Family Research Council Fellow: Society Should ‘Punish’ and ‘Shame’ Pre-Marital Sex

Pat Fagan, a senior fellow with the anti-gay, largely religious Family Research Council, recently wrote a scathing condemnation of marriage equality in which he also belittles anyone who has sex before marriage.

Trust me. I’m Christian.

In light of the Supreme Court’s upcoming cases on DOMA and Proposition 8, Fagan wrote that the Supreme Court already “wounded marriage” 41 years ago in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the decision that ruled states could not restrict the sale of contraceptives to unmarried individuals:

The Court played God by redefining the purpose of sexuality. In the process it unleashed sex’s destructive power detached from marriage. The Court could see rights to contraceptives in the “shadow” of the Constitution but could not see what a blind man could: the right of every child to married parents.

Having set chaos in motion in Eisenstadt, the Supreme Court quickly built the garbage bin for dumping sexual debris in Roe v. Wade, which gave a green light to the killing of 55 million unborn children, the overwhelming majority of whom were conceived by those unmarried singles with new access to contraceptives.

On Monday, Fagan appeared on the right-wing radio show “Washington Watch” with FRC president Tony Perkins to talk about his article. There, he advocated for some pretty intense ways to keep unmarried people from having sex:

what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong…

Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

I guess if we just got everyone to commit to abstinence until marriage, all the world’s problems would go away! But really, this is all rhetoric we’ve heard before, and it’s clearly not going to get us anywhere. It’s not like pre-marital sex didn’t exist or rarely existed before the Court’s decision and, if anything, access to contraception prevents abortions. Fagan should be thanking for the Court for that, not blaming them for their decision.

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a twentysomething working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • NewEnglandBob

    Does Fagan’s knuckles drag on the ground when he walks?

    • Sue Blue

      Well, if he’s still got fingers, it’s probably only the trail of mouth-breathing drool that keeps them from wearing down to bloody stumps.

  • corps_suk

    Cool, then will punish and shame the silly believers that try.

  • cnocspeireag

    How can anyone resist the obvious spoonerism of this guy’s name? Was he called ‘Fat Pagan’ throughout his schooldays?

    • Sue Blue

      Doubt it. These fine folks don’t have enough of a sense of irony or humor for that…just another of the many mental abilities they seem to lack.

  • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

    You’d think that people who were anti-abortion would be rabidly pro-contraception. But they almost never are, and I imagine it’s because what they really want is to shame women for their normal, healthy sexuality, since in their warped worldview, sexuality in women is neither normal or healthy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

      Maybe it’s because hormonal contraception is abortion. Although the first defense of hormonal contraceptives is to prevent ovulation, this doesn’t always work. So the second defense is to thin the lining of the uterine wall, thus preventing implantation after fertilization. What do we call preventing a newly formed homosapien with a distinct set of DNA from implanting in the uterine wall? Abortion.

      • Achron Timeless

        You have absolutely no idea how hormonal contraception works. Let me put it very clearly for you:

        IT. KEEPS. FERTILIZATION. FROM. EVER. HAPPENING.

        The only people who have ever claimed it was abortion are people trying to sell their religion.

        • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

          My wife is a nurse and her embroyology textbook would disagree with you. But what does she know. She’s only got a degree in the healthcare field

          • Sue Blue

            I’m an RN and I disagree with you. Hormonal birth control prevents ovulation. The endometrium of the uterus is thickened and maintained in preparation for implantation by hormones produced by the corpus luteum in the ovary POST-ovulation. So if ovulation does not take place, there is no conception, no corpus luteum, no implantation, no pregnancy. The estrogen in hormonal birth control also thickens the cervical mucus so sperm have difficulty penetrating it – so again, no conception. Also, conception (fusion of paternal and maternal DNA with resultant cell division) and implantation are two very separate events – the zygote takes up to five days to drift down the Fallopian tube into the uterus. Any number of things can happen during this time. The zygote may get stuck in the tube (BTW, how does your definition of the beginning of pregnancy jibe with ectopic implantations? Would you argue that these implantations count even though they’re not in the uterus and have no hope of viability?). It may have chromosomal abnormalities that cause cellular apoptosis. It may implant in the uterine lining, but become a hydatidiform mole (a mass of undifferentiated cells that invade the myometrium, never developing into an embryo). Hydatidiform moles may even become choriocarcinoma, a deadly invasive cancer that metastasizes to the lungs and brain. Monozygotic twinning takes place up to a week after conception. Then there are chimeras, conjoined twins, parasitic twins where one twin literally “eats” the other. My point is that conception, implantation, and pregnancy are not the beautiful, simplistic, straightforward process of becoming human that you and other anti-choicers portray. Contraception – especially hormonal contraception – solves a number of thorny problems. It allows a woman to have bodily autonomy; it avoids the reproductive problems mentioned above, and in the process saves lives and prevents tragedies. The ONLY reason that anyone – especially men – are against it is because of the control over their sex lives that it affords to women.

            • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

              So are you saying that ectopic pregnancies are not pregnancies?

              • Bad_homonym

                Hey troll, she asked your opinion since you were the one who argued that preventing implanting in the uterus is abortion! What’s your opinion of the various ways she pointed out that god aborts them!

        • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

          Planned parenthoods website would disagree with you.

      • Baby_Raptor

        You have no idea what that word means. An abortion removes an already active pregnancy. Pregnancy starts with implantation. If implantation has not happened, it’s not abortion. You don’t get to change definitions so it’s convenient to your arguments.

        Also, nice try with your “distinct set of DNA” bullshit. Having a distinct dna code doesn’t make something a person. Your fingernails have a distinct DNA code. So do dead skin cells. So does a dead body. Going to start calling all those things people now? Also, this definition completely cancels out the “personhood” of certain types of twins. Ever think about that?

        “Newly formed homosapien” is new…I’ll give you credit for that one. Still a lie, though.It’s not a newly formed person. It’s two tiny cells that, given a lot of time, luck and a slave to incubate in, *might* become a person.

        • atoswald

          Let me begin by saying … I am 100% pro-choice. That said, Paul is not completely wrong. Depending upon the type of hormonal birth control used, the effects can be to inhibit ovulation, to increase cervical mucus, and to thin the endometrium and (theoretically) inhibit the implantation of a blastocyst. From a mainly christian POV ( I am an atheist, BTW) the moment of fertilization is when life begins, so willingly preventing (by the use of birth control) embryonic implantation, in their mind, would be abortion. I don’t know if Paul actually agrees with this viewpoint or not, or if he was just commenting on why so many pro-lifers are against birth control. I will also add that we are not incubatory slaves unless we are unwilling participants in the pregnancy, which is why birth control and abortion are such important issues. As for Pat Fagan, there are no words to describe him, but knuckle dragging, moronic, misogynistic, fear mongering neanderthal might come close.

          • 3lemenope

            From a mainly christian POV ( I am an atheist, BTW) the moment of fertilization is when life begins, so willingly preventing (by the use of birth control) embryonic implantation, in their mind, would be abortion.

            Only lately. For most of the history of Christianity, this was not the case, with such figures as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas arguing through the years about when a fetus ceases to be a vegetative construct and starts being a person (they usually settled around the time it starts moving). Only since Christians decided they don’t like abortion (late 19th century) have they argued that they believe that life begins at conception. And the scriptural argument they use for it is even thinner than usual, an offhand comment that God “knew you before he formed you in the womb” in Psalm 82.

            • atoswald

              3lemenope, Most christians are not versed on their own history. I am simply speaking of christians in the here and now, as it, and their misguided beliefs, apply today. I think if christians truly understood the origins of their faith, there would be a lot more non-christins.

              • 3lemenope

                Fair enough. I just don’t like granting the “Christian POV” in this case as either a coherent construct (because it isn’t) or a valid one (they don’t get to make up their own definitions for words and physical processes). Implantation is the beginning of pregnancy, medically, and they don’t get to argue in seriousness that it is really conception rather than implantation because they’ve re-read Psalms this week. It is made only more egregious by the very, very long history of Christians going the other way on the issue.

            • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

              If Augustine and Thomas aquinas had DNA testing And microscopes then they would not have had to pose such questions

              • 3lemenope

                Quite so. They would have had the answer that doctors now have. That answer is, notably, not the one you favor.

          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

            I would like to clarify that I don’t share the views of pat fagan. Basic biology shows that life begins at the moment of fertilization.

        • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

          Pregnancy does not begin at implantation no matter how many planned parenthood employees say it. This is basic science. It begins at the moment of fertilization.

