Right, fine. So their subjective interpretation of an ancient document is so inviolable that it trumps any concerns for contemporary welfare. That’s a position you can take - not a particularly appealing one, but at least it’s self-sustainable.
But don’t try and pretend that the Church isn’t aware of the effects of its policy, or that it isn’t responsible for said effects. When you’ve got the Pope himself saying, in spite of all the evidence, that condoms exacerbate the problems of AIDS, you’ve vacated any morally defensible ground and are left with precisely the fallback you’ve taken - that God Says So. Be straight with people: the promulgation of your religious beliefs is more important to you than the wellbeing of the people you infect. Not so?
ETA: that’s a generic “you” there - I’m aware that you personally, as so often, are simply arguing a side.
Well, let me ask an analogous question. Here in the USA, we have laws against rape. We constantly broadcast the message that rape is wrong, that ‘no’ means ‘no.’
Yet we continue to have rapes, every year.
Perhaps we should change that approach to somehow acknowledge this? Maybe let people know that if you’re going to rape, try to be gentle, and don’t cause too much physical injury? And, dare I say it, wear a condom when you do?
Obviously that’s ridiculous. It’s a vile, disgusting idea. Rape is wrong, and we need to make that point through our society’s teachings, even if making it doesn’t stop rapes from happening.
Yeah, that’d be a brilliant analogy, and we’d be in a right conundrum, if only people were capable of consenting to rape, and rape had a demonstrable benefit.
I am claiming that the church is preaching an ignorant message that is actually making the situation worse. I don’t care that the actually believe that it’s true, white supremacists believe that their ideology is true. That doesn’t make it good, it makes them stupid and a hindrance.
I think the church should either change its teaching or just stop lying that condoms are bad.
Advice isn’t the same thing as education. I’ll repeat the exact same thing I said in the earlier post:
If no one ever told you to wash your hands after wiping your ass you wouldn’t do it. Educating people about dangers they can’t see is vital.
Educating ignorant people about an unseen danger isn’t the same as telling them to ignore their biological imperative. Get it?
So you don’t want people to use condoms? Fine. :(:mad: But to intentionally spread false information to somehow justify your unpopular and potentially dangerous position? Detestable.
I am assuming, here, that I’m not talking to a bunch of idiots who will immediately scream, “OMG!!!11! He said rape and sex are the same thing and he must DIE!”
Obviously the analogy is targeted towards the issue of disapproval for an act, and whether or not it eliminates the act. If someone wishes to rebut my analogy on the basis of how vile rape is and how unvile consensual sex is, that person would be completely missing the point.
And how is that relevant to the analogy?
If it is, let’s discuss speeding laws, routinely violated by large numbers of people. Should we then remove speed laws? Does that get rid of you “small minority” problem?
Look, I agree that in the past, other Church officials have out-and-out lied about condoms, saying the AIDS virus passes through them. And I agree that there is no justification for that act.
This statement, however, is not in that category, because it’s not remotely clear what “it” is that’s being made worse. I suspect the Pope is talking about the overall deterioration of social fabric and values – THAT is what condoms make worse, not the clinical data of AIDS transmission.
Again (since many people here seem to have a real hard time reading actual words on this topic): I agree that spreading deliberate lies about condoms is detestable. An example of this would be: “Don’t use condoms, because they don’t stop AIDS.” An example that would NOT fit this category would be: “Don’t use condoms, because it’s wrong.”
No, it’s not irrelevant. We are talking about the Church’s opposition to condoms, not its opposition to extramarital sex.
If you want an analogy, it’s like a road safety group being opposed to seatbelts because they believe they encourage speeding. Oh, and because they’re against God.
Your analogy is fucked, face it.
Oh, and you haven’t bothered addressing the Church’s blatant lying about condoms’ efficacy. Quelle surprise.
ETA: Oh, okay, you’ve addressed it by flat out denying it. Fine.
I’m not going to argue with their spiritual claims against condom use. They are entitled to their own religious philosophies.
I will vehemently argue with their factual claims against condom use. They are not entitled to their own ‘facts’ which do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
The problem is that this falsehood is being used to support the policy. At best that’s a logical flaw, at worst a deliberate lie to support an indefensible policy that cannot be defended through legitimate means.
It’s an obvious consequence. When the message is, “Have sex with whomever you like, just use a condom,” you weaken and destroy the barrier that should exist to confine sex to a martial relationship.
Now, it’s true of course that using condoms would be far better than NOT using condoms, assuming it’s a given that people will be having premarital and extra-marital sex. But while the people apparently listen slavishly to the words of the pontiff on the issue of condoms, they don’t care what he says about actually having the sex. Apparently. :rolleyes: