The neo-conservative movement has long been fascinated with the concept of controlling people's sex lives, not unlike the religious leaders that have essentially taken the helm of the movement. Whether it's controlling who may or may not be considered married, what a woman may or may not do with her own body, or determining what is inappropriate for the masses to read or view, this fascination has been seeping into the fabric of society for years.

Hypocrisy is the "h" word for all of this posturing and bullying, and because the perpetrators of this nonsense never seem to get that message, it bears repeating, until they do. It is difficult to take protests against the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality in the military when religious leaders are being ousted from their churches for patronizing homosexual prostitutes, or playing dumb when caught in the act. Of course those ministers were already well-known for their anti-gay actions and sentiments.

Now, they may claim that the Bible backs them in their assertions, but there's at least a little disagreement (2) about that. But that doesn't matter. If the good book doesn't really say what you want it to about something like this, or if biblical scholars disagree with you, there's always the option of re-writing it. Don't worry. The job of "fixing" the liberal "errors" is in the competent hands of Andrew Schlafly, and yes, Phyllis is his mother.

Now, in all of this running about trying to protect the souls of the public from eternal damnation, there is no mention of silly little things like consequences. There is no mention of additional costs to the government and society in denying legal marital status to gays - if they don't get the financial perks involved, they're more likely to end up needing one form of assistance or another, or worse, end up uninsured (at least until health care reform fully takes effect, or something like that.) Maybe the increases in venereal diseases and HIV amongst teens due to lack of comprehensive sex education doesn't make it to their balance sheets. While they mourn the fact that millions of potential babies were never born, they never address precisely what society would be doing with those children were around today - I've said it before, women don't consider aborting children when they have stable financial and home lives. And above everything else, they have their heads in the sand just like the Catholic Church has for years, in denying the existence of human nature. Ironic, since according to their own belief system, god said to "go forth and multiply", and made the means to do so pleasurable for that reason. But there's nothing wrong with cherry-picking scripture to meet one's needs in their world.

The biggest irony is that all of this boils down to a misguided, long-standing interpretation of the first book of the Bible. Eve ate the apple, and started all of the trouble, right? If the Christian god is all-seeing, and all-powerful, granting the power to entice Eve to a separate entity, the devil as the serpent, is an insult to god. Assuming that Eve's action was utterly independent of god's will flies in the face of the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian faiths. If there is nothing without god, nothing is done without god's will, period. There is nothing for humanity to create or consider that was not left as a possibility in the universe by god. Good and evil are man's constructs, the means for societies - religious or otherwise - to place a framework for man to follow in life. Simple psychology explains Eve's actions if one considers the story of Eden in this manner - tell a child not to do something, and you're guaranteed that child will at least try to do it. That said, Sigmund Freud understands the nature of god better than most Christians. And before crying "heresy", consider carefully - is the Christian god powerless against the devil in your world? If that is the case, feel free to call me a heretic, and continue trying to control the lives of others to fit your personal set of moral laws. If not, consider these words from L. William Countryman, a New Testament biblical scholar: "The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature. The Christian is free to be repelled by any or all of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them. What we are not free to do is impose our codes on others."

Note:

I would love to be able to say exactly how many parts this series will have, but I honestly don't know. Bluntly, the neo-conservative movement is regularly offering me so much fodder on this topic, it is not outside the realm of possibility that this could become a perpetual series.