I pray we're not heading further down a slippery slope with the claims of actress Mackenzie Phillips that, as an adult, she carried on a decade-long consensual affair with her own father. (A child was slaughtered as a result, most likely to hide their actions.) It should be noted that her father isn't around to defend himself - and given his drug abuse, how could he really be sure what happened back then anyway - and that Phillips is promoting a book. Her sister Chynna backs up the claim by saying Mackenzie told her about long before a book was in the works. My analysis of the larger issues and public reaction is over at The Opine Editorials, if you can stomach more of this topic.

The Los Angeles Times, that great theological journal, continues to cover the homosexuality advocacy within the Episcopal Church.  As if there was any doubt, their editorial board makes it clear that they are very happy.

But its recent pronouncements indicating support for openly gay bishops and church blessings for same-sex couples will have reverberations beyond that church, beyond Christianity and even beyond religion.

Most likely it will mean fewer members for the liberal churches and more fighting within the Anglican denominations.

For all the theological issues it raises, acceptance of gays and lesbians at the altar reflects -- and affects -- the campaign for equality in the larger society.

There is a slight of hand being used here.  My church accepts homosexual people.  It does not condone, let alone celebrate, homosexual behavior.  There is a difference.

One resolution calls for a "renewed pastoral response from this church, and for an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same-gender relationships."

Yes, but based on what?  Certainly not anything in the Bible or in church tradition.

The other affirms that God has called gays and lesbians to "any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church."

Again, based on what?  Warm and fuzzy feelings from the members voting on the matter?

Actually, Episcopalians already have seen an acrimonious parting of the ways between the national church and bishops and faithful who have aligned themselves with churches in Africa and South America that have more conservative (and in some cases crude) views about human sexuality.

It is crude to believe that sex is for marriage?

One could dismiss the fissure in the Anglican Communion as a purely internal matter that turns on theological issues of little import to non-Anglicans or non-Christians, such as whether the church's policy toward homosexuality should be guided by Jesus' seeming lack of interest in the subject or the condemnations of homosexuality in the Old Testament and the writings of St. Paul.

This argument from silence on the part of Jesus is ridiculous.  The assumption of Jesus' day among religious authorities and the faithful was that sex was for marriage, marriage united the sexes, and any sexual activity with someone other than your spouse was a sin.  If Jesus challenged such notions, then it is far more likely that would have been noted in writings more than some of the other things actually recorded.  After all, Jesus did challenge some notions of those in authority and common notions, and it was recorded.  However, what is recorded is that Jesus affirmed what we call the Old Testament as the Word of God.

They go on to equate this homosexuality advocacy push in the denomination with ordaining women, before finishing with...

Supporters of Proposition 8 weren't the only ones to cloak prejudice with piety.

Who is prejudging?  It takes a bride and a groom to make marriage.  If we want our state marriage licensing to reflect that, we are not prejudging.  The church is not to affirm and celebrate sinful behavior.  That is not prejudging.

Duke Helfand has more than one version of his story on the latest actions within the church posted online.  This is the shorter (earlier) version.  And here's the blog entry.

Episcopal Church leaders in Los Angeles today nominated an openly gay priest and an openly lesbian priest as bishops, becoming one of the first dioceses in the national church to test a controversial new policy that lifted a de facto ban on gays and lesbians in the ordained hierarchy.

The nominations of the Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool of a Baltimore-based diocese are likely to further inflame theological conservatives in the U.S. church and their global partners in the Anglican Communion, who have repeatedly warned about the repercussions of such action.

The two are among six nominees who will face election for two assistant bishop posts at the diocese's annual December convention in Riverside.

I want to know when "open" atheists will get a fair shake in being put into positions of power and leadership in the church.

In addition to Kirkley and Glasspool, the other nominees are: the Rev. Canon Diane M. Jardine Bruce of St. Clement's by-the-Sea Episcopal Church in San Clemente; the Rev. Zelda M. Kennedy of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena; the Rev. Irineo Martir Vasquez of St. George's Episcopal Church in Hawthorne; and the Rev. Silvestre E. Romero of St. Philip's Episcopal Church in San Jose.

