Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

now a religiously oriented company, like the one i temped at that had prayer meetings, can basically strike out anything they want. i mean, if i understand this ruling correctly, which i hope i don't.

they can sue on religious grounds, they cant just stop providing anything mandated by law

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

The world is a pretty terrible place so maybe we shouldn't aspire to the lowest common denominator.

No, we shouldn't aspire to that.
We shouldn't aspire to all couples raising 5 or 6 children, either.The world is hardly under-populated.


(And two people loving each other and being human by also loving to have sex is nothing I'd call "the lowest common denominator.")

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

acting shocked that Hobby Lobby covers vasectomies when if they knew the basic facts of this case it would be clear that there is no double standard at work there.

that doesnt drive donations though

[reprise85]

So seriously, I'm just a little shocked. Charmbag, you think sexual intercourse should only be for procreation or for someone who is ready to procreate?

Is other sex okay as long as it can't make you pregnant?

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by reprise85

So seriously, I'm just a little shocked. Charmbag, you think sexual intercourse should only be for procreation or for someone who is ready to procreate?

I just think shes saying that if you really dont want to get pregnant and dont have bc of any kind then just keep it in yo pants, it wont kill you.

but if you dont really care, then game on, the more the merrier.

[pavementtune]

Ready to, and are suited to be parents, and have an income to raise a child, and have nice illness-free genes they want to pass on.
No sex for people who have an inherited illness.

[Future Boy]

i could be misreading that though

[null123]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

I just think shes saying that if you really dont want to get pregnant and dont have bc of any kind then just keep it in yo pants, it wont kill you.

but if you dont really care, then game on, the more the merrier.

Sort of. However, I also think birth control has had damaging social impact. I don't know if the question is asking what my personal ethics are or how I would set policy. Like my more strident and personal answer goes further but I don't run the world so we don't have to worry about it.

[D.]

Originally Posted by juliana

Men are actually pissed because they want to have sex and not cause they care about womens issues.

I think.

extremely short-sighted but not unexpected given you posted it

[Mayfuck]

I thought that was an esty post for some reason.

[Mayfuck]

I think this is an issue "family values" would solve point blank if it weren't abused and manipulated as a political football so much.

[juliana]

Originally Posted by D.

extremely short-sighted but not unexpected given you posted it

I was explaining what charmbag was trying to say because no one understood are you unable to follow the thread, Droolio?

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

Sort of. However, I also think birth control has had damaging social impact. I don't know if the question is asking what my personal ethics are or how I would set policy. Like my more strident and personal answer goes further but I don't run the world so we don't have to worry about it.

I was asking about your personal ethics.

But I'm also interested in how birth control has damaging social impact.

I mean obviously the bottom line is if you don't have bc and don't want kids you shouldn't have sex. But since we do have BC, and sex is fun - and yes, a natural part of human existence - why should people be denied it? Also, this denial of sexual intercourse is weird just because all kinds of other sex would not produce babies, like oral/anal in hetero or homo relationships, and I don't see how those types are morally any different than intercourse except no babies.

[Bread Regal]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

because this precedent is horrifying and it implicates all of our rights

this is the crux of it. it's shortsighted to say that this ruling only affects emergency contraception and that's it. HHS already allowed non-profits to opt out of all birth control without giving much of a fight at all, and now there's this ruling. A lot of bad precedents being established here.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i understand RBG is annoying but being upset that men are upset about the hobby lobby case is bewildering and inexplicable

thnx buddy

Originally Posted by Charmbag

No, I just don't buy the sincerity of men's concern for women's wellbeing when 99% of the time you're all talking about how it's "wrong to shame sluts" and "women should be able to fuck me consequence-free. girl power"

this is my attempt at answering you without flying off the handle, because you tend to be extremely inflammatory in my perception. What I see is that you have picked up an unimportant detail in something I said which I meant in response to a specific person, and you are trying to show me how don't know what I am talking about by siding with the oppressor...

I think at some level you honestly believe men cannot be sincere allies to women, and I'm sure you have compelling reasons in your own life to think this way. However, to me, this is just straight prejudiced and although men-hating has significantly less reflexive harm than misogyny, it's still not justifiable and it's impossible for me to fit this concept into the framework of feminism. It seems like your attitude is that finding females sexually desirable but also wanting to elevate female social standing presents an insurmountable conflict of interest, which I think is dead wrong.

