Condoms should u use them or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesusismyhomie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Jesusismyhomie:
Accept the disease what do u mean by that? That is so stupid. I can love someone without wanting their disease. “In sickness and in health” means that I accept them with the disease it does not mean I have to take the chance of catching it. Especially if it is fatal like aids. I am sure God would not want that for anyone nor would he ecpect a couple not to have sex If it means not spreading the disease. How would God say condoms and other types of birth control are bad if they were not around when he was alive.
Click to expand...
  1. You can also love someone chastely. Jesus did.
  2. You can certainly accept them with the disease, just don’t sleep with them…period.
    3)Yes, He would expect a couple not to have sex if it means one might get a disease.
    4)God is not confined by time. He knew about birth control when he walked the earth (BTW, He is still alive) so He could indeed say that they are bad.
Why would someone who has a fatal disease like AIDS or a permanent and transmissible disease like herpes want to force someone they love to either get the disease (have sex) or damage their eternal soul (use a condom)? Does that sound like they really care about their “loved one”? Doesn’t that seem selfish to you? How could you love someone who cares so little for you that they make you choose between such horrible situations?
 
Cove, I do not think you understand how unreliable condoms are. There are so many abortions because there are so many failed condoms. Condoms fail a lot.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
And the only reliable way to prevent it is abstinance.
Click to expand...
I do not disagree, but we are not all perfect. Even the best of us will fall into the temptation of intercourse especially with a spouse that we truly love. I truly don’t believe that God expects them to not express their love in this way. In this case the condom could be seen as a God given miracle. As I see it, condoms may be a blessing in these cases.
 
40.png
cove:
I do not disagree, but we are not all perfect. Even the best of us will fall into the temptation of intercourse especially with a spouse that we truly love. I truly don’t believe that God expects them to not express their love in this way. In this case the condom could be seen as a God given miracle. As I see it, condoms may be a blessing in these cases.
Click to expand...
See the last two posts (21, 22) and rethink if giving your spouse aids is really love.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Cove, I do not think you understand how unreliable condoms are. There are so many abortions because there are so many failed condoms. Condoms fail a lot.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do agree that those who have a disease and use a condom to try and not spread the disease are taking a risk. But, they are taking a bigger risk if they do not use one.

Do they really? Could it be that those who have an unwanted pregnancy make this claimed that they used a condom because they don’t want to admit their mistake and want to justify the “abortion”.

btw–I would be interested in seeing some data on how often the condom fails.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
See the last two posts (21, 22) and rethink if giving your spouse aids is really love.
Click to expand...
I did not say that giving your spouse aids is love. You did, actually. You said a true act of love would be to take on the disease that the partner had instead of trying to prevent it by using a condom.
 
40.png
cove:
I did not say that giving your spouse aids is love. You did, actually. You said a true act of love would be to take on the disease that the partner had instead of trying to prevent it by using a condom.
Click to expand...
I said sharing in the non-lethal one might be. If sex was that important, to suffer so your spouse could have it might be. I’ll get you the condom failure rates.
 
Jesusismyhomie said:
“In sickness and in health” means that I accept them with the disease it does not mean I have to take the chance of catching it. Especially if it is fatal like aids
Click to expand...

Do some checking around. I don’t think anyone out there is saying that you can’t get HIV if the condom is employed.

On the Planned Parenthood site (which I do not recommend), even they quote study results like this:
A meta-analysis of 25 studies on HIV transmission and condoms found that efficacy rates ranged from 87 percent to 96 percent against HIV infection (Davis & Weller, 1999).
Click to expand...
This means that it is not 100% effective, to the best of our knowledge. So a married couple who consistently uses a condom for years and years still is risking the transfer of HIV from one to the other. Even if they use the condom only once, there is still (smaller) risk.

Abstinence is how they would avoid spreading it to eachother by that type of contact. It is quite possible to abstain for the rest of your life. It is not a logical or moral impossiblity.
 
Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%. In 100 users who use a condom correctly and consistently, the lowest estimated failure rate would be 3 pregnancies in one year. In 100 typical users however, the estimated failure rate is 14 pregnancies in one year. The large difference between these two failure rates can be attributed to incorrect and inconsistent use of the condom. Therefore it is crucial that a condom is used every time one has intercourse, and is used correctly. The condom is even more effective when used with additional spermicide.
Click to expand...
And as you said, no one is perfect and perfection with condom gives you the low end.

stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_bar.html
 
I guess in all, it doesn’t matter what you and I think. The Church makes the final decision on what is the morally right stance here is and if someone chooses to go against Church teaching, they just need to understand the possible consequences. I pray they don’t harm themselves.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
And as you said, no one is perfect and perfection with condom gives you the low end.

stanford.edu/group/SHPRC/ch6_bar.html
Click to expand...
The risk factor is still better with a condom. I am not advocating the use of condoms to stop the spread of disease. I am saying that if it is going to happen (sex between a married couple) then the use of a condom will help to make this risk less. Not using it will more then likely result in the healthy partner getting the disease. Of course, living your faith and abstaining from sex to ensure that your loved one will not become sick is the best answer. But, humans will be humans and we aren’t perfect. In this case use the condom and make this risk factor lower.

From your article and the point I was trying to make in my last post–
“Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%. In 100 users who use a condom correctly and consistently, the lowest estimated failure rate would be 3 pregnancies in one year. In 100 typical users however, the estimated failure rate is 14 pregnancies in one year. The large difference between these two failure rates can be attributed to incorrect and inconsistent use of the condom. Therefore it is crucial that a condom is used every time one has intercourse, and is used correctly. The condom is even more effective when used with additional spermicide.”

Point is, it has to be used correctly to truly limit the the risk of spreading disease.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I guess in all, it doesn’t matter what you and I think. The Church makes the final decision on what is the morally right stance here is and if someone chooses to go against Church teaching, they just need to understand the possible consequences. I pray they don’t harm themselves.
Click to expand...
I pray the same.
 
Pretend condoms didn’t exist. I don’t care how hard the temptation is, no one would have unprotected sex with a loved one if they knew they had AIDS. A husband or wife would definitely give up sex for the love of their spouse. I think that’s a no brainer. The fact that using condoms is specifically a grave sin in all circumstances according to the Church, it might as well be as though they didn’t exist.

The point is, if condoms are not an option, abstinence will not be a problem to stick too (a small sacrifice it would be when the other alternative is giving the one you love the most a lethal disease). Now you may say, “but they are an option!” Well, if you choose to believe that, then that is between you and God. And if you believe the Church is God’s divinely appointed authority on earth and it is guided by the Holy Spirit, then you know that condoms are wrong in God’s eyes.
 
40.png
Jesusismyhomie:
I want to know what you think about condoms. Should we use them or not? I think we should use them to prevent diseases. Even married people dont want to give their partner a disease and pregnancy. I dont think you should only have sex to reproduce. I think if you want to have sex just because your in love you should.
Click to expand...
This is one of the biggest lies. Condoms do not prevent disease.

Condoms have a failure rate for preganecy as high as 25% in some studies. Now if couples that use them get preganent 25% of the time and we know that everytime a couple has sex that they do not get preganent then the actual failure rate is much higher.

Now lets add that many diseases, espically viruses, are much smaller than sperm. So condoms could still be good against sperm while allowing the disease through.

So in reality, condoms do not prevent disease, they cause it. As people are lulled into a false sense of security and act in ways they would not if they did not use condoms.

It’s time to wake up and see that the Church is right on this one.
 
