By now I am pretty sure everyone has heard of Carrie Prejean - aka "Miss California" - aka "The Girl Who Got Figuratively Bitch Slapped by Perez Hilton Regarding Gay Marriage."

We did a show on it. CNN has covered it. MSNBC ridiculed it. FoxNews has offered her a job. And I hear her and James Dobson are dating. Ok, those last two might be made up (or ARE they?)

Yet nobody made the statement that I have been from the very beginning: Carrie Prejean is the reason nobody takes the anti-Gay Marriage movement seriously.

Before - did I mention before - TheDirty.com released this photo of a 17 18-year old Prejean modeling for some awesome panties, I had a conversation with my brother about how this Miss USA situation is a joke and perfectly illustrates the irrelevancy of the anti-Gay marriage movement.

Then when TheDirty.com released the photo to the right all I could think of was: YES!

Now I don't take any issue with the photo. Future wife: please use Carrie as "clothing" inspiration. But then again, I freely admit I am liberal when it comes to "modesty." I also know I am liberal when it comes to Gay Marriage (reference: this post).

But two questions come to the surface:

1.) Am I the only one who thinks her boobs were better before the implants?

2.) Why are the religious right "excited" to have her as a spokeswoman?

As stated before, I think gay marriage should be legal because we don't illegalize divorce and pornography. Two things that are equally as "Biblically morally wrong" as homosexuality. And the fact that we scream at the top of our lungs about one, and not the others, makes us worse than hypocrites, it makes us irrelevant. And not irrelevant in the trendy way hipster Churches talk about being relevant. I mean irrelevant in that nobody gives a damn what we have to say not just about homosexuality - but about anything.

But I tell you the real tragedy in this whole situation is that The Associated Baptist Press - yes The Associated Baptist Press - had the best article I have read on this issue. Not per se because I agree with the conclusion, but for at least questioning the absurdity of the situation.

And even after Prejean has come out and apologized for the shoot, saying she regrets doing it and won't do it again, I have to think: who cares? Why? Because this isn't about her. It is about us!

The Church's mission will not return to it's key mission of creating disciples of Jesus Christ until our interaction with the world we live in is a consistent one.

I have been wanting to use this first clip in a blog for almost a year. But it wasn't until this past new episode of Scrubs that I finally found my muse for writing.




Ladies, here's the deal: whether you like it or not, most men do equate sex with love. And you can sarcastically demean that feeling away, but just as we don't like it that most of you cry sometimes for no reason, or that all you need sometimes is for us to affirm that you are beautiful in order to provide security that the relationship is alright, equating sex with love is ingrained in who we are.

Shaunti Feldhan wrote a fantastic chapter in her book For Women Only detailing this. And since I probably am not writing this with enough sensitivity, I would highly advise all married women - or planning on getting married someday - to read it. But I am going to try, so here goes...

I find two things interesting about the clips above.

First is the expectation that after the husband has been "bagged" in marriage, sex then becomes a tool at the woman's control. What if communication were used like that? What if Scrubs cut over to Turk and JD and JD said, "you know what is great dude, you only have to talk about her day when you actually want to?" (Cue: big hearty laugh)

How positively does that portray marriage?

Second: listen to some of the verbiage Carla uses in the second clip. Notice how she says "I still make sure you get sex at least once a week."

Feldhan makes a comment in her book about how men would rather not have sex, than have sex with someone they feel is doing so out of obligation. And I have to agree with her.

It isn't about "making sure he gets sex." It is that she wants to have sex with him. That is what is equated to love in our DNA. That is what when a "mommy" forgets she is also a "wife" is painful.

Now I am not saying this gives men the right to expect sex "every night" - like Carla exaggerated in her lament. Every relationship is different and that is fine. From most of the conversation I have with married men, it isn't even the lack of quantity of sex - although they wouldn't mind having it more often - but rather the fact it doesn't feel desired.

Trust me. I know more than a single guy should how hard it is to be a mom. It is literally a 24/7 job. There is no time off. There are no vacations. I have the utmost respect for moms. And I am certainly not advocating that post-children sex life needs to look like the newlywed sex life.

What I am saying is that it is going to be a tough marriage if sexual needs aren't being honestly discussed and attempted at being met. Because for men, sex does in fact equal love.

It was six years ago I came to the same conclusion Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer - two law school professors at Pepperdine Law School - recently came to in a San Francisco Chronicle article that was picked up by Time. Conclusion: the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

The truth of the matter is that marriage licenses weren't required until the early 1900s in (successful?) attempts to keep black people from marrying white people. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 where the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional - but unfortunately the government's authority of marriages stuck around.

I have said it before but the government should only have two roles: 1.) protect us from others - including things like physical harm (murder, rape, etc...) and all other forms of harm (financial laws, contract disputes, etc...) - 2.) do that only which the government can do (build highways, defend the country, etc...).

Sanctioning marriage does not fall into either of those categories.

