• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should condoms be handed out

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
@9-10ths_Penguin
It's true that, as a religious person I could just choose not to accept condoms. I guess my concern is for those who are spiritually weak who would be inclined to take the condoms and have illicit sex.
By "spiritually weak," do you mean "people who think it's okay to have sex?"

By "illicit sex," do you mean "sex you disapprove of?"


I mean, by your standards then as outlined in your post you probably don't believe that religious people should witness their faith...?
I'd rather you didn't, but I wouldn't pass laws to stop you.

I am assuming, since the idea behind not imposing your personal beliefs on others sounds a lot to me like one shouldn't try to affect moral change. I might be wrong.
What I was getting at is that you shouldn't try to force other people to live by your religion.

Not unless you want people like me to try to force you to live by our beliefs in return.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
@9-10ths_Penguin
It's true that, as a religious person I could just choose not to accept condoms. I guess my concern is for those who are spiritually weak who would be inclined to take the condoms and have illicit sex. I mean, by your standards then as outlined in your post you probably don't believe that religious people should witness their faith...? I am assuming, since the idea behind not imposing your personal beliefs on others sounds a lot to me like one shouldn't try to affect moral change. I might be wrong.

There is a huge difference between attempting to get people to agree with you through discussion and moral suasion and attempting to pass laws against those actions you find to be immoral.

You certainly have a point of view that many share and it is one that should be heard and discussed. But, in the absence of a consensus on these matters, it isn't the role of the government to impose punishments on sexual activities (and I don't think it is even when there is a consensus--but that is another matter). Too many people fundamentally disagree with your goals, fundamentally disagree that your goals *are* moral, and fundamentally disagree with the background assumptions of your goals for it to be reasonable to pass punitive laws dictating your ideas on what is appropriate behavior.

So, yes, attempt to affect moral change by presenting your viewpoint. Argue your position as well as you can and try to convince people your way is the better way. But imposing your views on others is a different thing. Having a law using the government to punish behavior that you find immoral solely because of your religious views isn't the way of a free and secular society.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
@9-10ths_Penguin
You are an atheist so me saying this probably won't have much bearing but we believe in a Kingdom that will come upon earth and last for a millennium (Revelation 20:4). The reason I say this is because in that Kingdom we believe the laws of the land will be the Bible. Right now, I could not possibly hope that any Government would choose the laws of the Bible over their own ideas. However, in that Kingdom, rules will be set and the Messiah will reign and the Kingdom is supposed to be an idealistic world - a Garden of Eden type atmosphere restored. Why I'm saying this is because you said you would want a demand in the say of a religion. Well, that's not really how religion works. If the Word is from Yahweh we obey what we have in front of us because it is the Living Word (Hebrews 4:12)

If the Bible were not the Word of the Most High then why not have a say in what it says, but it is, so you wouldn't get a say. Sounds harsh when I put it that way, but just as a father knows best what is for their child and what will make them happy, so does Yahweh.

Yes, we understand that you believe this. But realize there are many that do NOT believe this. And out government is not supposed to impose a religion (see history for good reasons why not).

So, truthfully, what you believe about the Bible is irrelevant to those of us who don't take it to be a reliable source of information or morality.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
@9-10ths_Penguin
You are an atheist so me saying this probably won't have much bearing but we believe in a Kingdom that will come upon earth and last for a millennium (Revelation 20:4). The reason I say this is because in that Kingdom we believe the laws of the land will be the Bible. Right now, I could not possibly hope that any Government would choose the laws of the Bible over their own ideas.
Your OP was all about how you thought that public policy now should be informed by your religious beliefs.

However, in that Kingdom, rules will be set and the Messiah will reign and the Kingdom is supposed to be an idealistic world - a Garden of Eden type atmosphere restored. Why I'm saying this is because you said you would want a demand in the say of a religion. Well, that's not really how religion works. If the Word is from Yahweh we obey what we have in front of us because it is the Living Word (Hebrews 4:12)
I mean I would demand a say in the affairs of your religious institutions in the here-and-now. For instance, if your church inserted itself into my secular government, I would work to make sure that your church is subjected to the same rules as a secular government, and if your church failed to follow these rules, people could seek redress against your church and its leaders through the courts.

