My post was not made with liberals or conservatives in mind. The rationalization for calling Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" just because she's an ignorant ex-politician or because the guy saying it does stand-up comedy are not valid excuses in my opinion. Would it be okay to call an ignorant gay politician a dumb faggot? Would it be okay if it was coming from a conservative comedian who hosted a political talk show? My point is that people shouldn't always view things through a narrow Republican/Democrat scope and responding with "that quote is more akin to liberals..." doesn't not help.

That said...


I agree with this.

I'm not a liberal or a Democrat.

Again, you have a semi-point, but comparing vasectomies to "birth control" is pretty drastic.

I already pointed out that health insurance would cover both vasectomies and tubals. These decisions, although they can sometimes be successfully reversed, are meant to be 'final'.

On the other hand, most birth control is used as a temporary measure even for people who plan to have large families later on. "I don't want to have children right now" vs. "I never want to have children" (or "any more children") are two very different medical decisions.

Logically, though, I would agree that, for some men & women (who may not be able to afford the elective surgery or may have some psychological or physical reason for not having it), ordinary birth control may be their only 'permanent' option during their child-bearing/producing years, so there would be a logical argument for covering birth control as much as for opting for permanent surgical remedies.

BTW, Fluke's argument was not whether insurance companies should be able to offer coverage for birth control...it was whether a church-affiliated school should be able to deny coverage for birth control. It was a debate between religious liberty and public health concerns, wasn't it? So all of our talk about whether birth control ought to be viewed as preventive care, treatment for a condition, etc. doesn't really matter when the issue is whether the government has the right to impose such requirements.

You're right that I lumped you in with liberals (I rarely listen to Limbaugh and don't always agree with his views/tactics), but that's not the problem.

The problem is that Limbaugh was criticized for making a logical assumption, and no one has offered any hard facts to dispute his assumption. Rather, the only facts offered support Limbaugh.

I think the discussion on whether or not health insurance companies should cover birth control is a valid one, and I would like to hear both sides of the issue.

My problem isn't with Limbaugh's opposition to health insurers covering birth control. It's his claims that the amount paid for birth control over 3 years would determine whether or not someone was sexually promiscuous.

I'm pretty open minded so explain to me how the figure Fluke came to would equal a sexually promiscuous lifestyle.

I don't think a religious affiliated school should deny certain health coverage based on their religious beliefs. For example an Islamic-affiliated school in the US denying certain kinds of health coverage just because it goes against something in the Koran.

No, admirably (IMHO), you already went on record saying that there's no excuse for anyone to use vulgar language in public discourse. I totally agree with those sentiments and have often said so here.

I even criticized Limbaugh's use of the term "slut"...not because his main point was wrong, but because it distracted from the logical point he was making and actually negated his argument by becoming the focal point. People acted as if Limbaugh simply called her a name out of the blue...which he may have done with others, I don't know (although several liberal commentators have had to make tearful apologies for doing just that). My irritation was that critics (mostly liberal) seized upon that one word...which was a term commonly applied in the past (and, indeed, in the present) for an unmarried woman engaging in seemingly unlimited acts of intercourse (presumably, with a series of partners).

Limbaugh's argument was thus: If birth control could be obtained as cheaply as $9 per month...approximately $108 per year...then 3 years worth of 'birth control' (which most people assume is the pill) would cost around $324...NOT the $3,000 figure thrown out by Fluke in her testimony. For her figure to be necessary, the woman would have to be using some other means of birth control, such as condoms...and a LOT of them. Since each act of intercourse would require one condom, $3,000 would buy a lot of condoms...which equates to a lot of whoopee-making...which leads to the satirical observation that such a person would traditionally be known as a "slut" (incidentally, I believe that studies have shown that WOMEN are much more likely to view other women this way than would the 'paternal' WASP men who feminists decry so much). That's his argument in a nutshell, and it was very apparent to the unbiased (and probably even to the biased, except they saw the opportunity to make a whole lot of hay out of the comment and to distort the intent to turn it into an unprovoked attack with no purpose).

I don't recall all of Fluke's testimony although I saw many long excerpts from her testimony shown on C-Span, but what I remember is that she presented the $3,000 number as being for the cost of the pills...NOT the extended cost of doctor visits, etc. She did mention that some women are prescribed b.c. to treat other conditions, but this obviously does not represent the majority of the women she was claiming to represent.

If Limbaugh had substituted "promiscuous" for "slut", it would still have been thrown up as being an unproved attack on women although the story wouldn't have had legs. Limbaugh showed that he was not only tone-deaf to how effective the counter-attack on him would be but also that his ego gave him a false sense of invulnerability, which resulted in his being forced to apologize for the language even though his premise was entirely valid.

Why not?

So you're saying that a religiously-affiliated school should have to offer insurance coverage to cover things such as trans-gender surgeries despite their belief that this is morally wrong? Or that they should have to offer coverage for abortions despite their belief that it is murder?

Already, those businesses who serve the public are forced to provide services that violate the conscience of the owners...or to choose the alternative and close their doors.

Are you saying that that private organizations should be forced to make the same choice?

Isn't this the very definition of the violation of the separation between church and state? And denial of religious freedom?

The affected individuals can always purchase insurance elsewhere, go to school elsewhere, work elsewhere. Why should their beliefs be imposed upon the organizations?

Wouldn't that argument on Limbaugh's behalf only work if Fluke had said she was talking about condoms and not any thing else?

Can post a quote where she specifically claims $3,000 is only for the cost of pills. I found a youtube clip but she just says that over 3 years the cost of contraception was $3,000. That could be condoms, pills, depo shot, whatever.

And even if it was for condoms, how would that make you sexually promiscuous? Promiscuous means that you have many partners or indiscriminate when it comes to choosing partners. If you have one boyfriend or one girlfriend and you go through alot of condoms that would not meet the definition of promiscuity.

If we're talking religion, do you think the US should repeal its laws against polygamy to respect certain religions?

Just out of curiosity, I checked the prices of condoms on Amazon. Of course, prices per box varied wildly (there was a box of 100 for around $15), but an average price was around 50 cents per condom for the "name brands" (Trojans, etc.).

If a person used 3 condoms per day (and assumed the total cost of the condoms rather than splitting the cost), that would come to around $45 per 30-day month for around 90 instances of intercourse per month.

I guess times have changed since the rigorous study sessions portrayed in The Paper Chase...and maybe law students do have sex 90 times per month and that isn't considered promiscuous or excessive by modern standards...but that still would only come to about half of Fluke's estimation.

Then again, maybe having sex 6 times per day every day for 3 years (180 times a month) IS pretty normal (I'm sure DVDTalkers average around 500 incidents of intercourse per month...not counting all of the menages & orgies, of course...but that would only pad the figures and would be bragging).

For a woman to be called a slut (or nympho) in 2012, she'd probably need to engage in intercourse well over 1,000 times per month (about 33 times per day).

Then again...law school ain't cheap!

No, but I'm one of those strange ones that think that the majority religion (Christianity) should inform the laws rather than the other way around. Obviously, there must be a recognition of civil laws when religious practices contradict those laws...which is why snake handling, human sacrifice, etc. can be logically banned.

It's the non-religious who are being contradictory if they oppose polygamy, consensual adult incest, etc. You either believe in complete marriage equality as one party repeatedly reminds us ("you should be free to love whom you choose"...applaud, applaud)...or you are willing to discriminate between acceptable unions and unacceptable.

Still, this is off-topic. Fluke wants the government to force religious institutions to adopt certain practices; the example you mentioned is the government denying certain practices.

I don't know anyone who thinks the government should be able to tell anyone that they HAVE to marry their sister...or have to have four wives (or husbands).

I think Obama is on the losing end of the religious freedoms debate. I can't see the Supreme Court upholding the contraception mandate especially reading Roberts and Ginsburg's opinions about the health care mandate. You don't really hear much of the topic on this show because I think Bill Maher realizes it's a losing issue for Obama.

Biden's an intelligent gaffe machine.

I don't believe that the laws should be based on the religion of the majority. I think that's the problem with some countries in the middle east where they have theocracies.


It's both actually. Polygamy was accepted and practiced from what I've read in the Old Testament, so religious people can be considered hypocrites for citing the origins of marriage and what defines it.

And the non-religious can be considered hypocrites if they're basing it solely on discrimination of consenting adults.

The topic I was commenting on was Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut and how people were excusing his slander and ignorance.

I don't believe that religion takes precedence over health concerns. If they want to offer health coverage but deny some coverage based on their faith, what's stopping a Jehovah Witness College from denying coverage of blood transfusions?


That analogy doesn't work. For it to make sense, the government would have to be insisting that the religious people of the institutions HAVE to take contraceptives themselves.

It's 2012 for fuck's sake, why is religion STILL in our political debates? I hate the fact that the Dems had to pander to the religious loons at their convention, let alone having Christianity "inform" our laws? Ugh, why can't republicans get out of the 18th century?

I am surprised that the cost of birth control is being discussed over 3 pages but hardly anyone has mentioned the contribution of perhaps one of the most intelligent guests of all time, David Simon. He made this show and it shows how it seemed he was the only person where when he spoke, no one was trying to talk over him. He made great points on fixing the economy, the war on drugs and state of print media.

I liked his point about the country being better in 4 years and how it's a ridiculous question.

All of Simon's points came down to "it's too complex", which is true, but difficult for a TV show discussion when you have to move from topic to topic quickly.

I don't agree with a lot of his politics and wish he could speak without swearing like he's a character from The Wire, but I totally agree that he immediately raised the level of the discussion and made the conversation riveting. I did think he was going to jump across the table & slap Van Dan Heuvel once when she interrupted the discourse once too often.

It seemed that the audience actually listened more intently to him than they do most guests.

Simon's a liberal but he raises interesting points. Too bad more guests (liberal and conservative) don't come across as more balanced & interested more in actually solving problems than scoring political points.

???? Strange question.

Are you complaining about the parade of politicians whose main talking points consist of talking about their 'beliefs', "fair shares", what is "right" for the country, etc.? Both sides constantly refer to the 'core beliefs' of their respective parties.

What is the difference between someone basing policies upon what their parents have taught them as children and what their church taught them? If each person says that it is the 'right' thing to do to help those truly in need, do you recognize the validity of the 'secular' person while discounting the SAME notion from a 'religious' person?

As long as social policies are based upon subjective opinions, why shouldn't religious beliefs be the basis for policy as much as any other basis (unless you think people should just flip a coin when deciding issues of right and wrong, or should just take a poll)?

If the Democrats "had to pander" to the religious that must mean there's a substantive amount of religious people in the country. Why shouldn't there be a party that represents them and their beliefs?

I'm more displeased that the Democrats made alterations to their platform to be more like the Republicans. It's not a good thing if the only two parties we have have become less and less different because that means less choices for us.

Had to respond to this point. While it is clear that polygamy existed in Old Testament times and was permitted, it is also clear that the origins of marriage as instituted by God consisted of ONE man (Adam) and ONE woman (Eve). New Testament references to marriage reinforce this standard.

You might also note the N.T. passage about divorce which says that Moses allowed it due to the hardness of the Israelite's hearts; nonetheless, God hates divorce. I'm speculating here, but I would say that polygamy, while tolerated by God, was never intended to be the norm.

If you Google the topic of "polygamy in bible", you'll quickly find discussions offering different possibilities (such as the high mortality rate of men due to the brutal nature of the many wars which took place in those days...all you have to do is look at the effects on populations of large-scale warfare in the 19th and 20th Centuries), but that is all silent.

The fact that those marriage relationships instituted by God Himself and the biblical advice given regarding marriage exclusively applying to monogamous relationships should be a pretty clear indication of the original (and later) standard. In fact, when the Bible does comment on polygamous relationships, it often describes the negative effects (jealousy, contention & strife, abuse, etc.) that often accompanies those arrangements.

Considering the source it sounds like it's up for interpretation for those in favor and against polygamy. Is there any specific passages that outright prohibit the practice of polygamy? Is monogamy more a recommendation than a mandate in the Bible?

Besides that, apparently it wasn't set in stone if marriage was defined as between a man and a woman since Adam and Eve and yet polygamy was practiced and tolerated after that.

Maybe "tolerated" would have been a better choice than "permitted".

I think that most would apply the same principle as the regulative principle of worship (Only do what is specifically commanded and don't do what is not commanded). Since there are specific instructions regarding monogamy and none (that I'm aware of ) about polygamy (unless once considers the prohibitions against adultery to apply), most would go with the specific commands.

At best, I would think that some would try to argue that polygamy is not specifically prohibited (neither is pedophilia, for that matter), but that is quite different from beliefs such as those of the LDS whose prophet, Joseph Smith, originally COMMANDED its followers to engage in polygamy despite the objections of many (including, reportedly, Brigham Young...although he later became an enthusiastic convert to the practice). It was only when Utah's statehood became an issue that the Prophet of the Day reversed its former commands and now (officially) FORBADE polygamy...which makes one wonder how that was received by the saints.