Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many insurers don't cover infertility. So this whole "cover viagra because it enables conception" argument rings false to me.

What I see is a religious willingness to encourage and support male sexuality but a reluctantance to embrace women's sexual freedom.

I see no reason why we should pay for either. One of the PPs claims a range of health benefits for sex. Well, can I get my health care plan to pay for my blueberries or oatmeal that I understand are great for my health. What about my gym membership? Private trainer? Why not? The health benefits are pretty much the same. I am confident that, in evolutionary terms, there is a difference between sex to continue mankind and sex because I want it. What we have here is that everything, even lifestyle choices, become health related. An older guy that can't get it up must have a health problem. Health care costs will never get under control with some of the arguments stated above. I am far more interested in spending limited resources on a breast cancer victim to ensure her survival than to pay her birth control pills so she can have fun on Saturday night. Sorry, paying for someone's sex life is not my problem.

Anonymous wrote:Many insurers don't cover infertility. So this whole "cover viagra because it enables conception" argument rings false to me.

What I see is a religious willingness to encourage and support male sexuality but a reluctantance to embrace women's sexual freedom.

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is. People who have sex regularly are in better health, live longer, get fewer cancers, have healthier hearts, sleep better, and are not depressed as often. We are meant to have sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, whether you are able to have sex as often as you want (without getting pregnant) is NOT health. Sorry. It may be fun, meaningful (or not), relaxing (afterwards), good exercise, etc. But it is not health. The idea that I should be pay for some 20s year old who wants to enjoy herself in her new found freedom or some old man who can't get over the fact that he is getting older is simply BS!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

Sorry, whether you are able to have sex as often as you want (without getting pregnant) is NOT health. Sorry. It may be fun, meaningful (or not), relaxing (afterwards), good exercise, etc. But it is not health. The idea that I should be pay for some 20s year old who wants to enjoy herself in her new found freedom or some old man who can't get over the fact that he is getting older is simply BS!!!

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

Anonymous wrote:Sexual health is health. It's part of someone's overall well-being, both physically and mentally.

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. 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.

takoma wrote: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.

takoma wrote: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?

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