I'm not saying that "no sex before marriage" is realistic, but the point is that the more sexual partners you have the more open you are to danger.
    Well in that case Kermit you cannot fault or blame people for having premarital sex can you? In which case they should be using condoms. In which case the Catholic Church is deeply wrong to tell them not to.
    Caused by what?

    Oh yeah, promiscuity.
    Caused by premarital sex. Which all of us have engaged in.
    Homosexual sex isn't a sin, but gay men who engaged in a lot of sex with many different sexual partners are putting themselves at risk. If they donate blood they are putting me at risk.
    That's true. But you are also at risk from any heterosexual person. I know several men and women who have admitted to (or sometimes boasted about) sleeping with more than 100 partners so far.

    That's why discriminating against gay men donating blood is wrong and rather pointless.

    It is passed by blood or sex, basically. You know damn well you can't catch it off toilet seats.
    Though they are not common, infections through accidents in labs/hospitals or unclean tools at tattoo parlours or dentists are not unheard of.


    I don't think that behaviour is wrong per se, but lets get real here.

    You don't catch HIV by sitting next to someone on a bus. You catch it, largely, from having sex with infected people, and by sharing needles when injecting drugs. That's a fact of life. To say its their "fault" isn't right, and true Catholics do not do that, but they ARE responsible for it.
    But you suggested earlier that is only adulterers, drug addicts and homosexuals who get infected. And that is not true. Anyone can get infected just by having sex with somebody else (and in rarer cases, through transfusion or accidents). And the point is that the person who passed the infection doesn't need to be a drug addict, homosexual or adulterer either.

    At the very beginning of the appearance of HIV you might have been able to claim it was all done by drug addicts, homosexuals and adulterers. But that ceased to be the case a long, long time ago. Now anyone can be infected without doing anything "wrong" in the process.
    It's all about personal responsibility. You sleep around, you inject drugs, and you put yourself at risk. The Pope isn't at fault for that, especially given condoms do not have a 100% effectiveness rate even when used correctly (which they often are not).
    They are still the best protection available to mankind. And by campaigning against condoms
    the Church is effectively allowing more people to get infected and die than they would otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Might as well kill themselves and remove the infection. Only way to guarantee they won't infect anyone by accidental blood transfer.

    :rolleyes:
    People have a right to a decent life. And for most people a basic need for a decent life is being able to have sex. Especially if they are marrying someone and are going to spend the rest of the lives together.

    And?

    If they loved someone enough they wouldn't put them at risk. Condoms carry a risk of between one and ten per cent, depending on how adept you are at putting them on. A failure rate of 0.5% still means you are likely to have one fail.
    They wouldn't be expensive if they were provided for free by charities or health organisations. But that's another issue.

    I agree.
    Well in that case Kermit you cannot fault or blame people for having premarital sex can you?

    I have never said they are to blame.

    But they are responsible for what they do to their bodies. The more partners you have, the more risk you have.

    Condoms lower this risk, but its still there, and its more common than you seem to want to think.

    Statistically, every 100 times you have sex a condom will fail, and that's even if used properly. That isn't an insignificant risk.
    That's true. But you are also at risk from any heterosexual person. I know several men and women who have admitted to (or sometimes boasted about) sleeping with more than 100 partners so far.

    Yep.

    Those who are promiscuous are more likely to catch and spread disease. Especially given the failure rate of condoms.
    That's why discriminating against gay men donating blood is wrong and rather pointless.

    It's not. And besides, if it minimises risk, we should do it, regardless of what we believe? That's what you're arguing with condoms, is it not?

    Or is it different because its about homosexuals?
    Though they are not common, infections through accidents in labs/hospitals or unclean tools at tattoo parlours or dentists are not unheard of.

    Yep.

    And what is the origin of these infections?
    But you suggested earlier that is only adulterers, drug addicts and homosexuals who get infected. And that is not true. Anyone can get infected just by having sex with somebody else (and in rarer cases, through transfusion or accidents). And the point is that the person who passed the infection doesn't need to be a drug addict, homosexual or adulterer either.

    I'd like you to find where I said all cases of HIV were caused by druggies and the promsicuous.

    Most are, that's a simple fact. A monogamous relationship is the safest way to have sex, and that doesn't change regardless of what gender your partner is. If you sleep around and inject drugs you are increasing your risk of disease greatly, to deny otherwise and say condoms will save the world is a bit odd.

    Not all are, of course not. Hospital infections account for a significant minority, and rape accounts for a significant minority- one late member of these boards contracted it as a result of rape. To claim otherwise is simplistic and sinister, depending on the context.
    They are still the best protection available to mankind.