The action in Los Angeles followed a similar decision Saturday by leaders in the Diocese of Minnesota, who nominated a partnered lesbian as bishop. The Rev. Bonnie Perry is rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Chicago and an adjunct professor at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill. Her longtime partner is a priest in the church.

On the one hand, I think it is kind of silly the paper keeps giving this so much attention.  On the other hand, I like how it helps warn those who are looking for a church.

One of the main purposes of a Christian church is to make disciples who will grow in their walk with Jesus.  Part of this involves repenting of sin - which means that although you may still struggle with it, you no longer call it right.  These people appear to be treating the church like a social club that also happens to be a charity.  The Bible clearly teaches that sex is for marriage (believe me, I've looked for a way around that) and that marriage is something that unites the sexes.  Any sexual behavior with someone other than your spouse is sinful.

Some people have a rather lame retort to these truths, citing other teachings in the Old Testament that they don't like or seem strange today, forgetting that some things are given in the Bible to a specific person or people for a certain time and with certain conditions.  Other things are given to all and reaffirmed as lasting.  One of the lasting things that applies to all is that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.  No church that uses the Bible as Scripture should be affirming, let along celebrating, homosexual behavior, or fornication, or adultery.  It doesn't matter how depraved the surround culture gets.  If anything, the church should be doing more to defend and promote morality the more the culture deviates from it.

As for the editorial writers and other homosexuality advocates - they don't really believe the Bible has any authority, though they may cite passages here and there that they like.  The worldview being used appears to be one that is not Christocentric, but rather focused on their own personal feelings and tastes.

Church membership in our country is strictly voluntary.  It is too bad that the homosexuality advocates couldn't stick with churches that seem to have been expressly created for unrepentant homosexuality participants ("metropolitan").  Perhaps more Episcopalians need to think about finding another church, or realigning their congregation with Bible-affirming Anglican organizations.  If the church is willing to abandon the Bible on this matter, what will be next?

But will none of them be allowed to sell ice cream?  Andrew Blankstein of the Los Angeles Times reports.

A measure that bars registered sex offenders from operating ice cream trucks in San Bernardino County has been unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors.

The ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, requires anyone seeking a business license to sell ice cream to undergo electronic fingerprinting that would be checked against state and national criminal databases. Violators could be fined $500 per day or face six months in jail or both.

Now, maybe the newspaper isn’t being precise in their terminology, but if this is a blanket ban on any sex offender from operating ice cream trucks, as opposed to child molesters or someone who otherwise has a history of crimes against children, then I think it is overreaching.

For example: Why should someone who got drunk at a Spring Break event and exposed himself to other drunk Spring Breakers ten years ago be banned from operating an ice cream truck?  Or, what if someone was caught in a prostitution bust once ten years ago?  Should someone who was convicted of statutory rape twenty years ago for having sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend when he was 18 be banned?

Let’s use some common sense here.

No, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for sex offenders.  But I think unfair or unnecessarily restrictive laws are harmful.  I think this kind of overreaching with legal force is a reaction to the promotion of license in the culture.  We claim we are more open and free about sex and more tolerant of alternative sexuality, but if someone messes up sexually, we crack down with extra force.  We make things unnecessarily complicated because we don’t want to tout that keeping sex within marriage is the ideal, and back it up with our actions.  We put our children in situations where it is more likely they will be abused (day care, or with a date, shack-up honey, or stepparent), and then try to prevent the abuse by trying to ban molesters from parks.  How about...watching your own child?

Geoff Boucher of the Los Angeles Times brings us a review on "Hollywood Father/Daughter Purity Ball", which is apparently presented in a Mexican restaurant in West Hollywood.  I could probably stop there and you’d already know enough, since West Hollywood is well known as a homosexual activist headquarters.

He initially describes the show this way:

a feisty satire of the purity ball movement that has become a staple of evangelical communities in Bible Belt states.

