Should condoms be handed out

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

The fact of the matter is, whether you, the Church or anyone else likes it or not, that the sexual urge is a huge deal for young people, and they are, given the chance (not locked away by religious parentage and so forth) going to give in to. And they always have done.

One of my sincerest wishes is that people would just "grow up" about sex. It's as much a part of human life as eating, defecating, breathing and fighting each other.

It's interesting to note, however, that unplanned pregnancies account for about 3/4 of all pregnancies, and I think it's true to say that pregnancy can impose serious life changes on an individual...changes that may not be wanted or helpful.

Then again, maybe many of those unplanned pregnancies are caused by people not wanting to commit 2 sins at once -- getting it on, and using birth control -- and thus settle for just 1, but the one that feels best.

 

[We Never Know]

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.



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



True, but we are unique as well.



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



Which makes us unique, or special.



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.

Look around, technology is slowly killing skill.

I've seen some claim humans have evolved to live longer. That is BS IMO.

However our technology has evolved which allows us to live longer.

Take away just only two things; medicine's and electricity and millions upon millions would die. That's not evolving to live longer, it's becoming dependant on technology to live.

Billions of people would die within a month if they had to survive on only what was used 150 years ago. That is evidence we are becoming a weak species and dependant on technology.

 

[Enoch07]

Look around, technology is slowly killing skill.

Correct

I've seen some claim humans have evolved to live longer. That is BS IMO.

I would agree.

However our technology has evolved which allows us to live longer.

Agreed

Billions of people would die within a month if they had to survive on only what was used 150 years ago. That is evidence we are becoming a weak species and dependant on technology.

Agreed, most of the modern world would die fairly quickly. But areas and people less dependent on tech would thrive. So your rednecks/hunters/survivalist/tribal societies would thrive.

 

[blü 2]

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?

If it prevents unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmissible diseases as the planners intend, then it's a great idea.

And we know that 'Just Say No' failed spectacularly, as did great oaths to remain a virgin until marriage. Humans aren't like that, any more than other animals are.

As for theology, if sex before or outside of marriage was good enough for King Solomon, and King Solomon was good enough for God, what's the problem? God even wrote laws in the Tanakh about how to bonk your female slaves ─ and I point those things out bearing in mind that Matthew's Jesus says not one letter, not one comma, not one coffee stain, of the Law will be altered until the Kingdom is established on earth, which doesn't appear to have happened yet.

And sex outside marriage is a delicate question when it comes to Jesus. In Mark, his parents are married; in Paul and John we're not told how Jesus got from heaven into a human body. In Matthew, Mary conceives without her consent, which is rape. And in Luke, she agrees to be impregnated by someone other than her husband.

 

[Goodman John]

Schools should provide technical sex education- these are your parts, this is how they work, this is what happens you put Tab A into Slot B, this can happen if you choose a sketchy sex partner. Schools should not be in the business of teaching morality, though. If a 'safe sex' program is to be taught, let it be done from a practical standpoint- not from any religious perspective. If parents want to send their kid to a faith-based class on Sex Ed, that's their business.

 

[pearl]

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.

You really need to read more carefully.

 

[pearl]

Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa questioned on Wednesday whether there would be any population left on Earth if not for rape and incest.

GOP politician questions if there would be any population left if not for rape and incest

• 
  

Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa questioned on Wednesday whether there would be any population left on Earth if not for rape and incest.



(CNN) -- Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa questioned on Wednesday whether there would be any population left on Earth if not for rape and incest.

"What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" he said in Urbandale, Iowa, according to video posted online by the Des Moines Register, which was first to report on the remarks Wednesday.

"Considering all the wars and all the rape and pillage that has taken place ... I know I can't certify that I was not a part of a product of that," King said. "I'd like to think that every one of the lives of us are as precious as any other life," he added.
GOP politician questions if there would be any population left if not for rape and incest

 

[pearl]

Schools should provide technical sex education- these are your parts, this is how they work, this is what happens you put Tab A into Slot B, this can happen if you choose a sketchy sex partner. Schools should not be in the business of teaching morality, though. If a 'safe sex' program is to be taught, let it be done from a practical standpoint- not from any religious perspective. If parents want to send their kid to a faith-based class on Sex Ed, that's their business.

Yes, what I've been saying all along.

