Friday's principle: If I pay for your birth control, I'm going to have some things to say about who, how, and when you fuck.

If you don't like that, you should conduct your life with the dignity befitting a grown woman and pay for it yourself.

See also.

Whose birth control are you paying for? And do those who cover your prostate exams get some say over when, how, and how much you delight in taking digits up your ass?

Someone's feelings have been way hurt!!

Your socialist daydreams to the contrary, I cover my own healthcare, and always have.

(You should try to stay up to date on the day's big news stories, in spite of the anger.)

PS - didn't think anyone actually sided with Rush on the idea that health insurance covering basic, inexpensive medicine justifies intrusions into others' sexual lives. Rush thinks thatt women who get birth control from their insurance are whores, and they should post videos of their sex lives online. Exactly. Thus spake that paragon of virtue and decency, Rush (thrice divorced) Limbaugh and echoed by his devotee Crid. Because he cares.

My feelings haven't been hurt, at all. I just want to make sure your nuttiness is subjected to all the mockery it deserves.

Birth control is "basic, inexpensive medicine"? Seem like only yesterday the Earth-sister liberals were scolding us treating childbirth as an illness. (Hospitals! Pain meds!)

Circa '70, National Lampoon had a parody of an IRS investigation of a businessman's deductions:

"Mr. Smith, you've listed food as a medical expense.

"Well, if I don't eat, I get sick!"

To modern liberalism, the humor is lost.

(I'm "devoted" to Rush Limbaugh? You've perhaps joined the list of commenters who will twist perception as harshly as necessary to have the cartoon argument that you want to have.)

Ok,so you're not a devotee of El Rushbo, you just parroted one of his stupidest and most scurrilous lines of attack, on your own.

> Ok,so you're not a devotee of El Rushbo

Aw, c'mon! Don't surrender your fantasies that readily! BUILD on them! EXPLORE their psychographic implications!Deeply FEEL the satisfaction of judgement based on vapid presumption.

Is it wrong to say you think we OUGHT to be paying for the playtime of strangers this way, whether through government spending or private investment by government edict?

Because I think either way, that's pathetic.

I think that we ought to let women and their doctors decoded what preventive care is needed, just like we do with men. Hence why my comment about your annual prostate tickle was germane.

"decide" not "decoded". Autocorrect fail.

"PREVENTATIVE???"

Jesus fuck! What if she gets sad unless she has a new Ferrari?

It's always amazing how many people are walking around like normal people, but it turns out their authoritarian socialists. They pretend to be normal...

For Christ's sake, son... Prostate cancer isn't a choice. FUCKING is a choice.

How old are you? Do you work for the government? Are you an educator?

Do you pay for your own healthcare? Do you pay for anything?

Yes, preventive, of uterine cancer among other things. Your outrage belies that you don't know what the fuck you're about, as is often the case. Thanks for playing.

Oh and also: anyone who thinks more abortions is a good thing should definitely oppose broad access to hormonal contraceptives in women.

How old are you? Do you work for the government? Are you an educator?...Do you pay for your own healthcare? Do you pay for anything?

I'm not the one who is throwing a tantrum like a child. And I pay my way.

> preventive, of uterine cancer among other things.

Preposterous... That (minimal) prophylactic effect is not a birthright.

> anyone who thinks more abortions is a good
> thing should definitely oppose broad access
> to hormonal contraceptives in women.

I think you're trying to be backhanded and sarcastic in a bitter-teenage kind of way, which is close as liberals ever get to humor. (And it ain't very close.) Yet I'm not responsible for every biological unpleasantry that you're going to face... I'm a distant taxpayer who's handed his own shit responsibly. If you fuck badly, and can't deal with a baby, your desperation in no way diminishes the wretchedness of abortion. (And you haven't actually asked for an opinion on abortion, but you appear to be in the stage of life where you think you can assign opinions, rather than challenge them. So do what you need to do.)

But here's the deal: I'm not responsible for the consequences of your fucking. You do it well, you do it badly, it's not a mess for me to clean up, either way... I'll just be policing my own boundaries over here. And when you try to force the point, you're going to be really, really disappointed.

> I pay my way.

Really? Private sector, you buy your own insurance, etc? That seems unlikely... You're too eager to presume that everyone else is on the dole... Or WANTS to be.

Do we have to pay for women's tampons as well?

How about their Maybelline™ eyeshadow, the blue stuff?

It's just not possible that you're a grown man working in the private sector, hiring people and being hired in a capitalist market.

If these things mean so much to women, THEY NEED TO EARN THEM. That's the only way the wealth for those resources can be created. The fact that people want things very, very badly doesn't make them cheaper...

...And it doesn't make others inclined to pay for them.

Hey, Crid, I'm not in the private sector (according to you) because of the nature of my contract, and even I see that the argument is twisted.

Sandra Fluke, you want to play, you got to pay. While I note that pumping out bullet stops is not your thing, and that would cost us all more than birth control, I wonder how many intimate encounters of yours there needs to be before you are, indeed, a slut, and maybe half of all people who see this story will wonder that.

When you subsidize a thing, you get more of it. Just what about this is not about abetting promiscuity with public funds mandated to private organizations? And when did we forget that all this woman has to do is go to another school - one, possibly, with her (lack) of moral values?

> even I see that the argument is twisted.

Let's see... Let's see what this guys income is all about. There's a lot teat-sucking going on nowadays, isn't there? Let's give him a chance to declare a proud, capitalist presence.

I am a woman, who took BC pills for 11 years before starting kids, and more after kids before finishing up and tying my tubes, and I think mandating insurance cover them is stupid. And immoral. And a lot of other things. Are we going to mandate condom coverage too? Why not? Are we sexist? I paid for my pills, even as a poor broke college kid with nothing but catastrophic illness coverage. Because I didn't want a baby then. I don't think there's anything exceptional about me, that I was able to be responsible in this way. I can't understand why other people aren't expected to meet this minimum level of personal care as well.