He then goes on to explain:

A purity ball, for the uninitiated, is a formal dance where young girls (usually teens and pre-teens but sometimes as young as 6) and their fathers come as a couple and each takes a pledge to protect the daughter's virginity until her wedding night. The dads often present their gown-wearing "date" with a ring to symbolize the commitment and then everyone dines on white cake.

So far, so good.

Purity balls began nine years ago in Colorado Springs, Colo., and supporters praise them as lovely galas that strengthen the bond between fathers and daughters and allow the youngsters to dress up like a ballroom princess in a wholesome setting laced with Christian imagery. But there's a considerable number of outsiders who reflexively find the whole concept more than a little unsettling; the plunging necklines, slow dances and constant talk of protecting "flowers" drifts a bit too close to those child beauty pageants that another Colorado resident, JonBenet Ramsey, once competed in.

It’s quite a stretch to link purity balls to child beauty pageants.  The latter often sexualize children, while the former aims to conserve and protect their innocence.  Plunging necklines?  Have they seen the way girls are dressing?  I guess a rave, freakdancing, or those spoiled-brat MTV Sweet 16 parties would be better?

He goes on to further describe the show as…

a bawdy spoof from a creative team that includes writer-producer Maggie Rowe, producer Laura Summer and Emmy-winning writer Jim Vallely ("Arrested Development"). Rowe has experience in tweaking born-again themes: "The Hollywood Father/Daughter Purity Ball" gets its inspiration from Christian-minded purity balls.

In 2004, she was behind "Hollywood Hell House," which presented a tongue-in-cheek adaptation of the "Hell House" script used for regional Christian haunted houses. Those real Hell Houses, an entrenched Halloween tradition in the Heartland, show gory images of the consequences of homosexuality, drug use and premarital sex.

The Hell Houses date to the early 1970s, but in recent history one of the most influential sponsors of the scare-them-straight events has been Pastor Keenan Roberts of (you guessed it) Colorado. As Rowe put it: "What is it with that state? When did it get so creepy?"

So it is “creepy” to present traditional values in a way that attempts to be relevant and entertaining?  I think it is creepy to sexualize children.

(The show got another last-minute curve ball when Bill Maher, scheduled to be the faux pastor for the show, backed out for personal reasons; Rowe said he is expected to be on stage Saturday.)

Ah yes- Bill Maher, the man who contributes so much to society.

The program centered on the fictitious Pilsner family, a screeching brood from Aurora, Ill., with three daughters and a son of questionable sexual orientation who, the audience is told, is fresh from Bangkok, where he does missionary work with local boys.

Ha ha- it is so funny when Christian parents have a child who is sexually confused.  Yes, that joke is just so original, isn’t it?  And let’s knock missionary work while we’re at it, as if there aren’t people all over the world right now sacrificing to help people who were strangers to them and living on the other side of the planet.

Also on stage was Fishes With Loaves, billed as an Orange County Christian folky improv group (think Will Ferrell's acoustic shticks on "Saturday Night Live") and the slightly lascivious Pastor Larry, portrayed by comedian Larry Miller, who riffed on the most current political sex scandal. "There's no toe-tappers here," he bellowed, "but we all take a mighty wide-sized stance."

I’m disappointed, Mr. Miller.  And here I wanted to run out and buy your book.

Rowe takes personal glee in lampooning the grass-roots theater of fundamentalist Christians.

Such theater can be ripe for lampooning – that I do not deny.  But so can mainstream hedonist theater.  I wonder if people really know what they are talking about, though, when they throw around the term “fundamentalist”?  Or does it simply mean to them “Someone who knows what they believe and why, and that I disagree with.”?

She said the "insidious" message beneath the surface of the purity ball scene is that young girls are "property," first to their fathers, then husbands, and always to God.

So, being slutty and fornicating somehow proves you aren’t property?  And I dare say that we - male and female - do belong to God.  He made us.  He will judge us.  He also created sex.  God certainly delegates to parents the task of protecting their children.  I think the real message they find insidious here is that sex is for marriage.  They don’t want to live by that standard, so they trash anyone who lives by that standard or suggests living by it.