 

[Sand Dancer]

You really need to read more carefully.

Sorry, I was in a hurry.

 

[SomeRandom]

Schools should provide technical sex education- these are your parts, this is how they work, this is what happens you put Tab A into Slot B, this can happen if you choose a sketchy sex partner. Schools should not be in the business of teaching morality, though. If a 'safe sex' program is to be taught, let it be done from a practical standpoint- not from any religious perspective. If parents want to send their kid to a faith-based class on Sex Ed, that's their business.

You literally described safe sex Ed courses. Though ours also allowed a q and a session in order to dispel myths. And dealt with a lot of the social issues surrounding it, which is pretty practical, I’d say.
Giving out condoms isn’t exactly a moral or immoral teaching though.
It’s just giving a free option to “be prepared.”

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

Absolutely. Any religion that tries to convince you that sexual acts between consenting adults is somehow 'sinful' is just trying to control you and is not worth following.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

It's exactly like handing out free syringes to drug addicts.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

In which case it is impossible to have sex outside of marriage.

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.

Well, according to what you said, that would simply mean you are now married to more than one person.

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?

And there was some reason for saying that those who have sex should be willing and able to deal with the consequences if pregnancy arose. But you realize that is no longer the case?

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

Did I even hint at that position?

I think your moral compass is broken.

Well, today contraception *is* available and reasonably effective. It seems that any movement to *discourage* its use is immoral because it unnecessarily puts people in harms way when there is a simple way to avoid that harm.

 

[Polymath257]

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).

Well, Biblical it was acceptable to have more than one partner. No divorce required.

But, again, it seems inherently evil to say that divorce is only moral if there is cheating involved. That seems to create more harm than is necessary to repair a relatively minor ill.

I just want to say that I am fully in favor of sex outside of (legal) marriage. In fact, I would advise it prior to any legal agreement.

I am also in favor of sex outside of marriage provided *all* people involved are aware, informed, and agree.

 

[Enoch07]

In which case it is litepossible to have sex outside of marriage.

None really, unless your already married then cheat, then its adultery.

Well, according to what you said, that would simply mean you are now married to more than one person.

Not if you divorce.

And there was some reason for saying that those who have sex should be willing and able to deal with the consequences if pregnancy arose. But you realize that is no longer the case?

Irrelevant.

You stated the Bible was evil for saying sex outside of marriage is immoral.

When the Bible was wrote birth control wasn't a thing.

So yes in context of the times the Bible was wrote.

Sex outside of marriage was immoral because if you had multiple partners and children with them you wouldn't be able to support them or spend enough time with them to raise them properly.

Thus making this an immoral act. Which is still is today because we have so many single parent homes these days.

Did I even hint at that position?

Yes, indirectly.

Well, today contraception *is* available and reasonably effective.

Irrelevant.

Well, Biblical it was acceptable to have more than one partner. No divorce required.

In some cases sure.

But, again, it seems inherently evil to say that divorce is only moral if there is cheating involved.

Nope.

You are suppose to get to know the person you are with before you "marry" them.

I know it sounds old fashioned, but today's hook up one night stand culture is leading to the collapse of society (in the U.S). Birth rates are down and we are slowly going extinct because the nuclear family is basically dead.

That seems to create more harm than is necessary to repair a relatively minor ill.

I'm not discouraging the use of contraceptives.

I'm discouraging the practice of no commitment casual sex.

I just want to say that I am fully in favor of sex outside of (legal) marriage.

So am I.

I am also in favor of sex outside of marriage provided *all* people involved are aware, informed, and agree.

Good for you. Long as you don't harm anyone else I got no problems with it.

Just discussing the ideas within the Bible, not judging folks.

 

[Polymath257]

None really, unless your already married then cheat, then its adultery.

By what you said, if you have sex with more than one person, you are then married to both. Sex=marriage, right?

Not if you divorce.

Right. I was talking about with no divorce.

Irrelevant.

You stated the Bible was evil for saying sex outside of marriage is immoral.

When the Bible was wrote birth control wasn't a thing.

So yes in context of the times the Bible was wrote.

So it is a mistake to take Biblical pronouncements as the rules for today?

Sex outside of marriage was immoral because if you had multiple partners and children with them you wouldn't be able to support them or spend enough time with them to raise them properly.

Well, that assumes that they don't have sex with anyone else that could provide support also.