Want your pills covered? Don't work for or attend an organization that finds them immoral. Seems easy to me.

If the pill can be preventative care for an actual illness, it's not far to say abortions are preventative for depression or some such nonsense and mandate covering them too. But I'm perfectly fine opposing this mandate on it 's own, without worrying what comes after in leftist land. There's enough to despise here as it is.

Shoot- I thought this thread was going to be commenters sharing their favorite one liners...

"Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, surrounded by assholes."

William Gibson

Contraception is pretty inexpensive, especially when compared to the cost of a larval human. I'm willing to help pay for it.

Maybe I could get an annual tax credit for my vasectomy.

Really? Private sector, you buy your own insurance, etc? That seems unlikely...It's just not possible that you're a grown man working in the private sector, hiring people and being hired in a capitalist market.

Yeah, really. Small company, with "skin in the game" - part of my compensation negotiations involve basis points (pro tip: never negotiate for a particular number of shares of a private company without knowing what percentage ownership they represent).

I'm getting good at hiring, too, which has turned out to be half science/half art. Just brought a new person onto my team this week; figuring out a fair way to choose one person out of 300+ applicants took some doing, but I'm happy with the woman we hired.

And you haven't actually asked for an opinion on abortion

I assume that any sensible person would like to see a reduction in the frequency with which abortion is used as post-hoc contraception. Forgive me if that isn't the case with you.

You're too eager to presume that everyone else is on the dole... Or WANTS to be.

Not at all. You are the one who seems to equate coverage of basic reproductive health care for women by private insurance to be socialism (while men get their Viagra covered).

And Christopher (like a good little feminist) brings up viagra.

Quite frankly, I'm outraged that insurance pays for viagra. I should not be compelled to finance your sexual escapades.

The number of cases of "medically necessary" prescription of birth-control pills is so vanishingly small that they are easily handled by an exception where the doctor details the medical necessity and the insurance covers it.

You needing to get your freak on every night is NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY. Stop asking me to pay for it.

Would the people who are so against paying for birth control rather be paying for the lifetime of health care of the children that birth control would have prevented? Personally, I would like to see birth control be MANDATORY for anyone receiving welfare.

Anybody think health insurance covering prenatal care and delivery is a problem? Or that it is cheaper than birth control?

Health insurance covering birth control is good policy (and good politics) for so many reasons that I find it hard to believe that any except for anti-contraception god squad politicos like Santorum oppose it.

@KarenW and Christopher -

So rather than make people take responsiblity for their own lives and their own children, we assume that everyone is either too stupid or too poor to afford a $9/mo pill or a 25 cent rubber?

Health insurance covering birth control is good policy (and good politics) for so many reasons that I find it hard to believe that any except for anti-contraception god squad politicos like Santorum oppose it.

Bullshit. If it was good policy and good politics the backlash wouldn't be nearly what it is. Most people aren't outraged about viagra because they didn't know their money was being spent to buy it for other people.

If you want the government out of your bedroom, it's all the way or fucking forget it.

Would the people who are so against paying for birth control rather be paying for the lifetime of health care of the children that birth control would have prevented?

Everything I've read indicates that the people least likely to be able to afford to raise a child don't use birth control because they don't want to.

Personally, I would like to see birth control be MANDATORY for anyone receiving welfare.

There is no legal framework under which that is not a gross violation of human rights.

Do you libs even think before you type, or is it just some kind of reflexive thing you have where it's okay to force others to cover for you?

> Yeah, really. Small company, with "skin
> in the game"

Very, very hard to believe. Essentially impossible.

> I assume that

Well, you assumed that I was "devoted" to Rush Limbaugh.

> basic reproductive health care for women

Pap smears, MAYBE. Birth control is not "basic reproductive health care".

> men get their Viagra covered

Again your daydreams return to my underpants. Why?

Seriously, how did Viagra become a part of this? Is Obama telling the Catholics to buy boner pills for their old men?

Burge has been good today.

He's good every day.

Bullshit. If it was good policy and good politics the backlash wouldn't be nearly what it is.

A backlash among the radical right and religious conservatives is a feature, not a bug. Women overwhelmingly support this, as do majority of men. Opposing it is a loser, an it helps when Rush acts like a shithead about it; painting one of the Republican party's most important voices as a misogynist and asshole has never been easier. "Republicans think using birth control makes you a slut or whore (and don't understand how it works". The commercials write themselves.

The number of cases of "medically necessary" prescription of birth-control pills is so vanishingly small that they are easily handled by an exception where the doctor details the medical necessity and the insurance covers it.

Vanishingly small is overstating it (I know many women who have taken birth control pills for medical reasons, mostly for painful periods) but I otherwise agree that those cases can be readily handled through prescriptions.**

**Which one needs anyway to get birth control pills: if they are paid for out of pocket, can I get them OTC?

Very, very hard to believe. Essentially impossible.

Only for someone whose perspective is deeply blinkered and whose experience with other people regrettably narrow. You should get out more.

Well, you assumed that I was "devoted" to Rush Limbaugh.

When someone approvingly parrots the man at his most odious, this is a reasonable assumption.

I'll not assume you to take a sensible position on anything in the future.

Birth control is not "basic reproductive health care".

Says you.

Again your daydreams return to my underpants. Why?

Bringing the experience home. It's easy to casually wish things on those who are unlike you; more difficult to imagine depriving yourself.

The number of cases of "medically necessary" prescription of birth-control pills is so vanishingly small that they are easily handled by an exception where the doctor details the medical necessity and the insurance covers it.

An exception so large that one could drive a truck through it. Kind of like the justifications for getting medical marijuana here in CA. Go to a sympathetic doc, describe a symptom, get a scrip. Better to just be honest about it.

"Would the people who are so against paying for birth control rather be paying for the lifetime of health care of the children that birth control would have prevented? "

Why is it one or the other? What happened to people buying their own damn pills or rubbers or IUD's or whatever? When in this world did expecting people to take the most basic steps to control their own lives become obscene and selfish? I mean really-you are basically saying "pay for my pill or pay for my baby". I say, I pay for neither. Extortion doesn't work on me.

Whether we're against paying for it is beside the point, anyway. We are against the government telling groups that are morally opposed to birth control that THEY have to pay for it anyway. The stance of the Catholic church on this and other issues isn't secretive. If you don't agree with them, you probably shouldn't work for them or study at their schools, no? Should I attend Atheist University and demand they say prayers with me?

We are already paying for people's unwanted pregnacies - that isn't going to change. I'm not saying that the Catholic church should be giving out birth control, but I'm fine with my tax money paying for it through the government. We will be saving money in the long run.

Brian, how the hell is my suggestion that it be mandatory for welfare recipiants in any way a liberal idea? How many liberal do you see pushing that plan? And how is requiring people to limit their families that they clearly can't afford (or else they wouldn't be on welfare) in any way a human rights violation? I'm sure you would just as soon take everyone's welfare away and just let them starve. I'm just saying they shouldn't have more kids until they are self supporting.

Brian, how the hell is my suggestion that it be mandatory for welfare recipiants in any way a liberal idea? How many liberal do you see pushing that plan?

See: Sanger, Margaret.

Where you're pushing the liberal line isn't there, however, it's in believing that government has a right to dictate to insurance companies how to "save money in the long run".

When you want government to assume responsibility for the behavior of adults, you infantilize them.

I'm not an infant, I don't need the government to buy me things. I want the government to go back to the limits imposed upon it by the framers.

And I don't want to subsidize your sex life or the results of your unplanned pregnancies. I want you to grow up and be responsible for what you do with your body.

"Women overwhelmingly support this..."

Christopher, if that's really true, then I'm going over to Roissy's to apologize to him. If the overwhelming majority of women demand that I contribute to the cost of their birth control, something from which I benefit not a bit, then it's Game on. Good husband? Role model? Chump.

Money talks, Cousin Dave. Sponsors are pulling out of Limbaugh's show left & right, and he's been forced to apologize:

http://news.yahoo.com/limbaugh-apologizes-law-student-insult-230653485.html

They set a trap, and he obligingly blundered right into it. By resorting to name-calling, he's made Fluke a martyr, and handed Obama & the Democrats a propaganda victory - "Republicans are woman-hating pigs who want to take away your birth control!"

Christopher, if that's really true, then I'm going over to Roissy's to apologize to him. If the overwhelming majority of women demand that I contribute to the cost of their birth control

We are talking about the same thing - that birth control will be covered standard as part of health insurance policies, paid for by premiums like other services. Right?

> Bringing the experience home.

No, I think you dig me. Don't be ashamed! It's America 2012! This is a very special time for men who want to feel special feelings...

Anyway, there it is again: "Bring it home." You think everybody wants to have their petty and personal expenses paid for by other people. You think everyone wants to have the dependence of their childhood extended throughout life, even through sexuality.

But this is not so... Adults are happy to pay their own way. Your obliviousness to this facet of character indicts any boast of free market competence: You're not for real.

> Would the people who are so against paying for
> birth control rather be paying for the lifetime
> of health care of the children that birth control
> would have prevented?

If you seriously think that's the choice we have to make, your understanding of our mutual needs is horribly corrupted...

> Personally, I would like to see birth control be MANDATORY
> for anyone receiving welfare.

...but perhaps not irreparably.

> Women overwhelmingly support this, as do
> majority of men.

Gonna need a cite there, Turtledove. (Not that I'd be impressed; Slavery was all the rage not so long ago.)

How come liberals can't do nice things with their own resources? Do they really think there's anything virtuous about their exploitations and subversions?

No, I think you dig me. Don't be ashamed! It's America 2012! This is a very special time for men who want to feel special feelings...

You feel the connection, too, don't you? I just can't hide it any more.

You think everybody wants to have their petty and personal expenses paid for by other people

Paid for via their insurance premiums. FTFY.

I think it entirely reasonable that insurance cover birth control, which is associated with a wide range of positive health outcomes for the women who use it; especially given that insurance already usually covers a wide range of treatments for men, including some (like Viagra) only good for shagging, with (unlike birth control) no association with anything other than sexual satisfaction (which I'm OK with, too).

You're not for real.

As I said, you gotta get out more. Here in the SF-Silicon Valley corridor entrepreneurs who are moderates like me or even true liberals are the norm, not the exception.

Not that I'd be impressed

Then no cookie for you! Google it your own self.

I find it strange how you are acting like covering birth control as part of health insurance is SUCH AN UNFAIR BURDEN. When many policies have been doing it for years. It wasn't an outrage then, but somehow now it is.

> Google it your own self.

So you were bullshitting! Why would you do that? Why would you say your position was so broadly held when you had no reason to think so? I think I know why!

> It wasn't an outrage then, but somehow now it is.

We tire of carrying the mundane expenses of those who act without discipline and stoicism.

(Hi, Brian!)

Burge agin.

So you were bullshitting!

So would you be impressed with the results of a recent survey showing support for this or not? Make up your mind. But I'm not bullshitting.

We tire of carrying the mundane expenses of those who act without discipline and stoicism.

It's their insurance premiums covering those expenses.

Burge agin.

Not understanding that health insurance has morphed into a system in the U.S. that is very different than say, car insurance. Many regular, predictable expenses are covered.

> Make up your mind.

It seems like that decision was long since made: The cite could have been presented for much less less time and trouble than each of these faux-coy skirt-hoists. Remember your Grandma?… That deeply senior ancestor whose femininity (she has yet to learn) meant nothing to you? Well, she knows better than to ask shore-leave sailors for a third time whether they want to see her tits: Some stripteases just aren't worth the saxophone.

Indeed, your boast has collapsed (sight unseen) from a firm, jutting and milky "Women overwhelmingly support this, as do majority of men" to a drooping, stretchmarked, and weepingly bashful "results of a recent survey". Should I wonder who paid for it, or would that be like pestering an aging showgirl for bad underwear?

> It's their insurance premiums covering
> those expenses.

Yes, Honeydew, and this issue came to the fore as our little Chicago-drainpipe-worm of a president strove to exercise ever greater authority over what expenses insurance will be COMPELLED, com-motherfucking-pelled, to cover. Don't pretend this is about choice: It makes you seem oblivious.

> health insurance has morphed into a system
> in the U.S. that…

For fuck's sake, these aren't 'systems, morphing'.

Authoritarian, irrational, and cowardly people are fucking things up.

The cite could have been presented for much less less time and trouble than each of these faux-coy skirt-hoists.

Perhaps, but you should not be surprised if people don't do what you want when you're being a shit.

That deeply senior ancestor whose femininity (she has yet to learn) meant nothing to you?

You wuv that widdle taunt, don't you! You think you're so clever to have come up with it! Yes you do! Yes you do! Nevermind that it's not germane to the discussion.

"results of a recent survey"

Well, it's not like I divined that claim out of that aether.

authority over what expenses insurance will be COMPELLED, com-motherfucking-pelled, to cover.

Yep. The law now establishes what insurance must cover, and conservatives don't like some of what that is. But it didn't need to be this way. Conservatives opted not to participate in the debate over what this bill would do, and instead gambled that they could prevent its passage entirely. But this tactic ensured that if they failed, conservatives would really hate the results. http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

For fuck's sake, these aren't 'systems, morphing'.

In case you have not been paying attention, health insurance, over the last 30 years or so, has changed from something that only covered major unexpected expenses, to the primary means by which all health care is managed and paid for, routine and otherwise. This may be a bad system, and I would argue it is, but covering birth control doesn't reflect some crazy, overreaching breach of how this system has worked.

> you should not be surprised if people
> don't do what you want when you're
> being a shit.

I want you to follow through on your own promises. For a fourth time, you've failed.

> it's not germane to the discussion.

The infantilism of your beliefs about sexuality, and your continuing failure to consider their practical consequences, are precisely the point.

> it's not like I divined that claim out of
> that aether.

At this hour there's no reason to doubt that you did. I mean, this is the FIFTH TIME: Is there some information you have to share with us? Or not? Is there a basis for your claim?

> health insurance, over the last 30 years or so,
> has changed

Again with the passive language. "It" changed, man... No. A generation or two of coddled Disney fuckwits has come to believe that personal responsibility is optional, that the disagreeable burdens of a life well-lived can be passed to distant third parties.

It ain't happnin'.

Via Reynolds-

“The irony is that a federal mandate for contraception coverage renders women’s personal sexual choices a matter for public debate. The folks plucking sex out of the private sphere in this situation are the mandate supporters, not its opponents.”

And furthermore, this isn't the best critique of Frum in these recent years of his weakness, it's just the most timely. (Hell, I've done some good work m'self, if you don't mind dipping into the files.)

God DAMN I'm good at this.

I mean, this is the FIFTH TIME
Alrighty then, if you insist. Hope you can copy & paste since I can't post links lest I end up tangling with Amy's spam filter. Here's a few polls, all of which support my point (and hey, it appears even Catholics like the idea!)

• www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377864-503544/poll-most-back-mandating-contraception-coverage/?tag=contentMain;contentBody


• Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. --publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/


• blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/02/10/big-birth-control-backing-in-fox-news-poll/


• www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/americans-divided-on-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html

#WINNING

The infantilism of your beliefs about sexuality.

Uh huh, infantilism. I think you've decided everyone who disagrees with you has an infantile perspective.

and your continuing failure to consider their practical consequences, are precisely the point.

I'm quite confident that I demonstrated unambiguously that even assuming everything you do (being raised in by same sex parents is bad for kids) your views on gay marriage are bad for children unless you somehow have the magic power to also make sure that gays don't end up being parents.

No. A generation or two of coddled Disney fuckwits has come to believe that personal responsibility is optional, that the disagreeable burdens of a life well-lived can be passed to distant third parties.

Says you. From where I can see, people aren't passing burdens to others; they have opted to trade the certainty of a monthly payment in a known amount, for a certain basket of services, vs. the past when they paid a much lower amount per month, on average, but assumed a much greater amount of risk.

BTW, I hate Disney as much as the next person who grew up in the shadow of one of their theme parks, but you really seem to have it out for the mouse.

And furthermore, this isn't the best critique of Frum

Frum's got his weaknesses, but I think that particular piece is going to have legs unless the Supreme Court kills Obamacare.

God DAMN I'm good at this.

You're the MAN. lol.

http://7tattoo.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/haters-gonna-hate-batman/

CBS - "61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers..."

It is thus established that Americans like telling Churches what to do.

publicreligion.org - "...employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost."

This is a flat-out demand for a freebie; at no point is this even described as compensation. The "coverage" is simply to be "provided". And "at no cost" is a sweet flourish... Magical thinking! If religious people were more practical and thoughtful than they usually prove to be, then this would be a different planet.

The PI piece is just a cluck.

NYT - "Many Americans, in the survey and in independent interviews, expressed impatience with the focus on women’s reproductive issues in an era of economic distress."

Setting aside the "independent interviews" (which translates, in the language of modern journalism, as 'we can interject anything we want into any context by asking the janitor to parrot things back to us from our notepads'), that's not a bad point.

