Pope Benedict once stood before a group of reporters and said that condom distribution not only wouldn’t cure the AIDS crisis, it actually makes it worse. These comments reignited a long-simmering debate over the proper place of contraceptives in health and social policy. Do you think that free condom distribution encourages promiscuity and increases health risks, or is it a potentially effective public service?

It surely could not hurt.

It surely can hurt. It encourages promiscuity with a false sense of security. And given the Church's stance on premarital sex in the first place, I am kind of tired of people acting like he's telling you to go out and have unprotected sex.

I teach HIV/AIDS classes at work and part of it is demo on how to put on a condom. We also get the free condoms from the Health Dept. and give them out at the class. Most ppl take a handful. There are also a few places, gay bookstores and such that have a bowl of them by the counter.

Condom use has been shown to prevent spread of sexually transmitted infections. Condoms cost money to buy so poor ppl may not have them readily available, so yes, free condom distribution is a good thing to have.

Ppl are going to have sex - that is a given. Free condoms makes it easier for them to do it safer.

(and Pope - if a condom prevents an unwanted pregnancy ya won't be bitchin' about an abortion)

The Pope is partially right: distributing condoms won't cure the AIDS crisis, and I don't think even the most optimistic promoters of their distribution feel that way. What it WILL do is possibly reduce many health risks and sexually transmitted diseases -AIDS among them, the risk of unwanted pregnancies, etc.

On a personal level, things like these make me want to be less of a Catholic each day. I don't think I've been a devout one for a while, anyway.

To answer the question, no it wouldn't hurt. It could only help. No one who has any idea what they're talking about would believe that available condoms encourages promiscuity. If sex is what they're hellbent on having, then a sizable enough number of people are going to do it whether protection is available or not.

^^^^The pope is entirely right actually.

Impact wrote:

The Pope is partially right: distributing condoms won't cure the AIDS crisis, and I don't think even the most optimistic promoters of their distribution feel that way. What it WILL do is possibly reduce many health risks and sexually transmitted diseases -AIDS among them, the risk of unwanted pregnancies, etc.

On a personal level, things like these make me want to be less of a Catholic each day. I don't think I've been a devout one for a while, anyway.

To answer the question, no it wouldn't hurt. It could only help. No one who has any idea what they're talking about would believe that available condoms encourages promiscuity. If sex is what they're hellbent on having, then a sizable enough number of people are going to do it whether protection is available or not.

Chris wrote:

Pope Benedict once stood before a group of reporters and said that condom distribution not only wouldn’t cure the AIDS crisis, it actually makes it worse. These comments reignited a long-simmering debate over the proper place of contraceptives in health and social policy. Do you think that free condom distribution encourages promiscuity and increases health risks, or is it a potentially effective public service?

The latter. If you're going to have sex, be safe about it. It's as simple as that. Condoms don't increase health risks. No bodily fluids are exchanged when using a condom.

Unless the condoms have names and #'s on the back of them, I don't see how it encourages promiscuity.

Impact wrote:

The Pope is partially right: distributing condoms won't cure the AIDS crisis, and I don't think even the most optimistic promoters of their distribution feel that way. What it WILL do is possibly reduce many health risks and sexually transmitted diseases -AIDS among them, the risk of unwanted pregnancies, etc.

On a personal level, things like these make me want to be less of a Catholic each day. I don't think I've been a devout one for a while, anyway.

To answer the question, no it wouldn't hurt. It could only help. No one who has any idea what they're talking about would believe that available condoms encourages promiscuity. If sex is what they're hellbent on having, then a sizable enough number of people are going to do it whether protection is available or not.

^^What HE said^^

Forgiveness Man wrote:

It surely can hurt. It encourages promiscuity with a false sense of security. And given the Church's stance on premarital sex in the first place, I am kind of tired of people acting like he's telling you to go out and have unprotected sex.