I am sure someone right now is saying, "ohh but won't someone PLEASE think of the children." And while I would like to say no, frankly, I am sick of thinking about the children, I also realize that isn't going to convince anyone who does "think of the children" of anything. So here's another approach.

I don't think growing up with a mom as a stripper is particularly healthy. I am sure there are some great stripper moms out there, but on the whole, I am going to say that strippers usually do not make good mothers. However, there is nothing illegal about stripping - despite it's questionable morality - thus there is no reason for the government to intervene.

If we take the "think of the children" philosophy of governance, why not make it illegal for strippers to have kids? Or pornographers? Or casino owners? Or politicians? Or anyone else with "questionable" morality.

Likewise, it makes absolutely no moral, legal or logical sense to continue the racist-roots of the Government being involved in the marriage business.

If the government wants to make it easier on families for tax purposes or if they want a method of finding census data, fine, have civil unions for all. All the same benefits - regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There is no second class tier system where the government gives heterosexuals "marriages" and homosexuals "civil unions." In the governments eyes, we are the same.

Let religious organizations hold on to their traditions and vernacular like they have had for thousands of years. Nobody needs to redefine any terms. Marriage becomes a religious ceremony like baptism.

Think how much less contentious this society would be if we could come to that agreement. Conservatives/Religious folks compromising on detheocritizing an already detheocritized government, and Liberals/Gays compromising and letting religions keep their tradition.

No more fighting. No more constant hatred by both parties. We become like most other groups in society where everyone's rights are protected, and we agree to disagree.

Then all we would have to dispute is abortion.

Andy is looking for both of these in his future wife. However, Andy is willing to compromise on #2 if #1 is true.

Also, I have a surprise third post-secret for this post but it is in response to a comment that I feel is looming by Sarah (probably) or Erik (maybe) or Allen (long shot). But don't leave it up to them - as all three might fail. It will only come when expected comment is said.

Be sure to visit Post Secret for more interesting looks into the human condition.

Did you see the most recent attempt of James Dobson trying to prove his political prowess? In a 27 minute segment, Dobson accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology." Jon Stewart put it a bit more comedically.



Now I am not a blind follower of Jon Stewart theology. The truth is, the Old Testament and New Testament talk about homosexuality, so the issue can't simply be written off as if Leviticus is the only place this is discussed. And I did listen to Barack's whole speech back in January and it was brilliant.

But I am not here to discuss political speeches or debate Jewish comedian exegesis. What I think needs to be addressed is what I think Dobson's legacy will be: dividing our culture to the point where sincere and loving relationships are impossible except in cases where you agree with every opinion.

This past week I met someone who I thought might be a new friend here in Atlanta. We both shared a huge interest in aviation. So I was excited since most of my friends make fun of my aviation curiosity. I could tell from his Facebook page that he was gay. But didn't think anything of it.

So we started talking online and he instantly wants to know about the radio show I produce. He asks are we right wing. I say nope. We are moderate. Next question, "so do you think all homosexuals are going to hell?" Thank you James Dobson.

I, of course, try and explain my thoughts on the issue; probably not very eloquently. But I could tell, it was a loss cause.

Nevermind that last weekend I said on the air one of the three celebrities I'd like to have coffee with is Ellen DeGeneres.

Nevermind that I have defended gay marriage from a legal perspective in other blogs.

Nevermind that I have had lunch with a porn producer.

Nevermind that I sincerely consider Erik of AllenHuntShowSucks.com a friend and genuinely care for the dude.

Thanks to the Dobsonion worldview, a Bible-believing Christian and a homosexual just can't be friends.

It brings me back a little to high school. There was a gay boy at my high school named Jason (not real name). Jason was a year younger than me, and while I am sure there were other gay individuals at Homestead, he was the only one who was "out." I primarily met Jason because he was good friends with my girlfriend Theresa.

I liked Jason. He was a good guy. I can remember one specific night when I was at the school after 10pm working on the yearbook by myself in the pub room. Jason was there for something related to show choir. I don't know what brought him to the pub room that night, but we had a great conversation. Towards the end, I remember saying, "you know Jason, we aren't very different." To which he replied, "No Andy, I don't think that is the case."

The truth is, most of us aren't very different from one another. We just choose to allow the few differences to get in the way. Thanks James.

In the middle of our weekly planning video teleconference, Phil sent me an article from FoxNews about MyFreeImplants.com (warning: I didn't see any nudity "per se" - but it is definitely racey).

Here's the scenario. Women, you sign up to a MySpace-like social networking site, with pictures of yourself and descriptions highlighting your "situation." Situation here meaning that you have small/ugly/disfigured/orange boobs. Men, or "benefactors," you also sign up for the site, but you have to buy credit to do so. Once you enter the site, you then "donate" your credits to these women until they reach the amount needed to get a boob job (which appears to be $6500.00).