> you've decided everyone who disagrees with
> you has an infantile perspective.

Nope. Only the ones who compose their worldview, and politics, with a childish insistence on sunny, flattering outcomes, regardless of their circumstances (or contributions).

More later, work time.

"We are talking about the same thing - that birth control will be covered standard as part of health insurance policies, paid for by premiums like other services. Right?"

Paid for by *my* premiums, even though I have no need for it. By mandate of the federal government, which apparently no longer considers itself constrained by that inconvenient Constitution thing.

I remember when New Coke happened in the 80's... It was one of the greatest debacles in the history of consumer culture. There were two major contributory fuckups.

The new formula was sweeter than the old. So the distracted passersby in the streets and malls who were asked to sample it tended to rate it higher than the old formula, as a two-ounce splash was more satisfying when you were only pausing for a quick shot before dashing on towards your destination. (Survey-takers aren't the kinda people you wanna hang out and make friends with.) But cola drinkers enjoy the stuff in greater quantities over longer periods, when sweetness is only part of the allure.

Secondly, consumers didn't realize that the taste test was a duel to the death: They didn't know they were being asked if Old Coke should be replaced and unavailable evermore.

The fascism of your intentions is perfectly clear in those surveys. People weren't asked if they favored a law that prevented others from selecting the insurance they felt was appropriate; They were essentially asked if they enjoyed feeling the shallow, self-congratulatory charge of being nice to fuckable women.

That's how entranced lefties have become with government authority. They don't want to persuade anyone to buy the insurance that works this way; since Roe (more than a generation ago), they've never had to convince anyone of a motherfucking thing, and they're not about to learn to now. It's easier to demand that no other choice even be available. YOU WILL COMPLY....

> your views on gay marriage are bad for children

Nope. What's best for kids is a loving mother with a loving father. People who are afraid of saying that are befogged, cowardly, or worse. You're not at all concerned with children, what's good or "bad"; you seek only to flatter yourself with regard to other adults.

> you really seem to have it out for the mouse.

I have it out for those who take Disney's pat, pandering, ticket-selling aphorisms as the roadmap to a life well- (and righteously-) lived. If a person deploys that flapdoodle in adulthood, without recourse to nuance, irony or humility, there's no reason to honor their egocentric claims to decency. Grownups should be expected to understand that the world isn't a narrative composed to make sure you're happy in the end. It isn't even designed to make sure you're happy in the middle. It ought NOT be designed to make sure that 30(!)-year-old women with some of the deepest educations in human history can get their squirty-parts throbbing without dipping into petty cash.

You're not a good guy.

> they have opted to trade the certainty

Nobody's "opting" for DICK. Jesus Christ.

@ Crid:

Nope. Only the ones who compose their worldview, and politics, with a childish insistence on sunny, flattering outcomes, regardless of their circumstances (or contributions).

I'm a realist through and through. I'd love it if you could find some place where I insist on sunny and flattering outcomes.

The fascism of your intentions is perfectly clear in those surveys.

I knew I shouldn't have given you data. Nothing worse to certain conservatives than data.

They don't want to persuade anyone to buy the insurance that works this way

Most people are happy to; it's a few conservatives who are bitching about it. But as I wrote above, that's what you get when your side won't deal: laws you don't like. Happens to everyone in a democracy. It's not the end of freedom. Just go convince a majority of Congress to take birth control away from women.

Nope.

Yep, absolutely. Unless those naughty gays quit raising children, preventing their kids from marrying is bad for those children. But you don't care about them, since their parents don't behave as you'd like them to. Sacrifice a few kids for the betterment of the rest?

As I said, demonstrated unambiguously.

You're not a good guy.

I'm a great guy. Honest, hard working, psyched most days about what I do. Take excellent care of my wife and kid, look after my mom and dad and siblings, true and reliable friend, good taste in music and food and wine and happy to share.

Nobody's "opting" for DICK. Jesus Christ.

Shh, there, there. You might need to read again more carefully, I think you're tightly bunched panties have interfered with your comprehension. I was writing about how the manner in which people in the U.S. have paid for medical services has changed over the years, and why coverage for expected, preventive care is now part of the basket of services premiums provide. In fact, birth control has, as I noted previously, been covered by many policies for years.

@ Cousin Dave:

Paid for by *my* premiums, even though I have no need for it.

What do her premiums cover, then?

> find some place where I insist on sunny
> and flattering outcomes.

Conveniently, we can start with where you imagine yourself to be "a realist through and through". Nothing means more to the typical lefty than looking down on others... These efforts to make social distance are unnecessary, as evidenced by chorus-goading mechanisms like "LOL!", but they're a lot of fun. They're like Beverly Hills housewives ducking their chins before imaginary paparazzi on the way into the grocery.

> Nothing worse to certain conservatives
> than data.

Intellectual pretense is a big part of what's described above.

> it's a few conservatives who
> are bitching

Buttercup, you don't understand: THIS IS ABOUT LAW. That's how proud you are of your worldview. NO OTHER OPINION COUNTS. It's a little late to pretend it's getting under your skin.

> Unless those naughty gays quit raising
> children, preventing their kids from
> marrying is bad for those children.

What? Whose kids? Are you a drinker?

The point is, you've decided (without discussion) that some children deserve less than the best. Someday, those kids are going to want to sit down and 'talk' to somebody about that ... My hearth will not be of interest to them, since I was on their team all along. And I feel bad, but...

> I'm a great guy.

Sunny, I'm sure! A sugary blessing to all you encounter! Strangers and poor people adore you, in a wordless, nonthreatening, disengaged way!

> I was writing about how the manner in
> which people in the U.S. have paid for
> medical services has changed

LAW is the agent of change under discussion. You're proud of yourself, and I think you're an idiot storm trouper. See how that works? The Jewish bookstores were 'opting' for an elemental mode of ventilation.