          • Quintin van Zuijlen

            Good, half of all pregnancies end in abortions then.

            • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

              In the US we cannot quantify it exactly but sadly it is a very high number. It’s also very sad

              • atoswald

                It is also a very natural, daily occurence. Thousands of women shed fertilized eggs every day, most are never even aware of it. It is basic biology, or I suppose you would have it as god’s will. Does that mean god is an abortionist? So what exactly do you propose happens for women, what solution do you offer? Should women lose all rights to their bodies? Should women who take birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (such as severe cramps, heavy bleeding and irregular periods) be denied this option? Should pregnancies be carried to term no matter the situation, no matter the risk to the woman’s life? Should men have entitlement or outright ownership over their wives? Where would you draw the line?

                • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

                  Sources?

                • Quintin van Zuijlen

                  Would a scientific paper putting the number at 50%+/-20% suffice? Well thn here you go: publish.uwo.ca/~kennedyt/t108.pdf

          • RobMcCune

            Pregnancy… It begins at the moment of fertilization.

            Does that mean the equipment used for in vitro fertilization becomes pregnant with the egg is fertilized? If so should said equipment carry the child to term?

            • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

              Invitrofertilization caused abortions as well. Now you are catching on.

              • RobMcCune

                Now you are catching on.

                You’re not, you failed to grasp that pregnancy requires someone to be pregnant.

      • JasmynMoon

        According to my doctor, the second defense for my birth control is to thicken the vaginal mucus to prevent sperm from being able to move to the uterus. But what does he know? He’s just a doctor, not an evangelical.

        • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

          That would be the first defense. Ask your doctor if hormonal contraceptives prevent implantation.

          • JasmynMoon

            You stated in your initial post that the first step was the prevent ovulation. That was correct. Now you’re claiming that thickening mucus is the first step. That’s not correct. Many birth controls work in a variety of ways. Mine has a few ways to prevent even fertilization. Granted, I have PCOS and I don’t ovulate regularly, and I’m unlikely to conceive even without it.
            Anyway, of course birth control prevents implantation. I never said that it didn’t. The beauty of birth control is that it prevents pregnancy. Fancy that, eh?

            Please don’t bother to respond to this. If I get an email from Disqus saying you replied, I will promptly delete it. I will neither be reading your nonsense or returning to the thread. I have fed you enough today, famished troll.

            • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

              I apologize I misread your post. We agree on the fact that contraceptives can prevent ovulation and can prevent implantation after fertilization. I however believe that this is abortion

          • Sunny Day

            Hormonal contraceptives such as plan b do not prevent implantation. If you have any evidence for that the pro life organizations in Italy would definitely like to hear from you. Since they actually have laws against that sort of thing and Plan B is available there.

      • CultOfReason

        So is it your contention that any woman who miscarries should hold a funeral service for the “deceased”, complete with casket, wake, and burial ceremony? I mean, after all, it’s the least we can do for a newly formed yet deceased homosapien with a distinct set of DNA.

        • baal

          And investigated for murder if she’s fallen down or manslaughter if she’s in a car accident and doesn’t also die with the conceptus?

        • Carmelita Spats

          Rep. Bobby Franklin of Georgia actually wants ALL miscarriages to be investigated by the local police as potential homicides…He’s a Teabagger and hates “Big Government”, except when it comes to compiling, documenting, interviewing, tracking, women’s menstrual cycles. I can’t even begin to imagine having to discuss a miscarriage with a police officer.

        • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

          As a matter of fact I do. Then again I am a catholic funeral director who has to listen to mothers wail over their babies and have to pick up as young as 2 month old feti from hospitals. If you were to do my job for one day the. You would be pro life too

          • CultOfReason

            I grew up in a Catholic household and am surrounded by Catholics constantly. Never have I heard of someone holding a funeral for a miscarriage. Late-term stillbirths, yes. But stillbirths are not the same as miscarriages.

            With a name like Grimm, sounds like you chose the right profession (assuming you’re not lying about your name or profession). Assuming you are telling the truth, then it would seem you have a vested interest in people holding funerals for every miscarriage. Business would be booming for you.

            • http://www.facebook.com/paul.grimm.14 Paul Grimm

              I do not own the business and do not get paid on commission. I’ve never heard the Grimm funeral joke before. *sarcasm

          • blasphemous_kansan

            a pro-life funeral director………I’m sorry but I just had to take a couple of minutes to laugh at this combination of words.

