Skip to main content

The pre-dinosaur-era Family Research Council believes sexually-active unmarried people should be punished

The far right-wing Family Research Council has shown their true colors yet again, those of: Lunacy, denial, ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and cavemen. Not only have they come after gays' sex and marriage rights, but they're now coming after single people's sex and birth control rights, regardless of their orientation.

Tony Perkins - the head of the Family Research Council - had senior FRC member Pat Fagan on his radio show, where Fagan said the following about the Supreme Court's 1972 decision when it overturned a state law that banned unmarried people from purchasing birth control:

"The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What's that got to do with marriage? Everything, because 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. [...]

It's not the contraception, everybody thinks it's about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. 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 can see Fagan and other members of the Family Research Council replacing the caveman on GEICO commercials - "It's so easy, a member of the Family Research Council can do it!"

Fagan is partially right about something - it's not about contraception to he and his brethren; it's about a sense of power and control. With different kinds of people's rights ever evolving, including women's and gays', along with the fact that a growing number of people are doubting organized religion, Tony Perkins, Pat Fagan and company are feeling progressively more helpless and want to do everything in their power to bring these trends to a halt so they can maintain a sense of power and control. Good luck with that. As a 2009 study conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found, a whopping 80% of unmarried evangelical Christians reported being sexually active. What is it you feel society should do to these sexually-active unmarried evangelical Christians again, Mr. Fagan?

"...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 so whatever..."

Ah, yes, that's right. Once again, best of luck with that, and I look forward to seeing you on the new GEICO commercials - "It's so easy, Pat Fagan can do it!"

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/13/1714551/frc-premarital-sex-punish/

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/fogzone/PDF/FogZone.pdf

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"