If the Bible were not the Word of the Most High then why not have a say in what it says, but it is, so you wouldn't get a say. Sounds harsh when I put it that way, but just as a father knows best what is for their child and what will make them happy, so does Yahweh.
But if your organization becomes part of the government, we would get a say in how the Bible is interpreted.

As an example of what could happen:

Here in Canada, we have taxpayer-funded and government-run Catholic schools. As public entities, they're subject to things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, except to the extent that the Charter would go against Catholic teachings.

A few years ago, a girl attending a Catholic high school tried to take her girlfriend to the school prom. The school refused to allow this and the case ended up in court.

The judge ended up ruling in favour of the girl. He determined that a lesbian couple going to the prom didn't violate Catholic teachings... despite representatives of the Catholic Church saying that it did.

Would you like a secular court overruling your church on how it ought to interpret your scriptures and teachings? If your religious organization interferes with secular government, it will happen.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Let's look at the basics. People are going to have sex. No school or government or church is going to stop that. The result of that sex is often unwanted pregnancy or diseases. If condoms can help prevent even a few pregnancies or diseases then they should be handed out for free on every street in the country. Forget about morality or other concerns, stop the unwanted effects on people who will have sex regardless of the risks.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
One of the problems with Christianity is that it treats sex as if it were an evil.
Boy, isn't that the truth. At the very beginning of the Torah tale the Hebrews decided to make nakedness shameful. Why? Who knows. It's never explained. And from then on all sorts crazy notions concerning sex and sexuality began appearing, all of which narrowed the acceptance of sex to the marriage bed, the primary reasons being:

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (KJV)
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
And not only isn't it good that a man touch a woman, but a man shouldn't even touch a man, or a woman touch a woman. Yet god created them so they would want to do just that. Go figure. The only realistic conclusion is that the god of Abraham is a sadist of the first order.

.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Its not only the churches, many non churched have their own sense of morality. The school does not address these, not should it. Leaving the churches aside, people live by different cultural moralities.

The school educates, that includes giving a sense of right and wrong, ethical values. Are you saying schools should not teach children to be decent human beings?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, but nowadays sex education in schools makes no distinction between sex within and without marriage. I understand that the reasoning behind handing out condoms is the argument that young people are going to have sex anyway outside of marriage, so why not ensure they are having sex "safely", but is that necessarily true. Is it true that young people would have sex anyway. I'm certain that this isn't the case for all young people, even though in this generation sex outside wedlock is commonplace. The Messiah constantly referred to his generation as an 'evil and adulterous generation' (Mark 8:38) but today people are committing adultery to the point that it isn't even considered to be sin anymore.

Yesterday, a news article came out which stated that a new scheme in Brighton is being initiated to hand out free condoms to under 25 year olds. The C-Card scheme - as it is known - which was launched last month is designed to encourage young people to become 'clued up on safer sex'. All you need is a C-card and you can pick up free condoms, lube and femidoms.

Some would argue, myself included, that handing out condoms for free is encouraging people to break the commandments, especially to have sex outside of marriage. Historically, the term coined used to describe people who were cohabitating and having sex not within the confines of marriage is 'living in sin' and this is true.

What are your thoughts about handing out condoms?
Teenagers have sex. Teenagers have been having sex for literally thousands of years. Telling a teenager not to do something is a sure fire way to get them to do the thing.
I say hand condoms out like candy, at least that might reduce the spread of STDs.

When I was in high school, the world was more or less still reeling from the AIDS epidemic. I mean it wasn’t recent for us, but it was probably still on the minds of educators, because my sex Ed classes were very explicit about exactly what STDs were out there, how you could catch them and what to do if you did. Taught us how to use condoms and where to purchase them. Even gave us some for a “starter kit.” We even did a component (which I think should be mandatory) about consent.
Teens don’t always think things through. They’re not developed mentally enough in many cases. Teenagers are hormonal and often rebellious. Give them condoms to at the very least encourage responsible, safe sex.

The Church can teach its members about its moral stance. Everyone outside the Church is not obligated to care.

I say sex Ed should be completely comprehensive, frank and scientific. That includes giving out condoms.