The church is an outdated construction that no longer fits in with this society. It was invented as a form of social control-- we have Google now; the church is obsolete. The Pope's influence has been fading steadily for a while now. Won't be much longer until people just stop listening all together.

Also, false sense of security? How is 99% protective false security? And how do free condoms promote promiscuity? The last time I got free condoms, I believe I used... one. ONE. I don't even know where the other ones are.

Free condoms are GREAT. Those things are normally quite expensive.

Anytime we can reduce pregnancy & the spread of disease it's a good thing. We can wave flags & books & anything else within reach but the truth is people are going to have sex. We are physical sexual beings. It is absurd to claim that the distribution of condoms will promote promiscuity. More people will not engage in sexual activity because they have a handful of condoms but fewer will experience the incidence of unwanted pregnancy & potentially abortion, STD's that need antibiotics & those that can kill you. I seriously f'n fail to see the bad in that. My main concern if there's one to be had is that people will actually use them.

Rockbird wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

It surely can hurt. It encourages promiscuity with a false sense of security. And given the Church's stance on premarital sex in the first place, I am kind of tired of people acting like he's telling you to go out and have unprotected sex.

The church is an outdated construction that no longer fits in with this society. It was invented as a form of social control-- we have Google now; the church is obsolete. The Pope's influence has been fading steadily for a while now. Won't be much longer until people just stop listening all together.

Also, false sense of security? How is 99% protective false security? And how do free condoms promote promiscuity? The last time I got free condoms, I believe I used... one. ONE. I don't even know where the other ones are.

Free condoms are GREAT. Those things are normally quite expensive.

Truth never becomes outdated. People just become comfortable in whatever the modern delusion was. People've been calling the church outdated since it started and it's outlived all of them and their whacko ideas of the age. The "your values are outdated" crap is becoming funny because of how mindlessly it's regurgitated these days. lol

The Pope's "influence" isn't his purpose. People have been predicting the demise of the Church for ages. They are more comfortable believing that it'll soon fade away because it helps avoid the truth that it isn't going anywhere. It IS funny how non-Catholics are so defense against what the Pope says. For a guy who's fading, he certainly ruffles feathers like no other. The pope ain't going nowhere and the world knows it.

Condoms are less effective than they're made out to be, hence why we got such widespread condoms despite having condoms more available than chocolate candy. And as you said, just cause people get free condoms don't mean they will use them anyway. People have a habit of forgetting about them even when they DO have them.

Hence why the pope is right at the end of the day. Giving out free condoms just makes the problem worse. Yet, people are so offended by this as if somebody is taking their condoms away. If you wanna use condoms, you're free to. It's probably in society's best interest that these people use them all the time.

I have a friend with 2 yo twins and a 6 mo daughter, who is in a new relationship. She called me the other day and told me that she ran out of bc pills and DSHS was out of condoms because some guy with a garbage bag came and took them all. So she and her new boyfriend were just hoping she wouldn't get pregnant.

Now, in this regard, she's a freaking idiot and I wanted to shake her. Knowing that wouldn't do any good, I offered her some condoms that we had here.

In her case, free condoms might have prevented an unwanted pregnancy.

I can't believe that she is the ONLY one out there like that...

^^^^Or holding off having sex until she got condoms would've done the same too. You don't have unprotected sex and cop a "woe is me" attitude because somebody hasn't given you FREE condoms. (Who exactly is supposed to pay for these things, tax payers? Certainly the condom companies aren't going to just manufacture them for free and I honestly don't want tax payers dollars going to a helmet so people can have a good time without consequences. Nothing is free. SOMEBODY is paying for it.)

Free condoms are like one of those little dot band aids for a big nasty cut. It's not useless but it's not getting at the heart of the problem. I honestly think if you can't even afford condoms, you can't afford sex.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^Or holding off having sex until she got condoms would've done the same too. You don't have unprotected sex and cop a "woe is me" attitude because somebody hasn't given you FREE condoms. (Who exactly is supposed to pay for these things, tax payers? Certainly the condom companies aren't going to just manufacture them for free and I honestly don't want tax payers dollars going to a helmet so people can have a good time without consequences. Nothing is free. SOMEBODY is paying for it.)