Intellectual pretense is a big part of what's described above.

That I'm smarter than most isn't the point. Conservatives in the U.S. so hate it when facts disagree with their preferences that they just argue the science is wrong (global warming, evolution, etc.) instead of reconsidering their assumptions. Being critical of research methods and findings is a valid approach; wholesale denial of entire established fields of research just makes the conservative movement seem dumber.

I linked to information about a bunch of polls - even one by a news organization that is the de facto propaganda organization of the Republican party - and none suggest that a majority of people support your view that a small change to what insurance covers is some sort of outrage. If Fox can't produce the answer you want here it's because people disagree with you, because they certainly would discredit Obama and the Democrats if they could.

Buttercup, you don't understand: THIS IS ABOUT LAW.

And no law makes everyone happy. This one makes you unhappy. Tough titty. Suck it up or go persuade people to change it. That's how democracy works.

The point is, you've decided (without discussion) that some children deserve less than the best.

Nope. I could agree with you that the best thing for children is to be raised in a home with a loving mother and father; it's how I'm raising my daughter, and something I will and do bust my ass to care for and preserve.

I don't think that's the end of the discussion, however, which is where your arguments fall flat. Marriage is about more than children, and it's good for more than children; it also makes for more more stable, healthier, long-lived, saner adults (in general, YMMV). More sane, stable, functional adults is good for society.

Further, and I've made this point before – gays are largely normalized in our society. They're no longer considered total freaks and outcasts and criminals and pedophiles. As a result they are more and more doing normal stuff; one of those things is raising children via adopting/fostering/in-vitroing/surrogating, etc. You may not like it, but this is how it is (see: I'm a realist). The bullshit and legal complications faced by these families are likely to be borne by the kids if anything goes wrong and some complicated legal custodial document lacks the proper official blessing. The sort of blessing automatically assumed when the parents are married. Gays being unable to marry definitely creates a fucked up situation for them and their children (spare me the parsing, you know what I mean).

And I know, you'd really rather they just not pair up and raise kids. But that's happening regardless. Is marriage going to change that, or just make it a situation that is less fraught? I think the latter.

I think you're an idiot storm trouper. See how that works? The Jewish bookstores were 'opting' for an elemental mode of ventilation.

This seems informed by the Jonah Goldberg school of thinking in which fascism = anything he disagrees with politically. Wow was his book a vapid little tour through his limited, yet fevered, imagination.

Let's not be precious about our particular side.

I'm not a liberal; I don't find myself fitting in well there – my views are similar to those of Mickey Kaus, and his perspective has been in decline since the end of the Clinton presidency. Liberals in this country seem to have reverted on domestic issues to the paleoliberal, pro-union, pre-welfare-reform approach to domestic issues; an approach I thought to have been discredited by the successes of the reforms of the 90s.

That said, I think that it's the case that conservatives in particular spend a lot of energy and effort questioning the validity of science that is essentially uncontroversial among those who study it. There are exceptions to the anti-science dogma – e.g., Jim Manzi on climate change – who add a helpful perspective about a conservative approach that that problem and the limitations of the liberal approach.

> That I'm smarter than most isn't
> the point.

Nor is it so.

> none suggest that a majority of people
> support your view that a small change
> to what insurance covers is some sort
> of outrage.

We've covered this: They weren't asked. The question was deceitfully worded, and didn't suggest that strong-arm tactics were in play. The surveyed certainly didn't know it would raise costs.

> spare me the parsing, you know
> what I mean).

No, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. Or, you're too embarrassed by a plain expression of your thoughts to put your name to them. This is PRECISELY the Disney Principle in action: You're so certain that you deserve to be patted on the head for good intentions that you don't want to have to put things into words, or take responsibility for rationally-predictable consequences. You are that self-centered. You are than naive.

Gays don't have children of their own: It's biologically impossible. If two gays have a child, a mother or father has dropped out of the picture... Or been pushed.

> This seems informed by the Jonah Goldberg
> school of thinking

There's zero doubt that you didn't read his book. His scholarship is accessible, footnoted, indexed and airtight: Liberals can't handle that.

So there you are with your little family. Presumably you haven't told your wife that her femininity is worthless to your children –that you and your golfing buddy could have done as well– just as you never raised the topic with your grandmother.

But I think that as a loving, hipster, super-fabulous parent, you're going to have to break the news to your little girls: That they'll have no transcendent powers in their natural identity to offer to their children.

(I suppose you could further tell them that your grandchildren won't need other blessings either... Things like hot food, or a soft bed, or literacy, or the experience of a camping trip or a night at the opera... But shit fuck, there's nothing higher on the list than the love of a mother, which you've already thrown overboard. So I guess all those lesser considerations are forestalled.)

Well, y'know, sometimes children can over-react to things! Little girls can be emotional. But you shouldn't put up with that! If your daughters start crying, or whining about how their mothering has meant so much to your housepets, or to the little plastic dolls they've been carrying around since before they could walk, you might have to speak sharply to them to snap them out of it.

But you've proven deeply conversant in the infantile terms –temporally adjacent to their own youthful perspective– which can staunch their tears!

Tough titty, you will say.

Presumably you haven't told your wife that her femininity is worthless to your children –that you and your golfing buddy could have done as well– just as you never raised the topic with your grandmother.

I don't think this. I've never stated it. Glad we clarified that.

No, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

Then you really need to work on your short-term memory. Quoting myself, "adopting/fostering/in-vitroing/surrogating, etc." This is becoming parents.

There's zero doubt that you didn't read his book. His scholarship is accessible, footnoted, indexed and airtight: Liberals can't handle that.

He did his homework, but his conclusions and connections he drew were nuts. And the line he draws between legitimate government role and fascist coercion is also nuts.

> He did his homework

You're saying you read it? Those weren't "connections", they were facts. The threats most concerning the contemporary liberal are those to his own ego.

