An aspect of the Viagra issue that I have not seen in this discussion is that many meds have a side effect of interfering with erections, so Viagra is often prescribed along with them. That seems to me to be a clearer medical situation.

Also, the discussion has assumed that V was for old men to continue getting a bit of joy out of life, but overlooked the fact that the principal beneficiary might be the lady of the house.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

No, they don't. Religious freedom covers thought, not action.

That has to be parody, right? You think the government really can tell what anyone is thinking? I can think anything I want without fear that anyone will limit it, I don't need the government to guarantee that. It's when I put my thoughts into action that there an be a problem; when I go to church, or wear a yarmulke, or bow down to the east. Or sip ceremonial wine during prohibition.

Pull yourself together, T - you're seeing parody everywhere now.

Okay. No parody for a moment. When you say "You're kidding, right?", you don't really think the other guy is kidding. Same for "That has to be a parody, right?"

So did you really think I thought it was a parody, or were you just suggesting I drop the sarcasm?

Know what I really think? You're picking on me and Jeff because you resent that we're men with user names.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

No, they don't. Religious freedom covers thought, not action.

That has to be parody, right? You think the government really can tell what anyone is thinking? I can think anything I want without fear that anyone will limit it, I don't need the government to guarantee that. It's when I put my thoughts into action that there an be a problem; when I go to church, or wear a yarmulke, or bow down to the east. Or sip ceremonial wine during prohibition.

Pull yourself together, T - you're seeing parody everywhere now.

Anonymous wrote:

Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

No, they don't. Religious freedom covers thought, not action.

That has to be parody, right? You think the government really can tell what anyone is thinking? I can think anything I want without fear that anyone will limit it, I don't need the government to guarantee that. It's when I put my thoughts into action that there an be a problem; when I go to church, or wear a yarmulke, or bow down to the east. Or sip ceremonial wine during prohibition.

Anonymous wrote:

Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

No, they don't. Religious freedom covers thought, not action.

I should also note that that statement is plainly wrong as a legal matter. You don't only get to pray in your head.

Anonymous wrote:

Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

No, they don't. Religious freedom covers thought, not action.

? - are you suggesting that refusing to cover birth control in a health plan is a matter of thought?

Wait - are you that person who jumps in the middle of threads and starts addressing random points out of context?

Several religions promote polygamy - LDS and Islam come to mind. That's long been held as illegal by the courts. I'm sure this will, too.

Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

No, they don't. Religious freedom covers thought, not action.

Anonymous wrote:In response to 8:32, the belief that life starts at conception and that birth control is immoral is a fundamental and basic belief in the Catholic Church.

Someone else said that, but declined to define "fundamental." I would think that we could come up with many beliefs more basic to Catholicism than this one. I think "fundamental" is just an easy word.

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree that birth control is immoral. I am pro choice. But the US government has no business forcing the Church to go against it's conscience. Religious freedom and separation of church and state are basic tenets of American society. These two things PROTECT everyone's freedom of conscience. To me, my religious freedom is more important than my ability to get birth control from my Catholic employer. It's a slippery slope. We're losing the forest for the trees. Birth control is just one issue. It's an issue you happen to agree with- you happen to agree that Catholic institutions should provide birth control, even those that the Church considers akin to abortion and therefore goes against the church's basic and most central beliefs. What happens when the government inserts itself into religion in a way that you don't agree with? In a way that threatens you or your beliefs? Similarly the government should not force a Muslim institution, or example, to allow alcohol to be purchased on it's premises. I disagree with France's banning of the burqa. As a matter of principle the government should stay out of religion. Yes, religious institutions discriminate based on sex. Yet another thing I disagree with. But do you seriously think it's the government's role to force the Catholic church to hire women priests? You would not see that as a total overreach of government power? Because once you give the government that power you have to be willing to accept it's intrusion into religion or it's forcing of religious mandates in a way you disagree with as well as agree with.

You referred to my post with the question about real and hypothetical religious issues, but you haven't responded to it. Smoking pot is unquestionably fundamental to Rastas - do they get a pass? What about the peyote situation, another real case?

Anonymous wrote:But do you seriously think it's the government's role to force the Catholic church to hire women priests?

I have many more opinions about government and religion, but I'm restricting myself to the framework of our 1st Amendment and its ethics. In that context, I don't think we should. That's obviously not what we're discussing.

You think that the government shouldn't tell the Church what to do with its hospital employees. OK, then: Should all Church hospitals be exempt from employment discrimination laws...wage/hour laws...medical licensing laws?

Those aren't "fundamental" issues, you may say. OK: imagine a hypothetical religion which is fundamentally white supremacist. By your reasoning, it should be able to run a hospital, hotel, whatever that only employs and serves whites.

If you think that, then I suppose we just have a basic disagreement. If you don't think the white supremacists should be excepted you'll have to explain the difference.