"Marriage is a property transfer, and these events also completely festish-ize these little girls."

Property transfer – interesting words when it comes to marriage.  I’m assuming Rowe has never and will never accept alimony or anything that her husband earned?  Marriages without specific prenuptial agreements certainly are property transfers.  And what would you call a date where a woman fornicates with a man because she thinks he has money and/or he has spent a lot of money on her?  Isn’t that her conducting a “property transfer”?  As for “fetish-izing” the girls – the events extol the value of their bodies and hearts and the girls as people.  While the Godless hedonists cheapen and devalue sex, the true Christian highly values sexuality.

It isn’t hard to find criticism of purity balls from feministas, hedonists, sluts, players, cads, Leftists, and anyone who hates the notion that sex is for marriage.  They claim, as noted above, that girls are being treated as property.  They also say that these sorts of things are stifling the sexuality of these girls and making them feel shame if they don’t live by the standard of saving sex for marriage.  Also- what about girls who have already been raped?  And finally, they say that there are incestuous undertones to these events.

I’ve already dealt with the “property” criticism.  As for “stifling” – it is healthier to have boundaries than to tell children to go ahead and indulge their hormones and peer pressures with decisions that may have consequences for the rest of their lives.  Shame?  Shame is a good thing.  We should not drop our morals in order to protect someone’s feelings.  Rather, someone should be moral if they want to avoid shame.  As for rape- purity is more a matter of the heart than a physical thing.  A girl who has been raped is not in the least bit devalued by the Christian standard.  She is a victim of evil, not someone who has given herself away to someone else in fornication.  But just because there is the reality of the evil of rape does not mean we should refrain from celebrating and encouraging purity.

Their assertion that the purity balls have an incestuous overtone is especially insulting, given that it is their agenda that is more likely to lead to incest or incestuous thoughts:

-If it feels good, do it.
-What happens between consenting adults their own business.
-Sexualization of children.
-Immodesty
-Porn (How likely is it that a father whose daughter has appeared in pornographic materials may inadvertently stumble across that material?  Likely, if he has the same loose morals.)
-Encouraging sexual “experimentation”
-Being “nonjudgmental”
-Casual fornication, shacking up, divorce, remarriage, blended families, adultery, “reproductive technologies” that result in anonymous parentage
-Easy access to abortion on demand (thereby covering up incest).
-Sending underage girls to have abortions and right back into abusive households by fighting parental notification laws on the grounds that perhaps her father impregnated her in the first place.  Since the girl can get an abortion without telling any authority that a family member impregnated her, no authority will know she needs to be removed from the home.  Back she’ll go into that home!

But I have to wonder- do these people also oppose father-daughter dances at wedding receptions, or fathers escorting their daughters down the aisle at weddings?  Many of these women who bash the traditional belief that sex is for marriage still want the tradition of the engagement ring, the bridal showers, the wedding ceremony complete with white dress, and the honeymoon.  Yes, they still want those traditions, but they don’t want the values and morals that gave meaning to them.  They just want parties where they are the center of attention, gifts, vacations, and jewelry, because they are shallow, hedonistic, and materialistic.

Perhaps the critics had weak, absent, abusive neglectful, or otherwise bad fathers (picked by their mothers, I’d like them to remember) and thus can’t understand the value of a father’s participation in this aspect of raising daughters.  Surely, this will help more of the girls save sex for marriage.  I think it is better that more people strive to maintain the standard of saving sex for marriage as opposed to encouraging behavior that leads to a long trail of broken hearts, emotional baggage and dysfunction, STDs, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, abortions, children living without one of their parents, and so forth.

Purity balls can give girls many positive messages, such as that they are valuable children of God whose bodies, hearts, and sexuality are too important to give away and expose casually; they are of worth to men without fornicating with them; they are more than just sex objects; that their fathers will actively seek to protect them from those who would prey on them, pressure them, and take advantage of them instead of being indifferent of encouraging them to indulge their hormones and give in to peer pressure.  Underage girls are still learning to manage their impulses and feelings; their brains are still maturing.  They need their parents to guide them and guard them in many ways, including physically – including making sure they get enough sleep, eat right, maintain healthy hygiene, get proper medical care, and yes, have a healthy moral attitude towards sexuality.

