Evil Condoms

A group of religious freaks is protesting condoms being available to athletes at the Olympic village. Among the stupidity in the article: “The eyes of the world will be focused on Salt Lake City as a symbol of peace and brotherhood in the wake of Sept. 11.” First of all, the events of September 11th had next-to-nothing to do with Salt Lake City, and secondly, I don’t think anybody will see the Olympics any differently now than they did two years ago. “Peace and brotherhood,” my ass.
More idiocy: “Organizers should use this opportunity to showcase ‘virtues, like the spirit of unity and sportsmanship, not recreational sex — not even safe sex,’ said Swindell, 28. ‘Where are their priorities?’” Yeah, jeez…how inappropriate of them to promote safe sex!
Two whole demonstrators showed up for the protest. I’m surprised they scared up even that many. “We plan to have around 40 to 50 pro-life demonstrators out here during the Olympics.” So does “pro-life” now mean “anti-condom?”

20 thoughts on “Evil Condoms

  1. Hey…when you think about it, condoms, birth control pills, diaphrams, abstenance, infertility, impotence, jerking off, wet dreams, and abortion are all basically the same thing. Each prevents a baby that has the potential to come into the world from being born. šŸ™‚
    Well…I suppose the infertility, impotence, and such aren’t things you have a choice about… and in many a high-school nerd’s case neither is abstenance.
    I can’t wait to see the Pro-Lifer’s anti-masturbation and anti-abstenance demonstrations is 2006. šŸ™‚

  2. hey chris… you’re a truly bigoted nazi.
    honestly. what you said puts you on a moral level with adolf hitler. substitute “religious freeks” with “jews” and you’ve got a rallying call for any neo-nazi skinhead.
    to dennis: safe sex isn’t exactly a moral virtue, though it’s a little inappropriate of the religious crowd to draw attention to themselves over such a trivial issue (will they stop any athletes from having sex by preventing the distrobution of prophylactics?). but, hey, beliefs are beliefs and they should be respected (ahem, chris).
    to tyson: refraining from creating a human life is distinct from destroying a human life. hopefully you can see that.

  3. Promoting safe sex is hardly condoning intercourse. The availability of condoms is not going to result in rampant sexual behavior, and any rational person should recognize that, but my belief is just that, a belief. I don’t respect the beliefs of those who seem irrational to me, but I’m sure the feeling is mutual.
    As to your comment pertaining to Ty’s comment–the person quoted in the article is the one who drew the relationship between pro-lifers and this anti-condom thing. Ty was simply being IRONIC in his response–take a gander at the ‘I’ section of the dictionary the next time you have the time. Towards the end, you’ll find a fun little word called irony! Read up, chap.

  4. Oh…and I’m pretty sure.. (or at least I really—really hope) that Chris was joking. There’s going to be a really wide range of cultures, religions, whatever here. A bombing would definately NOT be a good thing…and I’m going to go out on a limb and give Chris some credit and assume that he realizes this also and was not very serious in that hope for a bomb attack.

  5. i don’t doubt that he was kidding.
    but it’s still obvious that he holds a profound hatred for the religious individuals mentioned in the story. it’s overt bigotry.
    and promoting safe sex necessitates, in a way, officially condoning sex, which is what i think the individuals whom the article quotes objected to.
    (not that i agree)

  6. OMG Nate, you are hilarious! Take a joke once in a while. It’s not like I actually. I don’t have a problem with religion just as long as the people don’t try to force their beliefs on to other people. Thats what makes me mad.
    Doesn’t it seem like every post about religion nate has to comment on?

  7. Okay, well that probably wasn’t the best thing to say over the internet especially because you couldn’t hear my laugh of sarcasim. I shall refrain from saying all nazi related stuff on the web.

  8. oh and dennis, you might wanna look up the word “condone” in that book you call a dictionary. promoting safe sex IS condoning intercourse, by definition.

  9. Condone: excuse or make allowances for; be lenient with; “excuse someone’s behavior”.
    Encouraging people to have safe sex instead of the alternative of unsafe sex (and you know that very few people are going to choose the other alternative of abstenance, so don’t even bother going there.) is far from excusing the behavior itself. If people are going to do it regardless: with or without, then supplying the option of condoms to them seems like a pretty good idea.
    Though I’m not really sure why the olympic organizers that think that it’s their responsibility…that seems a bit strange to me.

  10. that’s the point. it’s not their responsibility. if they had something against sexual intercourse, they wouldn’t provide the condoms. but they are providing them, which suggests they don’t have a problem with it.
    they’re promoting safe sex. while condoning something doesn’t necessarily entail promoting it, one would be a hypocrite to promote something, yet not to condone the same thing.
    sure, your argument would be valid if the IOC was forced to take a stand on the issue, but they’re promoting sex willingly, not because they have some sort of responsibility to the world. governments aren’t condoning drug use by providing clean needles to junkies; they do it because something has to be done. the IOC doesn’t have to do anything, they do it by choice.
    in the 2000 games, they also made a huge deal of the fact that the condoms were extremely popular in the olympic village. if they weren’t promoting sex, why would they insist on boasting about such things?

  11. all people named chris are dumb.
    anti-religion fanatics are stupid. putting a bunch of posts on an unpopular website isn’t the best way to convert us.

  12. Ok… you can look at it that way I guess.. The way I look at it, they’re just doing their part to help. However strange the source might seem.
    And even if they were actively “promoting sex”, it would be pretty pointless… as if it needs any promotion from anybody anyway… Hormones do that quite well on their own. And it’s a good thing or we would probably be extinct pretty quick.

  13. I would rather have condoms passed out then having someone not having safe sex…rather you give out condoms or not..they still will have sex..so u might as well hand them out.

  14. it’s not like it’s fucking woodstock or something with the free love-it’s just a fucking sporting event, why are they even supplying condoms? can’t people just walk across the street and grab a pack of trojans from conoco? I think it’s just another way for the Olympics to make money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.