There's a general belief that the Holy Terrors are adamantly afraid of sex in general, but that's not really true. When you look at the specific range of sexual practices that meet with fierce opposition, one such practice remains untouched.
The Holy Terrors target elements of the sex lives of Americans in three general categories:
1. Sexual practices which prevent or discourage procreation (abortion, birth control, substantive sex education) or in which the chances of procreation are nil (sodomy [oral or anal sex], homosexuality),
2. Sexual practices which enhance the enjoyment of sex or otherwise make it appear more interesting or appealing (pornography/erotica, sex toys, "deviant" sexual practices such as BDSM or "swinging"),
3. Outside-the-bonds-of-matrimony sexual practices (pre-marital or non-marital sex, homosexuality again, swinging again, general promiscuity).
So what's left? What's an appropriate summary of the Holy Terrors' belief system?
Sex is a chore, a necessary burden, the only acceptable practice of which is to procreate, and only within the bounds of holy matrimony.
Furthermore, marriage is the only acceptable forum in which people may engage in sex, AND ITS PRIME FUNCTION IS FOR PROCREATION.
All that guff about love and companionship is a bunch of hooey. It's all about making babies, baby.
Think I'm exaggerating? Let's step back into the Wayback Machine to take a closer look at some of the anti-gay marriage rulings of state courts in New York and Washington.
Without getting into too much legalese, the New York and Washington high courts have gone on record as stating that marriage is an institution necessary to preserving and maintaining the "one-mother one-father" family unit for the raising of children. Love and affection? Meh.
And let's not forget my own post from earlier this month about New Hampshire.
Rep. David Hess in the last paragraph of the article. That speaks volumes.
(Hess said) "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.
"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."
Nice of them to state their agenda so bluntly, isn't it?
So, to recap: In the eyes of the Holy Terrors and their whores in the Republican Party, sex is a terrible burden upon mankind and it must be treated as such, because we can't have people going around having sex for fun now, can we? After all, sex's sole purpose is the making of babies and its sole acceptable forum is marriage. If we've got unmarried people making whoopie, or just as bad, married people treating sex not as a burden, but as a fun way to spend an evening (or morning, or lunch break or whatever...) then...what?
What's the big deal if people just want to have sex for fun? Married or otherwise?
I'm glad you asked.