I just finished reading a great post on gay marriage by Hot Abercrombie Chick. She wrote:

I don't want a government that likes to decide how 'civilization' ought to be, or a President who takes it upon himself to protect the 'cultural, religious, and natural roots' of marriage or anything else.

To be frank, the religious right has oversteped the line with this amendment. All in all, it seems to reflect fear, bigotry, and ignorance on their part. Don't make me discuss the fact that our constitution is a framework of our government, not a document to soil with the sexual fear of the religious right. I ask the religious right this: What are you protecting marriage from?! "the gays"? I hate to break to them, but 2000 years of using marriage as a warrant to treat women as objects has already made marriage an institution which cannot be deamed "sacred, in all cases". Furthermore, for all their moral rhetoric, they won't even allow homosexuals to make that potentially sacred bond between each other! Why? Because "they have the gay disease". President Bush hasn't even said a single noun for "Homosexual" since the day he first proposed the amendment. You'd think he could at least aknowledge them- considering that he would pass a constitutional amendment to tie the hands of future generations behind their backs. Perhaps he could just be honest and say, "Queers make me nervous."

Since y'all are wondering... no, I'm not gay. I simply had to assume that someone in the audience likes to jusge the worth of someone's opinion on account of their sexuality. That said, whats up with the religious right's fascination with the sexual life of homosexuals about? They call it god, but as Isaac Asimov once noted: to surrender to ignorance and call it "god" has always been a premature and infantile decision.

I'll go out on a limb here: This entire debate regarding the rights of gays stems from the repressed sexuality of the religious right. Why is there a higher occurance of catholic priests molesting childern than a control group? The answer is sexual repression. Why is Iran so violent? Again: sexual repression. Bloody hell, where ever you look, the most sexual repressed societies tend to be the most authoritarian and violent societies as well. But don't take my word for it...

Neuropsychologist James W. Prescott wrote in the bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

When the brain's pleasure circuits are 'on,' the violence circuits are 'off,' and vice versa. Among human beings, a pleasure-prone personality rarely displays violence or aggressive behaviors, and a violent personality has little ability to tolerate, experience, or enjoy sensuously pleasing activities. As either violence or pleasure goes up, the other goes down.

Its amazing, and so obvious, yet the religious right is so trapped in their own little world of grandeur "God is testing us", that they are unable to see it. We shouldn't be suprised however, these people live by the holy book. And violence against sexuality and the use of sexuality for violence, particularly against women, has very deep roots in Biblical tradition. Consider this:

Not surprisingly, when high self-needs are combined with the deprivation of physical affection, the result is self-interest and high rates of narcissism. Likewise, exhibitionistic dancing and pornography may be interpreted as a substitute for normal sexual expression. Some nations which are most repressive of female sexuality have rich pornographic art forms.

Think Belly Dancers... This is rather interesting too:

Crime and physical violence have substantially increased over the past decade in the United States. According to FBI statistics, both murder and aggravated assault increased 53 percent between 1967 and 1972, while forcible rape rose 70 percent.

These figures again raise the question of the special relationship between sexuality and violence. In addition to our rape statistics, there is other evidence that points to preference for sexual violence over sexual pleasure in the United States. This is reflected in our acceptance of sexually explicit films that involve violence and rape, and our rejection of sexually explicit films for pleasure only (pornography). Neighborhood movie theaters show such sexually violent films as Straw Dogs, Clockwork Orange, and The Klansman, while banning films which portray sexual pleasure (Deep Throat, The Devil in Miss Jones). Apparently, sex with pleasure is immoral and unacceptable, but sex with violence and pain is moral and acceptable.

A questionnaire I developed to explore this question was administered to 96 college students whose average age was 19 years. The results of the questionnaire support the connection between rejection of physical pleasure (and particularly of premarital and extramarital sex) with expression of physical violence. Respondents who reject abortion, responsible premarital sex, and nudity within the family were likely to approve of harsh physical punishment for children and to believe that pain helps build strong moral character. These respondents were likely to find alcohol and drugs more satisfying than sex. The data obtained from the questionnaire provide strong statistical support for the basic inverse relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure. If violence is high, pleasure is low, and conversely, if pleasure is high, violence is low. The questionnaire bears out the theory that the pleasure-violence relationship found in primitive cultures also holds true for a modern industrial nation.

Finally, this article was written before the Iranian revolution, so I hope this last bit strikes a cord:

If we strive to increase the pleasure in our lives this will also affect the ways we express aggression and hostility. The reciprocal relationship between pleasure and violence is such that one inhibits the other; when physical pleasure is high, physical violence is low. When violence is high, pleasure is low. This basic premise of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory provides us with the tools necessary to fashion a world of peaceful, affectionate, cooperative individuals.

The world, however, has limited time to correct the conditions that propel us to violent confrontations. Modern technologies of warfare have made it possible for an individual or nation to bring total destruction to large segments of our population. And the greatest threat comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality. We will have the most to fear when these nations acquire the weapons of modern warfare. Tragically, this has already begun.

I'm not saying that people should be totally free with themselves. On the contrary, sex should be treated vary seriously; regardless of whether 'you' make a promise to your partner, your body makes a promise. That said, the religious right needs a good lay; perhaps then this idiotic culture war can come to an end. I'll thank god when I see that day.