            Please, proceed with your totally credible argument in which you redefine words like ‘pregnancy’, ‘abortion’, and ‘life’ to fit your own preconceptions. It’s a totally unique argument that I’ve never seen before. [/sarcasm]

            Yaaawn.

          • Sue Blue

            You might want to ask your Catholic God why he allows conceptions that end in miscarriages, grotesque genetic abnormalities incompatible with life, pregnancies that turn into cancer, conjoined twins, placenta previa, placental abruption, PIH, eclampsia, Rh incompatibility, mosaicism….all those other things women might find tragic and appalling and might like to avoid. I’d also think a funeral director claiming to be pro-life might also be more concerned about the loss of humans who actually were breathing, conscious, independent beings. Why does your concern start with conception and end with (forced!) birth?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            2 month old feti? How did you see them? They’re the size of a kidney bean and get lost in all the big blood clots of a miscarriage, which are bigger than that. What did you bury them in, a thimble?

      • Carmelita Spats

        Keep talking like this because it will further marginalize your
        “pro-life” stance. Hell, I use your argument ALL the time when arguing
        with fundamentalist Christians so that they realize that if they vote
        for a personhood initiative, they will be outlawing chemical
        contraception as it “endangers children” and “starves babies who cannot
        attach themselves to the uterine wall”. This is EXACTLY why the
        personhood initiative in Pay-As-You-Pray-MISSISSIPPI, FAILED by a large
        margin. You sound like the lunatics from “The Pill Kills” group…They are crazier than an acre of snakes and two sandwiches short of a picnic…Apparently, the pill kills women and babies…

        http://www.thepillkills.com/

      • RobMcCune

        What do we call preventing a newly formed homosapien with a distinct set of DNA from implanting in the uterine wall? Abortion.

        You call it that because you have no idea what your talking about.

    • Agrajag

      They tend to be pretty much anti-anything-that-works. Young people have always had sex. And they’ll continue to have sex. And for most of them, most of the time, this is overwhelmingly a good thing.

      Now, there’s a few negatives. Risk of unwanted pregnancies being perhaps the largest one. What works against that is good, cheap, universal access to birth-control, and a culture that encourages and accepts their use. For the rare cases where birth-control fails, or humans being humans means that precautions wheren’t taken, there’s abortions.

    • http://twitter.com/KevinSagui Kevin Sagui

      I did, back when I was an anti-abortion Catholic. I mean, it made pragmatic sense: abortion is killing babies, there for let’s do everything we can to limit the number of abortions. What drove me away from that stance was the non-logic of the “pro-life” crowd being anti-contraception, anti-sexual education, kicking out teenage daughters for getting knocked up, opposing financial assistance for struggling new parents and consigning unwanted children actually carried to term to the hell that is foster care by opposing gay adoptions. The anti-choice crowd made me a pro-choicer, and I think that continually pointing out the hypocrisy of these positions can help show people who really do think they’re fighting for the rights of unborn children that their movement is more concerned with suppressing women than reducing abortions.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Yeah. And I don’t see them rushing in to adopt all those babies they “saved”…

  • Tim

    It’s been said before, but what kind of psychopathic creator would give you the overwhelming urge to have sex… starting when you are far too young to get married no less… then tell you “No no no! That’s bad don’t do it!”

    • guest

      The same kind who would put a forbidden tree in the middle of the magical garden.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        And ran the sewer lines through the playground, if you know what I mean.

    • Rovin’ Rockhound

      Well, then I guess the solution is to marry off the girls (because they don’t really care if unwed men have sex, really) before they are old enough to want sex. That way they’ll never sin.

      • pagansister

        Don’t they do that in some countries? Girls are betrothed almost at birth.

    • observer

      Well, considering all the other woes God has done to the human race in the Bible, having a strong instinct to have sex, while being told it’s evil, doesn’t seem that out of place.

    • C Peterson

      what kind of psychopathic creator…

      I think you answered your own question.

  • Bribase

    Wow! How much power does this guy think the supreme court has?

  • LoudGuitr

    I believe the term ‘uberdouche’ was coined for this troglodyte.

