Actually I disagree. scenarios 1 through 5 are all about sexual acts that do not involve condom-use, but through which an otherwise "innocent" person could contract HIV.

Scenario 6 involves a person who contracts HIV and could then go on to spread said infection to his/her otherwise innocent partner due to the restrictions on condom use, but yes, does not directly describe the infection due to forbidden condom usage. I should have mentioned Mr 6's wife instead - at which it too becomes relevant.

AFAICT, they are all relevant to the current question.

As to part 2: The fact that some of the acts involve other people who are not following the "purity laws" of the religion makes no difference - in each scenario, the person getting infected has followed all the laws correctly. That's the point.

Forbidding condom use does not necessarily protect the people that follow the rules.