Free condoms are like one of those little dot band aids for a big nasty cut. It's not useless but it's not getting at the heart of the problem. I honestly think if you can't even afford condoms, you can't afford sex.

I totally understand what you are saying and I agree. There's no effing way that I would do what she's doing. On SO many levels.

At the same time, guess who's going to pay for her to have the baby that she ends up with if she gets pregnant? I think condoms are MUCH cheaper than another pregnancy, another childbirth, another child to insure, more WIC and food stamps...

^^^^Maybe so, but it'd be smarter to just have these people refrain from careless sex to begin with. It's not our job to enable people's bad habits. People have to learn responsibility.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^Maybe so, but it'd be smarter to just have these people refrain from careless sex to begin with. It's not our job to enable people's bad habits. People have to learn responsibility.

In a perfect world, I'd agree. I just don't see that happening.

thepossiblepolice wrote:

In a perfect world, I'd agree. I just don't see that happening.

Well we can't let the lack of a perfect world basically reward and aid irresponsibility. If somebody wants condoms, they should go and buy them, or just exercise a little bit of self control if they can't. We may not live in a perfect world but we'll only make it worse by building up irresponsibility.

The pope aint interested in seeing AIDS cured. Thats why he's against condoms being handed out cuz he KNOWS they save lives and he would rather "heathens" who dare to have sex outside his def. of how it should happen just perish.

Impact wrote:

The Pope is partially right: distributing condoms won't cure the AIDS crisis, and I don't think even the most optimistic promoters of their distribution feel that way. What it WILL do is possibly reduce many health risks and sexually transmitted diseases -AIDS among them, the risk of unwanted pregnancies, etc.

On a personal level, things like these make me want to be less of a Catholic each day. I don't think I've been a devout one for a while, anyway.

To answer the question, no it wouldn't hurt. It could only help. No one who has any idea what they're talking about would believe that available condoms encourages promiscuity. If sex is what they're hellbent on having, then a sizable enough number of people are going to do it whether protection is available or not.

The ignorance and hypocrisy of the church is astounding and purely mind boggling.

RobbieFTW wrote:

The pope aint interested in seeing AIDS cured. Thats why he's against condoms being handed out cuz he KNOWS they save lives and he would rather "heathens" who dare to have sex outside his def. of how it should happen just perish.

Oh please. That's crap and we all know it. The Pope just realizes that STDs ain't going to be cured by condoms. He sees that they're just some big comfort cushion for those who want to be promiscuous. But the protection is largely mental, and he sees that. So he realizes that the only way to cure STD's is by not being promiscuous. It's a choice, your fun or your STD. I'm sure it's easier to vilify the pope rather than confront the reality. People like vilifying the pope cause it gives them somebody to blame.

By in large the Catholic church has proven time and time again that their supposed spiritual leaders are the last people who should be weighing in on anything that has to do with sex and or sexuality for the whole of society. Too many of them can't even live up to their own rules and philosophies on the matter. The very nature of their structure (with regards to their priest and nuns) is an affront as to the very nature of being human. So from the perverted stance that they have, how can they even begin to understand that which they do not know? They are nothing more than power hungry perverts who play at being God.

^^^^^Priests have lower sexual abuse rates than most professions. Most spiritual leaders of the Church actually do follow their rules.

I'd say those against the church are the ones affronting the nature of the human being. The Church is the one complementing it.

And as for power hungry perverts, I think those outside the Church clearly fall under this more so than the Church.

Again, I think it's funny how non-Catholics like to vilify a religion they are not part of and who has no power over them. I don't care what Billy Graham teaches. I don't bother to fret over the teachings of Pat Robinson. So why the hate for a man people don't follow? I do have some theories as to why this need to vilify the Church is so strong.