Atheism and the Law of Chastity

One objection I have to “Atlas Shrugged” (by Ayn Rand) is Dagny’s, Francisco’s and Galt’s fornication, along with Reardon’s Adultery, both of which are against God's laws. I’m all in with Rand’s explanation of sex being a celebration of life and with her basis for choosing a partner (seriously, read the book, if you haven’t). Where it breaks down for me is where it breaks with reality. It is a work of fiction, but I believe the portrayal accurately represents Rand’s views on the matter, and reflects her atheism. However, I believe it does break with reality. No one is as perfect as these characters. I believe you would be hard pressed to convince me that, statistically, it turns out well to break the law of chastity and sleep with whomever one wishes without first making the commitment of marriage (marriage being the ultimate example of the responsibility which ever accompanies freedom and leads to happiness.) Both partners being highly imperfect, unlike Dagny, would very likely find naught but sorrow (referring here to much more than just “guilt”) behind such transgressions, as many could and would attest who have been there and done that. So, I argue that it isn’t truly in one’s self interest to fornicate or commit adultery. I contend it’s best to listen to “Dad” and wait until marriage and then be faithful.
    They’re called commandments, but there is no enforcement, only natural consequences. The commandments simply amount to a map which leads us back to Him and hence, to happiness (now and later.) Therefore, my argument isn’t for trying to force anyone to obey, just as our Father refrain’s from force. He holds freedom in absolutely the highest regard. When He chose Jehovah over Lucifer as a Savior, in favor of agency over coercion, Lucifer rebelled and was cast out. One third of those present (those intended to be sent to this earth) chose to follow Lucifer and were cast out of Heaven. So, in preservation of our freedom, our individual, inalienable rights, our Heavenly Father lost millions of His children.
    This is the trouble “the government” gets into as they try to force us to do what they think is right. It doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong. Only freedom matters.  Remember that it was Lucifer, now known as Satan, who wanted to force us to do what is right and therefore guarantee our return to Father’s presence. And whenever the government seeks to ”play God,” they’re really playing Satan.
    My elemental argument, as I’ve said is that one’s enlightened self-interest is one and the same with God’s will and His self-interest. Like any father, He desires His kids’ happiness and their return to Him. A child, lacking sufficient light, isn’t acting selfishly (as Rand defines it) or in his own self-interest as, in accordance with his own will, he runs out into traffic against his father’s “commandment.” This truly is the way to look at our relationship with God. We are arrogant and wrong if we believe we know enough to always choose what is precisely in our own best self-interest. We learn scientifically by trial and error. But, if we choose, we can learn from Others who have experienced all we are going through or will go through. We can learn from Their mistakes. It is childish to think we have to learn everything by trial and error. Is it best for the child to run out into traffic and see and feel and know exactly what happens to his body when it engages a car? Or should he just take dad’s word for it until he can see and reason for himself?