Speaking of Dr. Laura, if you look for stuff written about her online, you can find all sort of angry ranting about her.  That’s how I found this.  Since it was put online publicly, I feel free to analyze it publicly.

Andrew in southeast Alabama posted an entry entitled “Shacking Up” on his blog. He’s talking about a phone conversation with Rosa, a woman with whom he is fornicating.


Daughter, eh?  Is her daughter still a minor?  If she is, then Dr. Laura would say Rosa shouldn’t be dating or fornicating, so I can already see that Andrew would not like Dr. Laura.


Why apologize for pointing out the obvious truth?  If Rosa is looking for marriage, she is better off dating men who want to get married and are ready to get married.


No, shacking up is when she lives with you.  You’re just fornicating without the shacking up part.  As for the “unpaid whore” label, I think “fornicator” is a better term.  Dr. Laura and many other women imply (some specifying, actually) that women should be compensated for sex.  For some reason, enjoyment is compensation enough for men, but not for women.  I understand that women tend to desire a feeling of security and love and commitment and those things make sex more enjoyable for them.  Actually, they make sex more enjoyable for men, too.  But that is not the point. The point is that some women, as Dr. Laura has pointed out, have no problem having sex with men they’ve barely met.  So clearly they don’t need security, love, and commitment to have sex and enjoy sex.  So if both parties are getting their jollies, why should one require additional compensation?

But I have gone off on a tangent.

Rosa is a fool to fornicate with Andrew in this manner if she wants a lasting, happy marriage.  Fool and fornicator are the labels that fit.


This is a common tactic these days.  Fornicators don’t like being told that sex is for marriage, so they point out to the person who says sex is for marriage that they aren’t perfect, either.  This, of course, does nothing to counter the moral proposition that sex is for marriage.  As for Dr. Laura, she has admitted to past anorexia.  So what?  If she needs to put on weight now, she need not eat a cheeseburger to do it.

Now on to the comments after the blog posting, prompted by his casual reference to Dr. Laura.

“Bridget” wrote:

(“justLacey” basically repeats this again later in the comments)

Here again is a ridiculous argument.  Because Dr. Laura posed nude for private pictures long ago (this is long before the digital pictures online) taken by someone with whom she was fornicating (and yes, she made mistakes), she can’t point out that fornicating is a bad idea?  That doesn’t follow.  Everyone sins.  So, what these people really want is nobody to ever bring up morality, because everyone has sinned.  Strangely, they think it is wrong to tell people what is right and wrong.  Therefore, we shouldn’t listen to them.


This is a non-argument.  The date on the calendar does not determine morality.


This is true.  But it does not negate that too many people also jump into fornicating because they want to, and broken hearts, bonding with the wrong person, STDs, and unmarried pregnancies are the result.

“Anonymous Boxer” wrote:

This is another stupid “counter” that doesn’t address the issue at hand.  Dr. Laura haters cite a lack of or a strained relationship between Dr. Laura and her late mother.  But you know what?  It takes two to make a relationship work, and Dr. Laura did not choose to be born of her mother.  We don’t really know what was going on there.  As for her son, a MySpace page that may or may not be his had some rough material on it that may or may not have been put there by him, relating to his military service.  Assuming he did put it there, a person should be judged on their behavior, not that of their family members.  Duh.

“Lady Elaine” then treats us to the tired old “open letter to Dr. Laura” that was written by someone in a tizzy over her pointing out the truth that the Bible teaches against homosexual behavior.  This letter was adopted by lazy “West Wing” writers, who had a character go on a diatribe against a talk show host and the Bible.

Here is a decent response:
http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/DP801.pdf

Anyway, there is no shortage of bad arguments online.  Dr. Laura has helped many people through her show, books, and other means.  If you don’t want to live by traditional morals and values, then so be it.  You don’t have to listen to her, you don’t have to read her books.  Meanwhile, those of us who want godly, lasting, happy marriages where both femininity and masculinity are affirmed and enjoyed and where children are the priority will continue to be thankful for what Dr. Laura and others like her do.