> This is becoming parents.

Gays will not be parents on their own... And we're done! Your judgment is not to be trusted when you fail to consider this, or to acknowledge what's best for children.

Yet of all the rodentia to comment on this topic here, you're a new animal: The first ratbastard to say out loud that you're more concerned with the needs of adults than with those of kids, by definition our most vulnerable members.

I'd bet that if we looked deep enough into the literature of the United States in the 18th, we'd find a quote from a slaveholder that went something like this: I know, I know, but I don't care about their souls; I've got crops to harvest!

Those weren't "connections", they were facts.

The book has facts, and inferences and connections. Goldberg did a lot of reading, and the book was chock-fulla facts and cites. But I think that the book is fundamentally flawed in its approach, in that it posits an intellectual heritage for liberalism that I think it lacks (again, not a liberal; I get in lots of fun arguments with real liberals here). Liberals don't have their totemic philosophical predecessors in the way that conservatives have Burke or Hayek (to their detriment), and if they did it would not be Bismarck certainly not Hitler or Mussolini or Franco.

The connection between Wilsonian progressive thinking and FDR's New Deal is tenuous at best (Wilson certainly had his deeply ugly tendencies), and the connections to actual fascist thought get weaker from there, unless you wish to reduce fascist thought down to meaninglessness or make all modern western states fascist in essence, is pretty much the same thing.

Gays will not be parents on their own... And we're done!

Not by a long shot. Certainly, the law would disagree in all of the cases I mentioned previously. For some reason, you seem ignorant of this fact.

The first ratbastard to say out loud that you're more concerned with the needs of adults than with those of kids, by definition our most vulnerable members.

Nope. You're gonna have to read what I wrote a little more carefully than that!

& by "to their detriment" above I mean liberals', not conservatives' detriment. Burke and Hayek merit props in my book.

The first ratbastard to say out loud that you're more concerned with the needs of adults than with those of kids, by definition our most vulnerable members.

Actually, since you're bad at inference, I'll spell it out. For your position on gay marriage to be logical, the following things would need to be true:

1a. Prohibiting gays from marrying each other would mean that gays would raise no children in their homes, which are crippled by a lack of gender diversity. (strong form)

1b. Prohibiting gays from marrying each other would mean that substantially fewer gays would raise no children in their homes, thus ensuring that more children are raised in heterosexual homes. (weak form)

and

2. Gay marriage would need to have no benefits to broader society for gay couples regardless of whether they end up having legal/custodial/parental responsibility for children.

1a is clearly false. Gays have and raise children, regardless of the marriage issue.

1b. is probably false, though who can say!

2 is also likely false. Marriage typically leads to health, wealth and other benefits for the participants.

Your arguments are weak.

Danged lack of editing in comments.

Your position neglects, and you always fail to answer, the fact that there are many gay couples, raising children, whose children* are at much greater risk because their parents can't marry. But fuck them, as long as it teaches the parents a lesson.

*I realize these aren't real children in your world because they are not both biological parents, hence the asterisk.

Parenthood is not an asterisk.

More, briefly:

> Certainly, the law would disagree in all
> of the cases I mentioned previously.

You can make it a law that children are produced by two people of the same sex, but it won't make it so.

(Your 1As and 2Bs are lawyerly and bloodless, presumably what you like about them.)

> Gays have and raise children

No, they never have them... Though they often acquire them.

> Marriage typically leads to health

When you're so wickedly evasive about the meaning of words, it seems likely that you have secret-special rhetorical assignments for every compensate of that sentence. Disney park attendees have different ideas about "fun" than I do, as well.

> these aren't real children in your world

Yep, that's where your head's at, it's all about pretending that you're more compassionate than other people... That's the whole purpose of this exercise for you. You don't really care about gays, and you certainly don't care about the kids... They're just your rhetorical playthings. If you can't ignore the fact that it took one partner in a heterosexual union to turn away for them to put 'em play in your fantasies....

No, they never have them.

Seriously?

A lesbian has sex with a man/gets artificially inseminated/has in vitro and delivers a child whom she raises. She is a mother.

A gay man has a child through sex with a woman whom he raises. He is a father.

A gay couple adopts a child, gay or straight. They are parents to that child in the same fashion as any other adoptive family.

All of these make gays parents by any sane definition. Certainly by law. And they do this now, without marriage.

When you're so wickedly evasive about the meaning of words, it seems likely that you have secret-special rhetorical assignments for every compensate of that sentence.

What's evasive about saying that people who are married are healthier, live longer, earn more money, etc.? And that these are things that are good in society.

Yep, that's where your head's at, it's all about pretending that you're more compassionate than other people.

Nope. I'm talking about real people in situations that actually happen.

You claim compassion about children. But you cannot answer this question: why should the children of gays grow up in homes where their families lack the rights and protections provided their families by marriage in the same fashion as those that grow up in straight homes? You cannot argue that gays cannot or will not become parents of children, because they do. Following your logic, your position seems to put children of gays in double jeopardy - they are raised by a same-sex couple and that couple is not married.

If you care for kids, as you purport, and you think gays being parents is as damaging as you seem to, you need to be able to offer cogent arguments about how your position actually makes kids as a whole better off, while absolutely and without a doubt, making things worse for some of them.

> Seriously?

It's difficult to find enthusiasm for answering comments from people like you. There are just too many ways to begin.

Yes, Bunny, "seriously". If a gay couple has a child on board, it's because either the mother dropped out of the child's life, or the father did, or both did, or one or both were pushed out. No two gay people have ever brought a child into the world with only each other, whatever their emotions, decency or cuddliness. There have been no exceptions, and this is as certain as tomorrow's sunrise: It's the gold standard for metaphysical verity. "Seriously".

