I’m presenting a series here called "Exposing the Religious Right."

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I’m hoping that, through this series on the Religious Right (RR), I can shed some light on the RR, especially to other conservatives and Republicans who are wary of the RR.  This is not necessarily to defend the RR and every typical policy position of the RR, but to explain that there is a logic and practicality to the positions and activism of the RR, as opposed to mere animus and ignorance, as critics allege.

Let’s get to one of the main positions of the RR.

Sex is For Marriage

Much of what the RR is known to stand for hinges on this.  And yes, probably a majority of people in the U.S. do not adhere (or have not adhered) strictly to this moral - including people who believe it to be true.  It is an ideal in which even people who don’t behave accordingly may be able to see some truth.

Let’s consider this ideal for a moment.  Sex is for marriage.

What an awful, horrible idea, right?  I mean, if everyone followed this rule, all of those experts, medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, charity fundraisers, and coroners who make a living off of people contracting sexually transmitted diseases (including HPV, a strain of which causes cervical cancer, and HIV, which causes AIDS) might not have as much work.  And think about how much writer’s block there would be in the media, and the difficulty for the sex and porn industries!

If everyone followed this rule, the number of crisis pregnancies would drop severely, business at abortion clinics would drop severely.  If everyone followed this rule, the number of abandoned children would drop severely.  If everyone followed this rule, the number of children born into abusive and/or poverty-possessed and/or fatherless households would shrink significantly.  Rape wouldn’t exist, although it would be replaced by some other form of violence - because even though we know that “rape is about power and violence, not sex”, it involves sexual acts, which can spread disease and cause pregnancy.

How much jealousy would be avoided, how many marital arguments and difficulties wouldn’t happen, how many reputations wouldn’t be tarnished, how many people would stop wasting time, energy, money, and their hearts on someone who isn’t right for them if people followed this rule?

Wouldn’t that just be awful?  Who wants to live in a world like that?  I say the temporarily physical thrill of fornication is worth the pain, the death, the higher health costs, the diminished enjoyment of marriage, the social complications, the crisis pregnancies, and everything else!

Now, all sarcasm aside, I realize that, on some level, most men and a smaller percentage of women don’t want to go through any post-pubescent life without a sex partner or multiple sex partners, and there’s a lot of responsibility that comes with marriage that some people want to avoid, while not missing out on sex.  But on the societal level fornication has no upside (except maybe for those who making a profit on shattered lives, as I noted above), and on the personal level there’s a good chance that the negatives will outweigh the positive, which is mainly temporary physical, emotional, and psychological pleasure.  Even if you deny any spiritual consequences, and manage to avoid unwanted pregnancies, STDs, embarrassment, etc., if you ever plan on getting married, unmarried sex is harmful to your marriage.

If you want to blast the RR for their stance on this one, I’d have to say that you lose.  You may not like what’s good for you and society, but it doesn’t mean the position is wrong… it just means you don’t like being reminded of the truth because it makes you feel guilty or you think it makes you look bad to others.

So, can this moral be codified in law?  Only in part.  I don’t know of any RR leader that advocates that police be able to execute warrants to forcibly enter bedrooms and hotel rooms to arrest people who aren’t married to each other strictly for having sex on a voluntary basis.  In addition to privacy concerns, it’s not practical.  However, people in the RR are likely to oppose any attempt to codify into law a “right” to sex outside of marriage.

In other words, doing this even in privacy would be discouraged and frowned upon by a member of the RR, but they wouldn’t go so far as to advocate that you be hauled off to jail.  So, why do you care if someone from the RR believes and proclaims this moral?  How does it harm you?  It only harms you in the sense that the RR does not agree that certain things commonly related to sex outside of wedlock should be “rights” that you should be allowed to codify into law – things I’ll get to later.

There ARE exceptions - instances where the law does (or has in some places in some times) restrict or regulate sexual activity - activity involving at least one person’s sexual organs - outside of marriage, including:

-Knowingly exposing another person to an STD without their consent.
-“Alienation of affection” (adultery).
-“Breach of promise” (not marrying after having sex).
-Homosexual activity.
-Incest.
-Uh, “with animals”.
-Restrictions on “adult” businesses.
-Restrictions on “obscenity”/pornography/erotica.
-Prostitution.
-Sexual harassment.
-Indecent exposure.
-Rape (which, as we all know, is an act of violence, but it does usually involve sexual organs/gratification of the rapist).
-Sex with someone under the age of consent (statutory rape).
-Molestation.
-Child support – where the law forces a man to pay for his children, whether or not he wanted to be a father, because he used his genitals.  (Women who do not want to be mothers can legally abort their children or even surrender them to within 72 hours of birth.)

In some of these cases, it does become a matter of government force being used to regulate or restrict things you are doing with your own organs, and I know for some of that list, the majority or a significant minority of the U.S. would say that some or all levels of government should not be involved in those matters.  I also concede that for most of these, there are more principles involved than simply “sex is for marriage,” such as consent, public health, etc.  However, we do see that the law can, has, and continues to regulate sexual activity to some extent, though it would be impossible to legally enforce a law that restricted sex to marriage.  I as I wrote earlier, I don’t know of anybody in the RR that advocates this.  What the RR does advocate is that people should live by this moral, and should not expect to be protected by law from the consequences of not adhering to this moral.

I do not see anything wrong with the RR’s stance here.  You may not like it, but I do not agree that there is something wrong with the RR for having this stance.

Contrary to what we commonly hear in the MSM, sex is held in high esteem by the RR.  The RR thinks sex within marriage is not dirty but is to be glorified, encouraged, and participated in enthusiastically.  There are numerous books, articles, websites, and seminars dedicated to this notion.

Understanding the RR’s belief that sex is for marriage will explain many of the other stances taken by the RR.  We’ll start getting into those next time.