In any civil rights movement, allies from outside the oppressed group are absolutely essential to the cause both because they hold systemic power and because it's essential for the rhetoric of the movement to be able to appeal to the mainstream. It's just bewildering to me that you want to put people down for being interested in feminism for the reason that they don't have vaginas. Feminism has a serious PR problem mainly for the reason that a lot of ignorant white men mostly, think it's an assault on the rights of men and the purpose is to subjugate them to females. I am honestly not sure exactly what your view of the overarching feminist ideology is, I've heard you describe yourself as radical feminist, but I think it's fair to say most people who identify as feminists believe feminism is about instituting equality. The way you argue about women's issues is very divisive, and although I am trying not to be presumptuous about your views, I will say I think it's understandable that you come off as not being interested in equality, but in scorning men, which in my eyes is the most damaging thing a feminist can do because it plays directly into the conception of feminists that makes old white power-brokering men hate and fear the idea.

I think your view of sex and the way you think people should have it is kind of unrealistic and out of touch, but also ultimately damaging. It's a lot like a high school school sex-ed curriculum. Being sexually conservative is fine and I'm all for people living their lives anyway they want. I'm not for pretending sex isn't as natural a part of life as eating and breathing, that sex is innately bad or damaging to one party, that seeking pleasure for its own sake is evil, that sex is a luxury, that sex isn't an important component of mental and emotional (and even physical) health for some individuals, or that the shaming of female sexual expression isn't a real and serious problem.

[null123]

I didn't read that

Originally Posted by reprise85

I was asking about your personal ethics.

But I'm also interested in how birth control has damaging social impact.

I mean obviously the bottom line is if you don't have bc and don't want kids you shouldn't have sex. But since we do have BC, and sex is fun - and yes, a natural part of human existence - why should people be denied it? Also, this denial of sexual intercourse is weird just because all kinds of other sex would not produce babies, like oral/anal in hetero or homo relationships, and I don't see how those types are morally any different than intercourse except no babies.

I just woke up but I'll try to do justice to my position in a little while. fwiw I didn't invent it, it's the historical Christian view so I know there are better explanations out there.

[pavementtune]

Even Christians moved on.
If you want to stick to historical views you have to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, so homosexuality as a whole.
I guess you're not a friend of same-sex marriage, either.

And what about infertility or couples over 50? Is nonprocreative sex allowed then.

How does it work by the way to base your opinions on historical Christian views and be a feminist at the same time?

[hnibos]

[juliana]

Sex in the bible is okay within a marriage. It ISN'T just for procreation.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/sex_in_marriage

[juliana]

The reason we are on the earth is to procreate. Sex important in the human experience beyond procreation. Many religions believes this as well and it even says in the bible.

[The exploding boy]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

Even Christians moved on.
If you want to stick to historical views you have to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, so homosexuality as a whole.
I guess you're not a friend of same-sex marriage, either.

And what about infertility or couples over 50? Is nonprocreative sex allowed then.

How does it work by the way to base your opinions on historical Christian views and be a feminist at the same time?

It doesn't.

In fact its nearly impossible to be affiliated with any religion and be a feminist. Even if one doesn't share all the beliefs of their religion's doctrine, at best you're an enabler.

That being said I don't have in depth knowledge of all religions so there is possibly some that treat women as equals.... or better yet don't ever make the distinction. But even some of the more progressive religions like Buddhism still are plenty misogynistic.

I'm sure those in charge of Hobby lobby have NEVER EVER had sex without the express purpose of having children. I imagine they all have families of like 20 children.

Originally Posted by juliana

The reason we are on the earth is to procreate.

Well yeah except you know.......that stopped being a necessity a LONG LONG time ago. If you reproduce nowadays in the western world I'm pretty much of the cliche opinion that what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Trotskilicious]

that's a pretty stupid, circular reason

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

I'm not implicating you specifically, I'm just commenting on the movements of the male left as a group.

well i still think that's pretty shameless stereotyping, even if i'm not implicated

is it true for some, even many? probably...but c'maaaan

[null123]

I said "as a group" for a reason. Politics doesn't operate on the individual level. Do you worry about "stereotyping" republicans? No, you just get on with it because it's appropriate for the purposes of this discussion

And fuck guys this post I'm writing is getting really long-winded because I don't know where to start on such a big topic. I didn't mean to turn this thread into an interview just because I have backwoods opinions.

[hnibos]

It's ok, I'll read the post.

[null123]

First of all, fertility is still important. Overpopulation is not what ails planet earth, you're all thinking of greed. We have enough food and space to provide for the people of the world several times over. The West is barely reproducing at replacement rate at this point. Fascinating how the richest nations are committing suicide in this way.

Originally Posted by reprise85

I was asking about your personal ethics.

But I'm also interested in how birth control has damaging social impact.

I mean obviously the bottom line is if you don't have bc and don't want kids you shouldn't have sex. But since we do have BC, and sex is fun - and yes, a natural part of human existence - why should people be denied it? Also, this denial of sexual intercourse is weird just because all kinds of other sex would not produce babies, like oral/anal in hetero or homo relationships, and I don't see how those types are morally any different than intercourse except no babies.

I'm going to preface this by saying that you asked for my opinion, so I'm not going to write a thoroughly referenced article covering the breadth of topics that inform such a huge subject and this is going to be a hopelessly insufficient explanation but, sorry. I think the Catholic (and Orthodox) view of sexuality is the most humane, healthy and elegant idea imaginable. I'm not going to pretend that it's not somewhat exotic to me still, because I come from the same culture as you all. But I have come to believe this is the right way to be.

Reprise, you write that sex is fun, but I know you must also understand that there are many more dimensions to sex than just entertainment. There is a reason it has to be regarded with more gravity than going to Six Flags. Like all human appetites, sex has to be tempered or it becomes unhealthy. It should be understood relative to its purpose, just like when food becomes too divorced from its primary function as fuel for the body, it causes physical and psychological problems. Sex can become excessive just like eating or drinking, but because it is so fundamentally social in nature I believe it is even more destructive when out of balance.

You also speak of the naturalness of sex and question why people should "be denied" it. I agree sex is natural, but if naturalness is your concern, why do you endorse a practice that untethers it from its equally natural counterpart ie children? How can we expect that such a change would not have a profound impact on society? I'm also not advocating that people be denied sex, I am saying people should have sex when it is actually appropriate to do so. However, going without sex is a perfectly okay way to be as well, and can free people up to focus on other things. This is why some people choose to live celibate lives. People are not entitled to sex, surely you must agree. To me that is the mentality of rapists, but it is a common attitude in our society today.

To get into specifics, I'm gonna refer specifically to the Catholic byline on this issue. Catholics believe that sex has two purposes, the first being procreation, the second being the forming and deepening of the emotional bond between a couple. Catholics are asked to engage in sex only if they are "open to the possibility of forming new life", even if infertility etc would make such a possibility very unlikely. Natural Family Planning is approved by the church, but when you think about it it works out because it simply reinforces the importance of self-control and moderation when it comes to sex. If you want to know more details about this type of thing, it's an easy one to quickly Google for.

We live in a time when people compartmentalize sex as much as possible so that we can all indulge in it as much as possible. The consequences of this can be seen in the breakdown of families, the proliferation of pornography, countless unwanted pregnancies (and the ensuing psychological effect this has on women), the further atomization of every human being in our society, greater power in the hands of capitalists who now also own women as a class of workers (not fully possible before widespread use of birth control and abortion) and who have successfully devalued the family to a status below personal success and """freedom""". This is a great way to demoralize and destabilize entire nations. The view of women as sex dispensers used to be limited to prostitutes, now we are all caught up in it. Gender roles in general are in flux, but for women and girls this has mostly meant a self-concept centered on satisfying men's now shameless, uninhibited sexual impulses. Older women used to have a place in culture as mothers and grandmothers, now they are some of the most invisible, dehumanized and trivialized members of society. I could go on and on.

I'm not interested in debating this per se because believe me, I know that everyone disagrees. If you want me to elaborate on some points I will though, I realize this might not explain much.

[duovamp]

This turned into the dumbest goddam bullshit thread ever, thanks to Trollbag. 2/10

So women controlling their ability to be pregnant is bad because men are not to be trusted.

Also Christian logic for procreation-only sex is fine.

If this were order 66 we'd all be robbling quietly. I feel like I'm Michael Bluth and you're all the other cast in Arrested Development and you can't help yourselves to respond to obvious trolling from Charmy and TOC every fucking time they post.

[Trotskilicious]

Chams, republican is a belief system that i mock, accurately.

Male is not a belief system.

That is all

[null123]

Trotsky, I said male leftists (should ******* moderate liberals too)

[null123]

Also please spare me your tears you've called me a cunt and a "mean lesbian" over the years, let's not do this.