40.png
Jesusismyhomie:
Accept the disease what do u mean by that? That is so stupid. I can love someone without wanting their disease. “In sickness and in health” means that I accept them with the disease it does not mean I have to take the chance of catching it. Especially if it is fatal like aids. I am sure God would not want that for anyone nor would he ecpect a couple not to have sex If it means not spreading the disease. How would God say condoms and other types of birth control are bad if they were not around when he was alive.
Click to expand...
Yes, God would expect the couple not to have sex if one of them could transmit a deadly disease. That is exactly what He asks. Expressing love and sex are not the same thing. Expressing love is a whole lot more and involves all aspects of the couple’s life together, not just time in bed. God is alive now and forever and there never was a time He did not exist, so your last sentence is absurd. God created sex to enable the husband and wife to participate with Him in the work of creation, as well as to express their love and unity. To deny the possibility of procreation is to deny the presence and love of God in the marriage.

There are many other times during marriage when the sex act is not possible due to separation (military service, job demands etc.), health (high risk pregnancy, mother recovering after childbirth, heart attack recovery, other illness not an STD, recovery from accident), and if the couple is not used to continence (expressing love in ways other than sex), they will not be able to maintain their love during these times.
 
40.png
cove:
The risk factor is still better with a condom. I am not advocating the use of condoms to stop the spread of disease. I am saying that if it is going to happen (sex between a married couple) then the use of a condom will help to make this risk less.

Point is, it has to be used correctly to truly limit the the risk of spreading disease.
Click to expand...
What is the assessed risk factor to a person’s soul? Somehow, this eternal factor gets easily displaced in your calculations. Likewise, your statement “**if it is going to happen (sex between a married couple)” **makes man/woman sound like a beast driven by the impulse by their sexual desire. Now really, you need to uphold man’s dignity in Christ and the universal call to holiness of life and person.

**1 Peter *Chapter 1:14-16 “***Like obedient children, … as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, “Be holy because I (am) holy.”

People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church. (CCC 2349)

Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is “an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society.” Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life. (CCC 2344)
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Pretend condoms didn’t exist. I don’t care how hard the temptation is, no one would have unprotected sex with a loved one if they knew they had AIDS. A husband or wife would definitely give up sex for the love of their spouse. I think that’s a no brainer. The fact that using condoms is specifically a grave sin in all circumstances according to the Church, it might as well be as though they didn’t exist.

The point is, if condoms are not an option, abstinence will not be a problem to stick too (a small sacrifice it would be when the other alternative is giving the one you love the most a lethal disease). Now you may say, “but they are an option!” Well, if you choose to believe that, then that is between you and God. And if you believe the Church is God’s divinely appointed authority on earth and it is guided by the Holy Spirit, then you know that condoms are wrong in God’s eyes.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Even when condoms have not been an option (I am sure that many people do not have access to condoms) people still engage in “risky” sex. Even those trying to live a life dedicated to God. Like I said human beings are not perfect. We all sin and make mistakes.

The best way to prevent would be to abstain and love the partner without the expression of sexual intercourse. What the church teaches I agree with. I would hope that a couple in a loving relationship would not want to risk their partners health for any reason. But, I do recognize that this is not always going to be the case and it is better to use the less risk condom then the high risk no protection at all.
 
40.png
felra:
What is the assessed risk factor to a person’s soul? Somehow, this eternal factor gets easily displaced in your calculations. Likewise, your statement “**if it is going to happen (sex between a married couple)” **makes man/woman sound like a beast driven by the impulse by their sexual desire. Now really, you need to uphold man’s dignity in Christ and the universal call to holiness of life and person.

1 Peter *Chapter 1:14-16 “*Like obedient children, … as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, “Be holy because I (am) holy.”

People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church. (CCC 2349)

Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is “an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society.” Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life. (CCC 2344)
Click to expand...
You seem to think I am against chastity. I am not. But, realistically not everyone is going to live a chaste life. Especially, a loving couple who lives together.

Of course it is better to live a chaste life if you harbor a deadly disease that can be transmitted through sexual intercourse. I would hope that a reasonable person would not want to risk the life of a loved one and their own eternal soul by engageing in a sex act that could transmit this deadly disease and kill someone. But, let’s not totally eliminate the idea that the condom can help to save a life in times of human weakness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top