This issue at hand has nothing to do with The family unit. Though I'll admit that family units are involved, as are the rest of the family jewels.

GfS's arguments could not be more bogus.

It did no good for the ladies to point out to him that the majority of women who use birth control are married and using it to behave responsibly. Or for that matter that unmarried women using birth control are being responsible.

>>Note: ED is usually cause by psychological reasons, not the plumbing, unless there is very low testosterone levels. )Medical FACT, so don't reply whining about this one, too!)<<

The above is nonsensical in reference to this debate. Unless he is saying that Viagra IS prescribed for psychological problems and we should pay for that. For one thing, sugar pills are much cheaper, for another, Viagra IS prescribed for a particular "plumbing" problem.

GfS seems to be trying to switch the debate from ethics to morality. The problem is that he is claiming a moral superiority that exists only in his mind. Carly Fiorina, was not compairing married, faithful men to single promiscuous women when she, McCain's representative, made that complaint. She was comparing all men to all women. At the core GfS is arguing that only men behave morally therefor they deserve to have their sexual lives subsidized by health insurance, while women do not. If you believe that men are more sexually moral than women then continue to argue with him. But don't let him foolishly claim moral high ground that no man has ever had.

My opinion is that birth control is as much a health issue as ED and fairness demands equal treatment. Certainly a man with ED and a woman without contraception both have the option not to fuck. The consequences of doing without the treatment are much more serious for the woman and potentially much worse for society. The insurance companies are