Look, I don’t think fornication is the end of the world.  I actually think it is far worse for someone to marry the wrong person or marry too young out of horniness than it is too fornicate.  But those aren’t the only two options, and I do think it is best to save sex for marriage, and I think that purity balls, if done right, are a positive thing.  If you don’t want to to save sex for marriage, and you don’t want to promote the idea that saving sex for marriage is the ideal, you certainly have that freedom.  You also have freedom of speech, but why mock or work to undermine those who encourage their own children to save sex for marriage?  It doesn’t harm you if they do, and you don’t gain if they don’t – unless you are trying to fornicate with them or sell them abortions or you otherwise profit from fornication.  Perhaps you protest just a little too much.  Maybe, deep down, you understand that saving sex for marriage is the ideal, and you hate it that you can see that truth, even if you don’t live by it.

 

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.

I want to wrap up the sex-related issues that the RR addresses – teen sexuality, gay-straight alliances at school, prostitution, and “transgenderism.”  Again, the foundation for all but the last of these is that the RR maintains that Sex is For Marriage.

Teen Sexuality

This is about unmarried teens.  I don’t recall seeing literature from the RR discouraging teen marriages.  I would be interested in seeing statistics regarding teens who personally identify with the RR (especially ones that save sex for marriage) and whether or not they tend to get married younger than the population as a whole.

The RR rejects the resignation of many that “teens are going to have sex anyway.”  Their position is that if parents, the religious community, the local community, the schools, and the media all impress upon teens that saving sex for marriage is the right - and best - way to go, supervise them, and equip them with coping skills, most teens will avoid sex.  The RR sees authority figures such as schools teaching sex ed without traditional morality, surveying teens about their sex experiences, distributing contraception, and facilitating abortions as encouraging teens - who are already dealing with peer pressures, media influences, and raging hormones - to engage in sexual activity.  The RR sees these things as creating titillation and an expectation of sexual activity.  Sexual activity brings distractions, broken hearts, disease, pregnancies, and other issues the RR believes underage persons should not be facing.

Gay-Straight Alliances at School

Along these lines, many in the RR also believe that a school has no business officially hosting a club for students that is focused on their sexual attractions, such as “gay-straight alliances.”  Since the RR also believes that homosexual behavior is wrong, such clubs, in the view of the RR, promote harmful behaviors.

The RR has a big problem with much that goes on in the tax funded school system, and as long as their taxes are supporting those schools, they will have a reason to speak up about their objections, whether or not they have children of their own in such schools.  However, I’ll discuss that more in depth in a subsequent posting.

Prostitution

Prostitution is one of those areas where libertarian Republicans would disagree with the RR, but in a truly libertarian world, a prostitute could not walk a street without the permission of the private party that would own the street.  The RR’s opposition to prostitution and support for legally banning it goes back to the belief that sex is for marriage, and that the practice treats the body and sex as something to be bought and sold, degrades women, facilitates the abuse of women, and in the case to streetwalkers, is a blight on a neighborhood.  Some libertarian minded people ask if a line can really be drawn between prostitution and much of modern dating (a man pays for x, a woman sleeps with him), but the RR position reverts back to “sex is for marriage,” paid or not, and prosecuting prostitution that can be proven (such as when money is exchanged) should continue.

“Transgenderism”

As for “transgenderism,” the RR believes men and boys should identify as males, and women and girls should identity as females.  The Bible states that God purposely created the two different sexes.  The RR does not support anyone dressing as the opposite sex any more than it would support someone dressing as a police officer who isn’t a police officer.  It doesn’t support someone having surgery on their genitals and getting hormone treatments to pretend to be someone of the opposite sex.  People who want do such things, the people in the RR tend to believe, need psychiatric help just like the people who want to amputate perfectly healthy limbs or believe they were born a tree trapped in a human body.

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.