In response to 8:32, the belief that life starts at conception and that birth control is immoral is a fundamental and basic belief in the Catholic Church. I don't agree that birth control is immoral. I am pro choice. But the US government has no business forcing the Church to go against it's conscience. Religious freedom and separation of church and state are basic tenets of American society. These two things PROTECT everyone's freedom of conscience. To me, my religious freedom is more important than my ability to get birth control from my Catholic employer. It's a slippery slope. We're losing the forest for the trees. Birth control is just one issue. It's an issue you happen to agree with- you happen to agree that Catholic institutions should provide birth control, even those that the Church considers akin to abortion and therefore goes against the church's basic and most central beliefs. What happens when the government inserts itself into religion in a way that you don't agree with? In a way that threatens you or your beliefs? Similarly the government should not force a Muslim institution, or example, to allow alcohol to be purchased on it's premises. I disagree with France's banning of the burqa. As a matter of principle the government should stay out of religion. Yes, religious institutions discriminate based on sex. Yet another thing I disagree with. But do you seriously think it's the government's role to force the Catholic church to hire women priests? You would not see that as a total overreach of government power? Because once you give the government that power you have to be willing to accept it's intrusion into religion or it's forcing of religious mandates in a way you disagree with as well as agree with.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TMWAUN, It is the biological imperative for our RACE to procreate. Nature does not intend every 70 year old man to procreate. That's why he can't get it up.

True, but by that token nature intends many of us to die of diseases, and all of us to lose our teeth, mobility, bowel control, minds, etc. in some order. Medical professionals try to delay the inevitable. Cost aside, The decision of whether to treat something is usually a balancing of risk, reward, and chance of success, and not a question of whether the patient is too old to expect the organ or system to work properly. In the case of Viagra, the balancing is a no-brainer.

Another response to your point would be: At what age exactly are we going to say that it's not normal to be able to have sex?

When one can no longer sustain an erection.

Look, I am not really against you on this argument. I am fine with free Viagra for everyone! I just don't think that one can reasonably argue for Viagra and against BC. Both are really about an individual overriding mother nature with regard to procreation. The church is saying we cannot interfere with procreation. Saying it's OK to enable procreation with one drug, but not Ok to interfere with procreation on the other, is inconsistent logic. Either GOD is in charge of procreation or he's not.

You seem to have ignored my first argument. By your reasoning, no medical intervention would ever be justified for any disease. You obviously don't think that, so why are sexual organs in a separate class? Why is the treatment of dysfunction in a penis - from age or any other cause - different than the treatment of dysfunction of, say, your left pinky?

We seem to be in agreement on the big points, as you say. But while I don't subscribe to it, I don't think it's illegitimate (or necessarily theistic) to support enabling normal functioning but not interference with it (or improvement on it, which would be a more charitable view of BC). That pretty much sums up medicine's approach. At the moment, the only other common medical intervention I can think of that gives one superior function, in a sense, is plastic surgery.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TMWAUN, It is the biological imperative for our RACE to procreate. Nature does not intend every 70 year old man to procreate. That's why he can't get it up.

True, but by that token nature intends many of us to die of diseases, and all of us to lose our teeth, mobility, bowel control, minds, etc. in some order. Medical professionals try to delay the inevitable. Cost aside, The decision of whether to treat something is usually a balancing of risk, reward, and chance of success, and not a question of whether the patient is too old to expect the organ or system to work properly. In the case of Viagra, the balancing is a no-brainer.

Another response to your point would be: At what age exactly are we going to say that it's not normal to be able to have sex?

When one can no longer sustain an erection.

Look, I am not really against you on this argument. I am fine with free Viagra for everyone! I just don't think that one can reasonably argue for Viagra and against BC. Both are really about an individual overriding mother nature with regard to procreation. The church is saying we cannot interfere with procreation. Saying it's OK to enable procreation with one drug, but not Ok to interfere with procreation on the other, is inconsistent logic. Either GOD is in charge of procreation or he's not.

Anonymous wrote:Whether I need a hip replacement or something to take care of a weak heart relates directly to my ability to be an active member of society in terms of work, support my wife and kids, etc. Whether I can have quality sex has nothing to do with any of those things. Medicine is increasingly comming up with things that are more quality of life, than anything. I should not have to pay for your qualify of life. No one is saying Viagra should be illegal. I should do not want to pay for your sex life through higher premiums.

You picked an easy one - what about the example I gave? Why should you have to pay for my knee arthroscopy so I can play in softball league?

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether sex is critical to evolution is not relevant for this discussion.

I think it says something about its value to a fulfilling life, but for the most part I agree. That’s why I mentioned it only parenthetically.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that Big Pharma lobbied enough to get dysfunction declared a disease does NOT mean that I have to pay for your fun!

Nothing to do with it. It’s a disease regardless of what any lobby says. Any doctor will tell you that.

You’re arguing against coverage b/c you don’t think it’s an important enough disease. You say you shouldn’t have to pay for this kind of fun. Insurance pays for treatment of all kinds of diseases that affect only the ability to play sports and do the like – why do we have to pay for that fun? I’d rather leave it to the doctors to decide what’s a treatable disease than start carving out exceptions from a simple and clear definition.

Whether I need a hip replacement or something to take care of a weak heart relates directly to my ability to be an active member of society in terms of work, support my wife and kids, etc. Whether I can have quality sex has nothing to do with any of those things. Medicine is increasingly comming up with things that are more quality of life, than anything. I should not have to pay for your qualify of life. No one is saying Viagra should be illegal. I should do not want to pay for your sex life through higher premiums.

Anonymous wrote:TMWAUN, It is the biological imperative for our RACE to procreate. Nature does not intend every 70 year old man to procreate. That's why he can't get it up.

True, but by that token nature intends many of us to die of diseases, and all of us to lose our teeth, mobility, bowel control, minds, etc. in some order. Medical professionals try to delay the inevitable. Cost aside, The decision of whether to treat something is usually a balancing of risk, reward, and chance of success, and not a question of whether the patient is too old to expect the organ or system to work properly. In the case of Viagra, the balancing is a no-brainer.

Another response to your point would be: At what age exactly are we going to say that it's not normal to be able to have sex?