    Doesn't make them reliable.
    And by campaigning against condoms the Church is effectively allowing more people to get infected and die than they would otherwise.

    Possibly, to an extent.

    But if you use condoms, you don't have children. Therefore the child deaths cannot be taken into account.

    And condoms are not as reliable as you try to claim. They're better than nothing, but they do still leave you open to a significant risk of infection. 99% sounds good, but it still means that every 100 times you sleep with someone, it will fail at least once. They're not that good odds.

    I don't even know why this is solely about condoms anyway.

    Most people won't use them regardless of religious position. They're not used because they feel crap, and they're a faff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    If they loved someone enough they wouldn't put them at risk. Condoms carry a risk of between one and ten per cent, depending on how adept you are at putting them on. A failure rate of 0.5% still means you are likely to have one fail.
    And yet there are countless couples in this country alone where one if HIV positive and the other isn't, and they have been having sex for many many years with no infection.

    Any adult of average experience and intelligence is capable of putting on a condom normally. And when that happens the failure rate is infinitely small.

    Yep.

    Those who are promiscuous are more likely to catch and spread disease. Especially given the failure rate of condoms.
    In which case you are as likely to be infected by a heterosexual blood donor as by a gay donor.


    It's not. And besides, if it minimises risk, we should do it, regardless of what we believe? That's what you're arguing with condoms, is it not?
    As above. We should be treating heterosexuals with the same precautions we are treating heterosexuals.
    Or is it different because its about homosexuals?
    It appears to be. It seems that many people in this country are walking around thinking a homosexual man is teeming with HIV virus while you couldn't catch it in a million years from a straight person.

    But in reality you are practically at the same risk of catching HIV from a heterosexual donor than from a gay one. If there is a difference in numbers, it is not significant enough to merit restricting one group while letting the other be, believe me.

    If you are really concerned about catching anything during a blood transfusion, you should be worried at this appalling lack of common sense from the health authorities.


    Yep.

    And what is the origin of these infections?
    An infected person. Could well be a god-fearing, straight one as well. And your point is?


    I'd like you to find where I said all cases of HIV were caused by druggies and the promiscuous.

    Most are, that's a simple fact. A monogamous relationship is the safest way to have sex, and that doesn't change regardless of what gender your partner is. If you sleep around and inject drugs you are increasing your risk of disease greatly, to deny otherwise and say condoms will save the world is a bit odd.

    Not all are, of course not. Hospital infections account for a significant minority, and rape accounts for a significant minority- one late member of these boards contracted it as a result of rape. To claim otherwise is simplistic and sinister, depending on the context.
    You certainly have been giving repeated indications through the thread that most cases are caused by adulterers, druggies and homosexuals. Now that group might have been responsible for the initial spread of the disease, but today the disease is spread by other groups and circumstances just as much.

    I hope I am imagining things but I can't help sensing a certain faint undertone of "they are wrongdoers and shouldn't really complain if they catch HIV".

    How they caught it is of no significance. They deserve just as much help and support as a cancer patient- and that includes ensuring the disease is contained as effectively and much as possible.


    Doesn't make them reliable.
    If 99.5% or so effective is not your idea of reliable, then yes you are right.


    Possibly, to an extent.

    But if you use condoms, you don't have children. Therefore the child deaths cannot be taken into account.

    And condoms are not as reliable as you try to claim. They're better than nothing, but they do still leave you open to a significant risk of infection. 99% sounds good, but it still means that every 100 times you sleep with someone, it will fail at least once. They're not that good odds.
    Even a split condom offers some sort of protection through its spermicide. And you have to bear in mind though that by no means you will be infected through a single unprotected intercourse. On average it is dozens of times if not hundreds in some cases before an infection occurs.

    Which means, even if there is a complete condom failure once in every hundred uses, the possibilities of infection for a couple are still fairly low.

    Without doubt, the most effective prevention known to man.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But in reality you are practically at the same risk of catching HIV from a heterosexual donor than from a gay one. If there is a difference in numbers, it is not significant enough to merit restricting one group while letting the other be, believe me.

    It is a significant difference. Gay men are far more likely to catch HIV, because anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal sex. It doesn't mean that they are the fastest spreading group, but they are more likely to have it.

    I'd rather listen to the NBS, if its all the same to you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    In fact some experts think that injection infections account for more than unsafe sex, but its debatable.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3014763.stm
    The hospital I worked at in Uganda used fresh needles for each use and took the issue very seriously indeed. Let's not get distracted from the main issue, which is HIV transmission through unprotected sex.
Sign In or Register to comment.