Thus making this an immoral act. Which is still is today because we have so many single parent homes these days

The immorality, in my mind, isn't the sex. It is failing to live up to responsibilities.

Yes, indirectly.

Irrelevant.

In some cases sure.

Nope.

You are suppose to get to know the person you are with before you "marry" them.

Not a bad idea. And having sex with them prior to marriage is one aspect of that. But, it is also the case that people change and that those compatible at one time won't be later.

I know it sounds old fashioned, but today's hook up one night stand culture is leading to the collapse of society (in the U.S). Birth rates are down and we are slowly going extinct because the nuclear family is basically dead.

Birth rates are down, which is probably a good thing (although it needs to happen worldwide). The nuclear family was a relatively modern invention. The death of the extended family was a really important one. That of the nuclear family much less so.

I'm not discouraging the use of contraceptives.

I'd point out that the OP most definitely is.

I'm discouraging the practice of no commitment casual sex.

And I would discourage the practice of irresponsible sex. But then, I would discourage the practice of irresponsibility in general. Sex just isn't the main issue here, I think.

So am I.

Good for you. Long as you don't harm anyone else I got no problems with it.

Just discussing the ideas within the Bible, not judging folks.

All is good, then.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

A quick Google search suggests that comprehensive sex education does have a positive effect and that abstinence only programs are the ones contributing to teen pregnancies and STD rates:

Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S

I am sorry, but I don't believe that sex and marriage will ever be truly synonymous with each one. One, because not all married couples have sex, and two sex is such an important and intrinsic part of being human it transcends our approaches to controlling it. I would rather have a population educated in how to safely engage in sex rather than attempting to restrict it to marriage.

@Guitar's Cry
Really interesting article you have there. I guess what he have to ask is, what is the quantitative evidence that abstinence-only education is effective in reducing pregnancy rates outside of marriage? I'm not interested in those pregnancies which occur within marriage, it's the ones outside of marriage that concerns me, not limited to but especially regarding teen pregnancies. I feel if abstinence education isn't working, then there not being educated well enough and we need to improve the program to become more authoritative. It's counter productive to have society teach abstinence only, but in the media - whether television, internet and film - it glorifies sex outside of marriage. Rarely can I think of any media that doesn't glamorize sex outside of marriage. It's the mixed messages people are getting that's confusing them and that's why abstinence only education isn't working in the U.S, in my opinion.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Hold it now, what makes you think that a person that has "illicit sex" is spiritually weak. If anything that would be those that pass false judgement upon others.

One of the problems with Christianity is that it treats sex as if it were an evil. And morality wise atheist morals tend to be superior to "Christian morals".

@Subduction Zone
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, so those who engage in it are indeed spiritually weak. Illicit sex is any sexual activity prohibited by law or moral convention; unlawful or improper under the accepted codes of a given society such as incest, adultery, and pedophilia or prohibited by religious law, such as sodomy and oral sex.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

This is historically true only in recent history. In biblical times having sex *was* the marriage. But that's neither here nor there. We don't live in historical times. We live in the present, where the best qy to curb unwanted pregnancies and STDs is to make sex education and contraceptives accessible and available. Making them cost more doesn't encourage celibacy any more than making them unavailable at all does. It just punishes poorer people who can't afford regular contraceptive use.

@ADigitalArtist
I believe you may be right about what you said occurred in Biblical times, but the Law in the Bible is trying to channel people in to getting married first. You can see that from Exodus 22:16. I don't argue with you regarding the price of contraceptives, but if sex education taught properly abstinence only you'd be getting a better result than teaching a "comprehensive sex education".

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone
The Bible teaches against illicit sex, so those who engage in it are indeed spiritually weak. Illicit sex is any sexual activity prohibited by law or moral convention; unlawful or improper under the accepted codes of a given society such as incest, adultery, and pedophilia or prohibited by religious law, such as sodomy and oral sex.

That does not support your claim. Why give the Bible any credence at all? If you want to cite the Bible you need to demonstrate that it is a reliable source.

And you appear to have a poor understanding of the Bible. If by "sodomy" you mean anal sex that is not forbidden. Go ahead, see if you can find a verse that bans it. The closest that you will come is its opposition to gay sex. And oral sex is approved of. Read the Song of Solomon if you doubt me.