We covered that in an earlier exchange, and you blew right past it. Can you see how that becomes tiresome?

Do you want a society where further misconduct and legal quicksand for babymakers is encouraged? Perhaps you do:

> A lesbian has sex with a man/gets
> artificially inseminated/has in vitro
> and delivers a child whom she raises.

With clumsy (but shameful) detachment, you sketch these events as if they were raindrops (or the stars themselves) falling from the sky, rather than choices and behaviors of (often incompetent and venal) human beings. And apparently, you think it's water under the bridge... But misconduct isn't forgiven that way.

A lesbian who has sex with men isn't much of a lesbian, but no women's sexual feelings mean so much that it matters to me. A woman, ANY woman, who brings (or causes to be brought) a child into the world with the intention that it never know the love of a father is, to my mind, a fucking monster. Ditto the men who'd deny a child the love of a mother... I don't care about their moist moments, either.


> She is a mother.

And later...

> He is a father.

The fuckheadedness is off the charts.

First,

Well, I'm not sure it's the first point, but we gotta start somewhere...

First, THAT'S THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION... The composition of family. This is a beginner's error, evidence that you haven't had a lot of persuasive discussions about important things with people other than your family in childhood... Relatives who might be predisposed to agree with you, or to have formed your opinions in their (agreeable) likeness before you knew you even had any, or to not give a rat's ass what you thought anyway, since they'd had to wipe your ass or put up with your stealing their treats from the fridge, and they knew you were full of shit before you even started to speak.

It's an Internet Tough Guy thing. Tepid people take offense at the incivility of these fora... But perhaps its greatest cause is the inclination of newcomers to pretend to be doctors of philosophy behind their keyboards, since nobody will know better. (Some of us know better.)

Second, the sheer pomposity of your narratives and the INFANTILE simplicity of your conclusions ("She is a mother") is just stunning. It's straight out of Disney. Perhaps you think that by talking slowly and using small worlds, the souls of your correspondents will be transported back in time —with weeping, misty sentimentality— to a weekend afternoon on the Teacups ride, when the darkest threat in world was a Monday schoolyard bully, and minds were readily changed about important topics all the time.

Last week I read of a man who'd been convicted for pimping a teenager. (I can't find the exact story, but as it happens you have your choice.) Does the fact that this tragedy occurred before the arrest mean that he should walk? Does the fact that it's going to happen again mean we should accept that behavior as a family? I mean, hey, Dood... The kid was in his care. "He is a father." Right? It's a "sane definition".

> What's evasive about saying that people
> who are married are healthier, live
> longer, earn more money, etc.?

Again two things, with a coin flip to decide which goes first. It's evasive because it doesn't first protect the interests of those least able to defend their own, and it's evasive because your list doesn't include "are more virtuous"... You got to etcetera first. That's where you're head's at.

> why should the children of gays grow
> up in homes where their families lack
> the rights and protections provided their
> families by marriage in the same fashion
> as those that grow up in straight homes?

Because you're fucking them up from the start. Best case, you're dismissing something profound... And I think the intimate love from a mother (or a father) is perhaps THE most profound thing a person can experience. You're pissing it away from the lives of the defenseless deliberately, intentionally. And you're doing it in pursuit of adult fulfillment.

You call to mind the lower castes of India, in which beggars break the limbs of their children into disfiguring shapes, hoping to increase the feelings of pity they inspire. ("He is the father.") You're going to get your motherfucking Disney climax no matter what, and to Hell with goddamn children.

> You cannot argue that gays cannot or
> will not become parents of children,
> because they do.

Never, not without the assent of the surrounding community. I can argue that they SHOULD not, not without a loving parent of the opposite sex in the home from birth onwards.

See also, single motherhood. Does your civil rights boner squirt in that direction, too? Not an incidental question....

> you think gays being parents is
> as damaging as you seem to

You've done that about five times in this thread... But I never said anything about "damage". You'll soon be on the list of Amy's commenters (Loookispoodle, Raddy, Tressider) who can't state their position without ascribing imaginary words (and characteristics; "Limbaugh devotee") to opponents. Beginner's thing: You want to tussle with a cartoon character, not a thoughtful consideration.

No, what I said was that what's best for children is a loving mother with loving father, and this consideration ought to weigh heavily in what we call marriage and family. It's not about hurt brought by gay parents, it's about blessings lost when a loving parent of either sex is excluded.

Can I presume that you recognize the devastation that's befallen our culture as a consequence of single motherhood? Maybe I shouldn't. You can't seem to either affirm or deny, directly, that the love of a mother or father means something essential to a child. (Indeed, these sentences of argument are apparently invisible to you. Hah-ha! You have an ugly nose! Hah-ha! Nyah-nyah!)

So I'm gonna guess that when single motherhood pops up in this conversation, your response will suddenly be peppered with chatter about the importance of "two!" parents. Or "parents". That's only been happening for the last five years or so... And arriviste argument, heretofore unknown, but now a bedrock principle in familymaking as gay marriage became so irresistible to dim bulbs. 'No, there should be TWO parents...! Yeah, that's the ticket. There should be two. But it doesn't matter if...' etc.

From the first discussions of this on this blog 8(?) years ago, I've acknowledged that homosexual people are going to be raising children. I'm cool with that, and understand that it's been going on since the dawn of time. And there will be single mothers too, if only due to widowings.

Yet the explosion of wretched fatherlessness in our country didn't just happen. We LET it happen, mostly in pursuit of bullshit ideas about sexual "liberation", and we shouldn't have.

If married gays, or even just deeply committed gays couples, were eager to help us with this by adopting older kids from foster homes and raising them lovingly, who could argue? We need their help, Lord God knows we do.

But to fracture things even further, to purposefully blight even more toddler hearts, just so your generation (children of that which gave us divorce culture) can strike a heroic pose without even asking what's best?

You're not worth it.