  • http://twitter.com/amandajhelling Amanda Helling

    Society did not shame pre-marital sex, they shamed women for having sexuality. It has been widely accepted for a very long time that men will have sex before marriage. The issue wasn’t that pre-marital sex was seen as incredibly sinful; the issue was that a woman who had had sex was considered damaged goods. (Not that I need to tell you this, I’m just disturbed by the revisionist history) Yay patriarchy!

    • ortcutt

      You’re perfectly right. Society has never taken a great interest in the premarital sexual behavior of men. Nobody is selling Purity Balls for young men make a pledge to keep their virginity until marriage. The goal is to control the lives of women, having them married and pregnant before they can take control of their lives.

    • Stev84

      More specifically, controlling women’s sexuality was the way they used to ensure lineage and paternity. They couldn’t tell who a child’s father was, but obviously you can tell who the mother is. So by keeping women on a tight leash, the men could usually make sure their kids were theirs.

      • ortcutt

        Didn’t work for Joseph.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Which is one point in favour of a matriarchal or matrilineal society.

        You KNOW if you gave birth to your kid!

    • Chris B

      There’s a twisted part of me that wonders what the effect would be on patriarchy if we reproduced like seahorses…

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    Fegan says “The Court played God” by allowing unmarried couples to buy contraception.

    I say Fegan is trying to play God by thinking its his job to control other people’s sex lives.

    Why do religious people spend so much time and mental energy thinking about OTHER people having sex?!!?

    • ortcutt

      They see our society as a community under the judgment of god, like the people in the Bible thought of their own societies. So, when someone sins, that’s not just their own personal problem, but a problem for everyone. God will withdraw his favor from a society that sins and tolerates sin and they see our government as established as a Christian commonwealth in order to enforce Christian sexual morality. Obviously, every word of this is complete nonsense, but that’s what they believe.

    • pagansister

      “Why do religious people spend so much time and mental energy thinking about OTHER people having sex?!!? Guess they like to fantasize. They already have a indivisible being they worship.

  • PietPuk

    Thius guy should move to Afghanistan, he’d be totaly happy there between the other Talibans.

  • The Other Weirdo

    This guy reminds me of when a company I used to work for offered discounts for employees who wanted to join a gym. The catch was that it was just that one gym, and it was a women’s-only gym besides. Of course, they phrased it to suggest that it was open to everyone.

    Same with him. When he says “young people”, he means “young women”, or really all women and girls. And when he means “society”, he means “Christian society.” These people need to stop using euphemisms in their speeches. Just say what they mean.

  • Rain

    Wow, Pat is lookin really spiffy these days.

  • C Peterson

    There’s really nothing to say beyond the fact that Fagan is yet another ideologically driven conservative who displays total ignorance about the subjects he discusses. Nature recognizes no such concept as “marriage”. It did, of course, create sex, but in humans, sex is not primarily for reproduction. Humans are not, by nature, monogamous. So Fagan fails to understand the basic biology, and attributes man-made institutions to nature. He defines “traditional” based on his own religious heritage, and overlooks all the other human traditions around sex and marriage, both current and past.

    His comments reveal that he has no credibility with respect to what he is discussing, and that he should be ignored.

  • Tainda

    Hey Pat, I LOVE sex and I’m a female! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

    Men like that are panicking because they are losing control over the women folk. Trying to grasp at what little authoriTAY they have left over their “flock”

  • blasphemous_kansan

    A recent Op-ed by Cal Thomas contains similar language: lamenting for the good ol’ days when it was acceptable to shun and shame someone for experiencing their sexuality. Obviously these wishes to hurt the undesirables reveals their respective authors as Level 10 douchecanoes, but I do relish this trend in the rhetoric for one reason :the tone comes off as concessional. It really seems that they know they’ve lost, that the Supreme Court will likely overturn DOMA, cultural attitudes will continue to shift, and another ridiculous culture war will hopefully begin the process of coming to an end. There’s no more talking points, no more ‘forced moral equivalence’ nonsense. Now it’s all just blathering about the inherent ‘evil’ that allowed us to come to this. Picking sour grapes.

    Given this reality, what are the hard liners to do? The only thing they ever do: double down. They’re left in the corner, whining, while everyone moves on. They’ll be there, whining about all the evil that has corrupted us while never actually trying to make the world a better place. They’ll be there, whining about how the young are so young, while their sad little view of the world withers and dies. They’re already that guy walking around with the sandwich board that says “THE END IS NIGH!!!” who nobody listens to, only they send out a press release instead of screeching on the street.