Pragmatism over just saying “don’t do it” and practicing your shocked Pickachu face for when teen pregnancy happens.
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, but nowadays sex education in schools makes no distinction between sex within and without marriage. I understand that the reasoning behind handing out condoms is the argument that young people are going to have sex anyway outside of marriage, so why not ensure they are having sex "safely", but is that necessarily true. Is it true that young people would have sex anyway. I'm certain that this isn't the case for all young people, even though in this generation sex outside wedlock is commonplace. The Messiah constantly referred to his generation as an 'evil and adulterous generation' (Mark 8:38) but today people are committing adultery to the point that it isn't even considered to be sin anymore.

Yesterday, a news article came out which stated that a new scheme in Brighton is being initiated to hand out free condoms to under 25 year olds. The C-Card scheme - as it is known - which was launched last month is designed to encourage young people to become 'clued up on safer sex'. All you need is a C-card and you can pick up free condoms, lube and femidoms.

Some would argue, myself included, that handing out condoms for free is encouraging people to break the commandments, especially to have sex outside of marriage. Historically, the term coined used to describe people who were cohabitating and having sex not within the confines of marriage is 'living in sin' and this is true.

What are your thoughts about handing out condoms?

Unless used, they will be as effective as a pill not taken.

The problem isn't in getting contraceptives to the younger generation(s), it's getting them to use them.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
If the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then, I'm sorry, I think the Bible is evil.

The Bible doesn't say that.

A marriage is not official in the Lords eyes until it had been consummated (sex). So basically when you have sex with anyone you are married to that person, as far as God is concerned.

So having sex while not legally married (by man's law) is not a sin.

Where this is a problem is people have sex with more than 1 person outside of marriage. Then that is when it is considered a sin.

Got a question for you though.

How do you justify saying the Bible is evil for saying sex is immoral?

You do realize that before birth control and contraceptives that sex had a higher chance at producing children correct?

Is not having sex with multiple people and not helping the mothers take care of the children immoral?

I think your moral compass is broken.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The Bible doesn't say that.

A marriage is not official in the Lords eyes until it had been consummated (sex). So basically when you have sex with anyone you are married to that person, as far as God is concerned.

So having sex while not legally married (by man's law) is not a sin.

Where this is a problem is people have sex with more than 1 person outside of marriage. Then that is when it is considered a sin.

Got a question for you though.

How do you justify saying the Bible is evil for saying sex is immoral?

You do realize that before birth control and contraceptives that sex had a higher chance at producing children correct?

Is not having sex with multiple people and not helping the mothers take care of the children immoral?

I think your moral compass is broken.

Let's skip the small talk.

How many sexual partners does the bible say it is ok to have. 1, 15, 100, or that if you sleep with a woman you are then married to that woman?

Which will be 1 sexual partner because anything else would be a sin.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Let's skip the small talk.

How many sexual partners does the bible say it is ok to have. 1, 15, 100, or that if you sleep with a woman you are then married to that woman?

Which will be 1 sexual partner because anything else would be a sin.

If you sleep with someone you are married to them (Biblically speaking).

No limit specified.

You can have more than 1 sexual partner, in your lifetime though. You just have to get a divorce. Divorce of course is immoral unless you have proof your partner has cheated on you with another. Then you are morally obligated to get a divorce and find another partner that will be faithful (hopefully).
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, but nowadays sex education in schools makes no distinction between sex within and without marriage. I understand that the reasoning behind handing out condoms is the argument that young people are going to have sex anyway outside of marriage, so why not ensure they are having sex "safely", but is that necessarily true. Is it true that young people would have sex anyway. I'm certain that this isn't the case for all young people, even though in this generation sex outside wedlock is commonplace. The Messiah constantly referred to his generation as an 'evil and adulterous generation' (Mark 8:38) but today people are committing adultery to the point that it isn't even considered to be sin anymore.

Yesterday, a news article came out which stated that a new scheme in Brighton is being initiated to hand out free condoms to under 25 year olds. The C-Card scheme - as it is known - which was launched last month is designed to encourage young people to become 'clued up on safer sex'. All you need is a C-card and you can pick up free condoms, lube and femidoms.

