I mean, condoms are always a good thing. They're pretty much the only measures that will stop the transmission of STIs during intercourse.
Which is true, but of course the problem of HIV/AIDS is not so simple that we can just throw condoms at it. Over here, condoms are used as a precaution; a just-in-case type deal. In developing countries though, they're an absolute necessity. If one is infected with HIV and having intercourse with someone who isn't, condoms HAVE to work. But mostly due to human error, they don't. At least not all the time. (The quoted failure rate is 10% [source])
So to keep from rambling, I'll just put up an argument for you to discuss, because I'd like to see both sides of this pro-condom vs. anti-condom debate represented.
Condoms may not have a net positive effect on the HIV/AIDS problem, due to inspiring confidence that there is no risk of infection when used and therefore causing those infected with HIV/AIDS to have more sex than they would otherwise.
My personal thoughts on the matter are that condoms are very much a necessity in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa, but to call them a solution (and more specifically, to market them as such) is a grave error. I believe it's Uganda that decreased the seriousness of its HIV/AIDS epidemic through the ABC process, which goes Abstinence, Be faithful to your partner and, if that fails, use Condoms.
Now, the mistake that most people make here is equating this whole debate to the one about abstinence-only sex education. While there are some parallels, the differences are great and thus one should not be misrepresented as the other.
The HIV/AIDS problem is not one that will be solved for a long time, barring the invention of a vaccine. With the combination of abstinence, faithfulness and condoms however, hopefully it will slowly decrease to a manageable level.
This thread isn't about the Pope, or his views, or that other thread. So don't continue to talk about the Pope. I will tolerate this topic duplication provided that it fulfills all the normal SB-worthy criteria and it does not appear that someone is trying to restart the exact same discussion with hopes of a more favorable outcome.