    They’re already irrelevant, and they know it, hence all the vague whining about the good ol’ days.
    Enjoy the future.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.hinchliffe Jason Hinchliffe

    Holy shit.

  • Thegoodman

    Holy shit that guy looks creepy.

  • Anon

    It’s funny actually, that people who are anti-single parents are also anti-homosexuality.

    As a lesbian cis woman I have no chance of getting accidentally pregnant. Which means any child I choose to have in the future will be the product of careful discussion between a potential future partner and myself.

    I figured out I wasn’t attracted to boys before I had a relationship with one. I was lucky in that I live somewhere where I could tell people without worrying I was going to be kicked out or shunned.

    On the other hand, as a child of a single parent family I would point out that the outlook is not always bleak. Certainly some parents fall short of the mark but some, like my mother and a couple of my peers, step the hell up and raise their kids. There are kids who, even if their parents weren’t so great, have the determination to get away from their past and move into a better future. What this guy is saying completely devalues both every single parent who has gone it alone and every child of a single parent family who has grown up and done something with their lives.

    I have a degree, I have a career, and I didn’t need a father figure in my life to get there.

    (and I will always remember the look on a couple of teachers faces when we were told to make Father’s Day cards and I piped up with ‘but I don’t have one’)

  • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

    If there was ever a reason for my wife and I to become swingers, this guy and his argument against pre-marital sex is it.

  • mandy

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around how giving unmarried people access to CONTRACEPTIVES will cause more unmarried parents. It seems a bit contradictory.

    • allein

      Because if they can have contraception they will have more sex and that leads to more frequent contraceptive failures because contraception isn’t 100% dontchyaknow and of course if they can’t have contraception they won’t ever have sex ever until they’re married and then of course they’ll want to have 82 babies so what do they need contraception for anyway?

  • Sue Blue

    Damn! How very inconvenient it must be to have to explain away all that stuff about Abraham and Hagar, Solomon and King David’s innumerable wives and concubines, and Mary’s premarital conception of Jesus in the Bible! Not to mention the incestuous relationships of Adam and Eve’s and Noah’s kids! In fact, I’d like to know exactly where today’s Christians got this funny idea of monogamous, virginal, one-man-and-one-woman “marriage”. It certainly wasn’t from God’s Holy Unabridged and Unadulterated Word!

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    “…unleashed sex’s destructive power…”

    Uhm, while there’s certainly room for Destructo-Nookie… sex isn’t… you know, “destructive”.

    • RobMcCune

      I can’t help but imagine a christian supervillain trying to unleash the destructive power of sex. When he discovers it leads to happy, well adjusted people, he looks on in horror and yells ‘Nooo! What have I done?’

  • ecolt

    Aborted fetuses were conceived by people with access to contraception? I mean, I know mistakes happen and there are rates of failure, but that statement inspires a great deal of facepalm.

  • kaydenpat

    “Society never gave young people that right, functioning
    societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral
    people, they shame people, they do whatever.”

    How exactly would society stop folks from having premarital sex? How many police officers would you need to enforce something like that? Funny how conservatives don’t like Big Government unless it comes to sex.

    • allein

      They need to keep the government small so it fits in your bedroom.

    • allein

      They need to keep the government small so it fits in your bedroom.

  • Mark W.

    Wait, wait, wait wait…wait. I thought Captain Kangaroo was dead?

  • A Wilcox

    Why is it that pro-gay rights advocates (“ideologically driven” liberals) are allowed to defend and spew their beliefs on everyone, but an “ideologically driven” conservative is to be ignored? If you wanted to talk facts, basic biology, and nature, then you would gladly rise to the occasion of debate with someone of an opposing view. Instead, you wish to ignore them?
    Bull! You do not want to talk about facts, or what is natural. You know what you stand for is not right, and could never stand up to talks of basic biology, nature, and “man-made” institution, because you define what is right based on uncontrolled passion and an attitude of it is not anybody’s business of how you live your life, or who you love. Whereas this “conservative”, who I do not 100% agree with, bases his views on a book that archeologists have found to be accurate on many historical accounts, and never have they definitively found it to be false, nor do they have any reason to believe it would be.
    You go ahead and do what you desire, but I’ll follow the Bible while you follow a man-made institution known as the Supreme Court.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X