Life to the full, not a life full of restriction

(Warning: This post talks about sex and condoms - you may not want to read it!)


Taxpayers fund flavoured condoms
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 21 August 2008

"Flavoured condoms will be subsidised by taxpayers to encourage safe sex and reduce the risk of disease and unplanned pregnancies.

... Conservative lobby group Family First has labelled the subsidised flavoured condoms as "morally bankrupt and an insult to people with breast cancer, high blood pressure and heart disease". It called for the Government to reverse this spending decision. National director Bob McCoskrie said it was "tragic and a national disgrace". "At a time when Pharmac can't find funding for sufferers of breast cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure and other serious problems, that they can find funding to subsidise flavoured condoms," he said.

"This is simply about funding sexual behaviour that shouldn't be at the cost of the taxpayer or other more life-threatening medication. "Is Pharmac going to consider subsidising sex toys next?" He cited a number of people missing out on funding for drugs. "Yet Pharmac can find funding for strawberry flavoured condoms."




So condoms are akin to sex toys are they? Having sex with your husband or wife is "sexual behaviour that shouldn't be at the cost of the taxpayer"? Many varieties of the contraceptive pill are taxpayer funded, does McCoskrie vehemently oppose this too? Do we want more unwanted children in New Zealand, forcing everyone that chooses to have sex to become pregnant?? This is religious correctness gone crazy!! I believe that God likes sex and that he encourages it within the healthy borders of marriage. Because I choose not to take the contraceptive pill, should I be forced to either become pregnant or not have sex with my husband?


And to add to the confusion, McCoskrie's own Family First website states that "according to statistics, married people enjoy better sex... God created sex to be most enjoyable within a committed marriage relationship". But God also said you can't get government funded condoms to enjoy this sex, right.....?? And as far as I've heard, if you were to have an unwanted pregnancy, and get an abortion, Family First would criticise you, but if you decide to use condoms to avoid this, then you are even more harshly criticised.
Additionally, Family First states that it is committed to "addressing the scourge of HIV/AIDS", but yet opposes funded condoms.
So what are we supposed to do - damned if we do, and damned if we don't.


I kind of feel like Jesus came to give us freedom from all these attempts to create restriction, and "correct" behaviour - and would rather that we focus on our hearts and the intentions behind our behaviour.




(Sorry for those of you on a feed, who will be getting this multiple times as I edit it!)


(Aside rant: All this law-creating drives me mad - I believe that there are more useful things that Family First could be doing instead of arguing against every decision made by our government - For example, helping poor people, encouraging the downhearted, walking alongside those who aren't christians - rather than condemning everybody! If Family First could fight as hard to stop domestic violence as they fought to keep smacking 'legal' then maybe our country would be a better place?)