Monday, February 18, 2002
Glenn Reynolds over at InstaPundit doesn't understand conservatives' opposition to condoms. Well, at least he acknowledges that conservatives tend to be pretty opposed to premarital sex. However, he doesn't seem to understand why we oppose it. I suppose there are two camps, the religious and pragmatist.
Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't approve of premarital sex because, well, God said not to do it. And for at least a few of us, God trumps what we want. And since Christians and Muslims are called to preach to others, it's only natural that we oppose premarital sex (or fornication, if you want to get Biblical) for others. As members of society, we have a perfect right to oppose spending tax dollars for any program we don't support.
Pragmatists, on the other hand, recognize that premarital sex is hurtful to society. It contributes to the spread of disease (there would be no AIDS epidemic in the US if everyone was monogamous), weakens the bonds of marriage, and often causes people to forsake marriage at all. By not giving out condoms, we hope to prevent people from having sex outside of marriage, in that they might be afraid of pregnancy or disease.
Now, he is right when he says that even if there was a 100% safe method of birth control, conservatives would oppose it. This does not make our argument that the current methods are imperfect any less valid. Venereal diseases would be non-existant if everyone was monogamous. There would be no bastardy. Not growing up in a two-parent household is obviously harmful to children, and by limiting sex to married couples, all children will have that kind of family (excluding parental death, of course). I have yet to hear a liberal or libertarian argument, other than "because we want to." If the Left has the right to ask the gov't to spend money on promoting their views, the Right obviously has an equal right to do the same.
Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't approve of premarital sex because, well, God said not to do it. And for at least a few of us, God trumps what we want. And since Christians and Muslims are called to preach to others, it's only natural that we oppose premarital sex (or fornication, if you want to get Biblical) for others. As members of society, we have a perfect right to oppose spending tax dollars for any program we don't support.
Pragmatists, on the other hand, recognize that premarital sex is hurtful to society. It contributes to the spread of disease (there would be no AIDS epidemic in the US if everyone was monogamous), weakens the bonds of marriage, and often causes people to forsake marriage at all. By not giving out condoms, we hope to prevent people from having sex outside of marriage, in that they might be afraid of pregnancy or disease.
Now, he is right when he says that even if there was a 100% safe method of birth control, conservatives would oppose it. This does not make our argument that the current methods are imperfect any less valid. Venereal diseases would be non-existant if everyone was monogamous. There would be no bastardy. Not growing up in a two-parent household is obviously harmful to children, and by limiting sex to married couples, all children will have that kind of family (excluding parental death, of course). I have yet to hear a liberal or libertarian argument, other than "because we want to." If the Left has the right to ask the gov't to spend money on promoting their views, the Right obviously has an equal right to do the same.
