HIV/AIDS Awareness

May 31, 2006 § 5 Comments

Why on earth do all the AIDS Awareness foundations have to support/teach contraceptive use? I really wanted to buy one of these dogtag things because think they are an awesome and eye-catching way to raise awareness, but YouthAIDS supports population control through contraception.

None of the Catholic foundations sell anything remotely as cool…ah well.

Speaking of HIV/AIDS, my mother, brother, and I have been carrying on a minor debate over whether it is right, when you are getting married, to be tested for STDs such as HIV. Sr. Marian Brady said that it is a beautiful sign of trust for a woman and her fiancee to go, get tested together, and share the results. My mother things that is a sign of trust not to get tested at all. I am caught in the middle, because I agree with both of them. Personally, I think it would be best to get tested. What do you think?

Oh yeah, by the way, it looks as though I am going to be VERY active (co-leader?) of St. Mary's Teen Club starting in September. We'll see how that goes.

§ 5 Responses to HIV/AIDS Awareness

  • Father Joe says:


    YOUTHAIDS and the ALDO TAGS are simply in business to push condoms. All the nonsense about education and awareness is just rhetoric to push for the worldwide acceptance and use of rubbers. You are right, you cannot wear the dogtag without being complicit in their liberal artificial contraception campaign. The rubbers may prevent STDs and HIV transmission, but there is also an appreciable rate of condom failure. That means that there is always a real risk to another’s life, every time the subscribers engage in sex, no matter what oriface is used, and no matter whether heterosexual or homosexual intercourse is pursued.

    They pat themselves on the back for offering inexpensive rubbers; and yet, it is also a campaign to minimize the population growth in third world countries. Combined with the terrible spread of HIV in developing countries, such population control ironically furthers an elitist agenda from developed Western nations in the genocidal eradication and control of poor people, particularly from black populations.

    Think how selfish it is to expose a loved one to the slightest chance of HIV exposure! How can you say, “I love you,” while endangering another’s life (even with a condom) that might slip or break? Really, what they are thiking about are themselves! Abstaining from sexual congress does NOT cause madness or cancer. People who are infected should remain chaste and live a life of celibacy.

    The other dirty secret about this business is that the program encourages sex outside of marriage. Indeed, even bands of rapists in Africa have taken to using condoms because they feel that they protect them from women who might be infected.

    Dear sweet Jesus, what a mess the world has created for itself! I find it interesting that the campaign uses dogtags (that people can wear) to promote their agenda. People who live like dogs in heat should probably dress like dogs, too!


    In retrospect, my apologies to the pooches who are more noble than some people I know.

  • peanut1red says:

    Thanks for the comments Fr. Joe – people need to hear the truth.

    And I definitely agree about abstinence if you are infected with HIV.

    It is ironic about the dogtags…

  • Father Joe says:


    As for your family debate, the issue of blood tests is about more than trust, it has to do with the health of the couple. All sorts of things can be found, including diabetes, that may have an impact on the marriage. Sometimes the people themselves are unaware of the maladies they carry with them. A medical examination and blood tests before a marriage is a prudent and wise course to take.

    By the way, to quickly end the debate, I would never witness Genna's marriage unless a blood test was acquired first. Call me cynical or negative…I do not care…but people are often unaware of health problems and when it comes to STDs, people are terribly embarassed and they lie. Yes, even good people can lack candor. If that special boyfriend and potential husband should ever materialize, I will drive him to the doctor's office myself if need be! (And if he should be found diseased, as a majority of the population now is, my pal Guido will take him for a ride and give him an offer he cannot refuse…only joking…maybe?)

    Seriously, what does the virginal and "clean" person do if he or she finds out that the betrothed carries something like gental herpes? It is not curable and can be transmitted even when it does not flare up. You can forgive that the beloved has been sexually active; but how does it make a person feel to know that after marriage he or she will sooner or later contract the disease? Given that so many men and women are promiscuous, it is often taken for granted that both spouses have been previously exposed and have contracted venereal disease. It seems no big deal and primetime television commercials push products to control symptoms. Given modern drugs infection does not mean blindness or madness; however, it does mean that one remains perpetually a carrier. Of course, the contraction of HIV is still reckoned as a death sentence.

    It is my hope that couples would not have sex until marriage and that afterwards that they would remain faithful to each other. Such people cannot contract sexually transmitted diseases. Except for maybe blood transfusions, it is a foolproof way to remain safe and to keep your spouse safe, too.

    Sister Brady is right, but she is no fool either. Couples should discuss their sexual history, not for purient details, but because marriage will also mean a healing of memories. Even before a blood test, one or the other may have confessions to make. The test will be a confirmation, of the good and the bad.

    Not getting a test, in this day and age, is NOT an option. Trust is not negated by an objective standard. But, of course, it is possible, but not probable, that people who have engaged in fornication, may not have contracted any diseases…depending upon the numbers of partners and exposure and condom use.

    Father Joe

  • laura says:

    I think that getting blood tests before marriage is morally neutral, but a wise decision nonetheless. Apart from HIV, there are a variety of other bloodborne diseases – like Hepatitis – that would be good to identify before starting a family.

    If one has done all the right things (i.e. lived a chaste life and been reasonably protective of one’s health), the risk of having something seriously wrong is slim, but it exists. Personally, I would prefer to protect my future husband (or, more seriously, any future children) from any contractable disease, rather than live with the guilt.

  • Father Joe says:

    Laura is absolutely right!

    Taking a blood test is no violation of trust, rather, it is a decision not to be foolish.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading HIV/AIDS Awareness at Musings of a Little Redheaded Girl.


%d bloggers like this: