It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beezzer
Sex as a recreational pursuit should not be subsidized by tax payers.
Originally posted by Biigs
Originally posted by beezzer
Sex as a recreational pursuit should not be subsidized by tax payers.
Sex is as natural as eating, is eating taxed?
Originally posted by pasiphae
here's a thought. how 'bout the pill gets put on the shelf next to the condoms at an affordable price? lets level the playing field.
the pill is not like condoms. it's not an "as needed" sort of thing. once you get on it you need to stay on it for it to be effective which means a bill of $30 - $150 a month (depending on the type that is right for you) whether you have sex with your husband once a day or once a year.
i think this argument is odd in this day and age. it seems made up and silly.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by Biigs
Originally posted by beezzer
Sex as a recreational pursuit should not be subsidized by tax payers.
Sex is as natural as eating, is eating taxed?
If you don't have sex for a month, you don't die.
Try not eating for a month.
Sex is just a voluntary act between two people that utilizes genitals. It's like dancing. But without all the sweating.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Beer is never NEEDED.
Blasphemer.
Originally posted by Starchild23
Ms. Fluke pretty much made herself out to be a whore, in my opinion.
Any woman who sleeps with someone just for the pleasure of it, and not as a manner of bonding...especially if she does it frequently...is a whore.
Free birth control? Why not just tell all of America to be promiscuous and sleep with whoever you like?
I thought prostitution was illegal, and rampant sex was frowned upon. A little integrity, please...
Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by beezzer
sex is biological. the reality is.... WE ALL HAVE SEX.
also, no one seems to have brought up the point that insurance agencies have been covering it for YEARS. no one complained before.
Originally posted by Biigs
Okay hows this!!!!
Somone frustrated by lack of sex due to the fact they cant aford it (with their partner!!!!), might lead to crime or mental issues (like depression)
Sex makes people normal when they are in a relationship, gues what happens to ones that dont...... yeah they go else where.
Its a great idea and its not even going to be (in the sceme of things) very much money at all! 5 years later everyones admireing the lowered birth rate and HAPPY couples
edit on 3-3-2012 by Biigs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mastahunta
Originally posted by theRhenn
Originally posted by Nephlim
reply to post by schuyler
weak argument..
less births equals less money the state has to pay to support poor single moms/ unwanted children. preventitive spending.
more alcohol equals more money the state has to pay for rehab, stopping drunk drivers. medical industry has to put higher premiums because alcohol related injuries (car) are the number one killer and maimer of people under 35.
saying birth control is recreation and not worth paying for is a valid argument, but you have to remember that its a preventive cost. and comparing it to free alcohol just does not work.
That's easy.. Mandate that BC MUST be used by all wellfare recipients.
Shiner for me please!
Only if you mandate it for all right wing couples.
Originally posted by pasiphae
here's a thought. how 'bout the pill gets put on the shelf next to the condoms at an affordable price? lets level the playing field.
the pill is not like condoms. it's not an "as needed" sort of thing. once you get on it you need to stay on it for it to be effective which means a bill of $30 - $150 a month (depending on the type that is right for you) whether you have sex with your husband once a day or once a year.
i think this argument is odd in this day and age. it seems made up and silly.