[Wantai]

http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/ne...eid=1143962592

Are churches really helping curb the spread of HIV, ama just rolling the mill of stigma against those infected? Do you think such rules are helpful in the long run?

This article reminded me of a previous discussion here on marrying an infected partner. Stange views were aired here.

[reggie_woic]

i think its a great idea unless you already know each others' statuses and are both okay with it.
you know with the trust thing between lovers, asking your partner to get a test "to prove" your love doesn't always go as expected. if she/he refuses to get it, you may begin to raise questions....so the church thing doesn't really do harm.

i think they should just make sure that each knows the others' status.

[Zelda]

the issue of hiv testing and counselling should be addressed during the courtship period, not after all the marriage plans have been made, and huge amounts of money have been spent. if the couple refused to go for testing, then the church should not have agreed to set a wedding date. but it seems that the church set a wedding date, booked the chapel, published the bans of marriage and all that stuff, and then only on the day before the wedding they suddenly decided to change their minds.
if they're serious about this testing thing then they can't relax the rules sometimes and try to enforce them firmly at other times.

as for the couple, surely they knew what they were getting themselves into as members of that church. if they didn't want to do the testing, they could very easily have held the wedding at another church, or could have had it officiated over in a court of law.

the church should encourage hiv testing. but forcing the issue won't work. they need a sensitive policy, and they need to have counsellors specifically trained to deal with hiv/ aids. otherwise, they are going to stigmatize those ppl who do test positive, and they will turn many well-meaning ppl away.

[Wantai]

But should a church really turn away a couple from marrying just because of positive HIV status, hata iwe hivyo? I mean, that sounds rather harsh from a CHURCH.

Si the individuals know what risk they are taking if they marry without testing or marry a positive person, or marry a person with questionable results. Surely, counselling should do, but denying people a marital union?

I can see with a minister who declines to unite a couple based on personal belief but for the church to have it in their constitution is so...WRONG in my view. But how is this different from a church refusing to join a couple because of mambo na unequal yoke?

[Zelda]

@wantai: you're right. of course it's wrong.
but they joined the church, and presumedly accepted its constitution/ rules. if they were deceived into joining the church that's one thing, but it seems like they may have known about that "law" as members of the church. as willing members of the church, they legitimized whatever dubious rules the church set in place.
the best thing for them to do in the short term would be to walk away from that church and find one respectful to their situation.

as for the church, sounds like it's led by an overzealous man who needs education and counselling on hiv/aids himself.

[Wantai]

If people are going to walk out of churches coz of such reasons, then what is the church there for then? Ni kama those deals of being disfellowshipped (is there such a word?) from a church coz of minor things, I mean? I believe the church should be a hub to take in the opressed, needy, rejected, ala? ama I am just expecting too much from churches?

[Zelda]

>If people are going to walk out of churches coz of such
>reasons, then what is the church there for then? Ni kama those
>deals of being disfellowshipped (is there such a word?) from a
>church coz of minor things, I mean? I believe the church
>should be a hub to take in the opressed, needy, rejected, ala?
>ama I am just expecting too much from churches?

true. the church is the ppl. ideally, that is. but we shouldn't take churches at face value. as a believer, if i choose to join a church, then i should know what that church stands for. some churches are involved in human trafficking, others in drug trafficking, & others stand for tribalism. i would not willingly join such a church, or one that discriminated against the hiv positive.

nothing wrong with walking out of a church if it goes against what you believe in. there are millions of believers in the world and there's no set rule that one has to worship with a specific group of believers. most ppl prefer to worship among ppl they feel comfortable with, and who don't judge them harshly. if someone can't find that in their current church, they should feel free to continue searching.

[mwananchi_]

That Church is overstepping it's boundaries into the private lives of it's members. The Church should concentrate on the spiritual aspects of the flock and leave the private medical issues to doctors.

What next? A diabetes test, liver-function test, TB test, fertility test, IQ test before people get married? How about a hearing test, vision test, cholestrol level test before tying the knot?

That church stands to lose a lot of members from such stupid acts. It reminds one of how the Catholic church excommunicated members for doing this or that. Have they not heard that we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God?

[Wantai]

lol! mwananchi, ati IQ test before marriage? many would then have to die lonely.