Much ado about contraception, and whether a religious institution should cover it under the health insurance for its employees. I actually heard, ok read, a conservative pundit say that women can't be protected from sex without consequence.
Nobody seems to worry about sending the wrong message to men about sex without consequences. I mean we shouldn't compel a religious institution to cover birth control pills because, of course, sex is only for pro-creation purposes. And of course men can be trusted with the prescriptions for viagra, or cialis, and that the resulting sex will ONLY be used for procreation. Men have too much integrity. I mean, WE never fake orgasm.
So, of course, birth control in any forms is wrong because it encourages sex without consequence. That's God's will right? If you're a man though, we are free to medicate against God's will. If God's will was for you to have a limp dick, THAT we can fix. Sex without consequence. What DOES that mean anyway? For a man, the only consequence of sex is........marriage I guess Sex without consequence? That's only for priests.