People sometimes tell me that they believe there may be some natural laws – okay, it’s wrong to murder -- but that there are no natural laws about sexuality.  They simply refuse to consider that sex might be ordered to procreation.

During a recent conversation, when I drew attention to the natural consequences of loose sex, such as fatherless children, one person said, “You make that so black and white!”  Another said, “That’s just a religious opinion.  Shouldn’t it be up to the individual?”  Another asked “Isn’t there a mean between extremes?” 

I suppose the first protestor meant that not every natural consequence always happens – just as a person may walk into moving traffic and yet not be hit by a car.  Yes, but does that make it smart to walk into moving traffic?

As to the second protestor, if it is a religious opinion to suggest that individual choice doesn't trump everything, then it is also a religious opinion to suggest that it does.  The god of the former religion is the author of human nature.  The god of the latter is “Me.”

The third protestor was onto something.  Yes, of course there is a mean.  Locating it is exactly what we are trying to do.  Between the extreme of careless sex and the extreme of revulsion from sex, we find it by considering the good of the children and the good of the union of their parents.  It turns out to be marriage.

I am such a meanie.