Some would argue, myself included, that handing out condoms for free is encouraging people to break the commandments, especially to have sex outside of marriage. Historically, the term coined used to describe people who were cohabitating and having sex not within the confines of marriage is 'living in sin' and this is true.

What are your thoughts about handing out condoms?

What a deity says does not reflect how we should act when it comes to reality. Yes, kids need birth control.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The Bible doesn't say that.

A marriage is not official in the Lords eyes until it had been consummated (sex). So basically when you have sex with anyone you are married to that person, as far as God is concerned.

So having sex while not legally married (by man's law) is not a sin.

Where this is a problem is people have sex with more than 1 person outside of marriage. Then that is when it is considered a sin.

Got a question for you though.

How do you justify saying the Bible is evil for saying sex is immoral?

You do realize that before birth control and contraceptives that sex had a higher chance at producing children correct?

Is not having sex with multiple people and not helping the mothers take care of the children immoral?

I think your moral compass is broken.


"How do you justify saying the Bible is evil for saying sex is immoral?"

Marriage/one partner is a construct of humans. In the natural world without sex and sometimes multiple partners, most species would not survive.
So how can sex be immoral?
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
Public schools do not teach morality, it is not their responsibility nor within their authority, and for good reason, whose morality would they teach?

Morality is relative. Kids are going to have sex. Supplying condoms to kids who are going to have sex is better than having pregnant kids.

That is the business of churches, to guide in matters of faith and morals.

This is ridiculous. Churches came into this later than people did. And people who go to church are no more moral than those who do not.

how one understands and lives her/his sexuality is a religious matter.

WTF???
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Some would argue, myself included, that handing out condoms for free is encouraging people to break the commandments, especially to have sex outside of marriage.
If they are not being handed out within a religious community, then "breaking commandments", is not a secular government's concern. Not everyone believes as you do. And they aren't required to.

Furthermore, no handing out these things to those that want them is not encouraging them. They asked. They were already encouraged by their hormones. Do you blame God for encouraging them to want to have sex in the first place because God gave them their hormones so they would want to have sex?

What are your thoughts about handing out condoms?
I think people should be free to make their own choices, and at least by given them condoms you prevent problems that can come from that natural instinct to have sex that God encourages them to have by making them full of these hormones. We'd be helping God prevent unplanned families. So that's a good thing. Right?
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Marriage/one partner is a construct of humans. In the natural world without sex and sometimes multiple partners, most species would not survive.

Only 3-5% of species mate for life. This is true. But that just makes us special and different than most other animals.

So how can sex be immoral?

Because producing multiple children with different partners but the partners don't team up to support the children is immoral. You do realize that the #1 contributing factor to abuse, crime, addiction, and poverty is single parent homes?

How can you say sex is moral when it is the cause of 4 of the worst afflictions humans deal with?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Only 3-5% of species mate for life. This is true. But that just makes us special and different than most other animals.



Because producing multiple children with different partners but the partners don't team up to support the children is immoral. You do realize that the #1 contributing factor to abuse, crime, addiction, and poverty is single parent homes?

How can you say sex is moral when it is the cause of 4 of the worst afflictions humans deal with?

You are only going by human rules. 99% of the rest of the species don't follow human rules. We are just another animal on this rock. We are no more special than any other species.

However our brains have evolved to a state to give us technology and other things other species don't have.
You think that makes us a special species? It makes us weak species because we are becoming dependant on our technology.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
You are only going by human rules.

Well yes because we are humans. We are civilized. Would you like for us to go by animal rules? Natural selection would not favor most liberals in that world.

99% of the rest of the species don't follow human rules.

Actually 95-97% don't follow human rules. Nor should they, they are not humans.

We are just another animal on this rock

True, but we are unique as well.

We are no more special than any other species.

Yes we are, you even show evidence of it below.

However our brains have evolved to a state to give us technology and other things other species don't have.

Which makes us unique, or special. ;)

You think that makes us a special species? It makes us weak species because we are becoming dependant on our technology.

Some of you yes.

I can walk out into the wilderness with what I have on me atm (nothing special just basic everyday stuff) and survive for quite awhile, perhaps indefinitely. Skills is all that is needed. Technology is a crutch.
 
Top