Now, before I proceed, I should state that I am really not a boob guy. I will go as far as saying that smaller chested woman are more attractive to me. And I don't mean that in the altruistic, good Christian boy sense (there are plenty of "other" things I am into). But to me, the law of nature comes in too much with large boobs and time + gravity ≠ good situation down the road. So, believe me, I truly don't think this world would be a better place if women were walking around with larger boobs.

As we proceeded in this planning meeting I started to think about all the reasons I am against plastic surgery. My two biggest reasons. #1 It is a huge waste of money (especially in light of all the suffering in the world). #2 It is superficial. But then I got to thinking about it. How are boob jobs any different than braces?

Ok, now I have done it haven't I? But seriously, think about it. Braces cost on average $5000. Boob jobs seem to cost $6000. And I don't care what you say, while I am sure there are a handful of cases where braces are necessary for proper function of the mouth and health, most of us had braces for aesthetic reasons. We didn't (or better yet our parents didn't) want us to be the freaky kid with ugly teeth. So if it is just as much money, and it is just as superficial, why are boob jobs (or any plastic surgery) any less morally or socially acceptable than braces?

I have to admit, I don't have an answer. There is something inside of me that thinks there should be a separation of aesthetic altering procedures, but on a philosophical ground, I can't seem to find the logic in separating the two. I guess I won't get my kids braces...or maybe I'll just get them boob jobs as well.

When I was a junior in high school, the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" came out and was all the rage. I read it, objectively, and grabbed some good principals, but overall "rejected" the basic premise. Sometime later that year, a rebuttal, but less popular book came out called "I Gave Dating a Chance." I liked it better, but still rejected most of the premise, because frankly it was mostly the same as "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." One called dating courtship, and the other called it, well, dating. I'll get back to this later.

If you have read this blog for more than 10 minutes you know I am usually not satisfied with Christian music or books. Why? Because they aren't about life. They aren't real. They give the same cheesy, bullet pointed responses which don't communicate effectively. When done, I always feel like I just drove a Porsche but kept it in 1st gear.

From what I heard from others, Rob Bell's writing promised to be different. So needless to say I was excited to read his new book "Sex God," because we all know the official topic of this blog is sex¹. We also know that my favorite writer is Chuck Klosterman - sure I might not agree with some of his lifestyle choices, but he is brilliant when it comes to culture. I was expecting Rob Bell to be the "Christian" version of Chuck Klosterman. He's not. If Chuck Klosterman is a Porsche reaching 4th gear², Rob Bell is a Porsche in 2nd gear³

I could probably write a 5,000 word blog on this book. I am going to try not to. Here are my three main issues with the book.

One, he quotes from Song of Solomon (which is good) but fails to acknowledge that a.) Solomon had hundreds of sexual partners, and b.) the Song of Solomon text implies that the "beloved and lover" were not married yet.

Now, I am not looking for a book to justify pre-marital / extra-marital sexual activity. Why? Because I still think a case can be made for sexual "purity". But Bell fails to communicate his point because he refuses to acknowledge, in full disclosure, the entire sexual narrative of the Bible.

Two, he continues the Christian myth that women aren't interested in sex as a pleasurable act, but only use it to attain other relational perks (i.e. feeling love, feeling beautiful, etc...)

I can't speak for generations past, but from my extensive conversation on the topic and cultural insight, I just don't believe that to be true (anymore?). Women are (almost?) just as interested in a sexual relationship as men.

Three, Bell fails to recognize that God is the Creator of sex as something creative and fun.

"Sex God" continues to portray marital sexuality as boring and vanilla. It still makes the ambiguous statement that "sex is good" and leaves it at that. I have written about this before, so I am not going into detail (one | two).

I know this is a shock, but according to research (I can't believe it took research to know this) the #1 reason people have sex is because it feels good. While there are 237 other reasons, because it feels good is the number one reason we enjoy and/or tempted to have sex. Sex God fails to acknowledge this with any sort of depth or genuineness.

Here is at least what I liked about the book. On page 105 Bell states:

If you have ever given yourself to someone and had your heart broken, you know how God feels.

Bell acknowledges that God never intends for life to be easy. He never intended for life to be pain-free. Which brings me back to I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

My ultimate problem with "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is that it was a lesson in "avoidance theology." God can't possibly want us to have pain, therefore, we should avoid that which potentially causes pain (in this case: dating). That is a crappy way to live life and I at least respect Bell for standing up against that.

Their is one other reason this brings me back to "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and "I Gave Dating a Chance". I was hoping when I read this book, it was going to be so good, that I could take writing a sex book off the list of books I am going to write.⁴ That turned out to be false. Now I still feel the Christian arsenal is missing a good book on sexual practical theology, so it looks like I should start working on a rebuttal⁵.

I recently added the song I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That) by Meatloaf to my iPod. I know it is a bit of a classic, and it takes me back to Middle School, but in a more recent context it got me thinking about sex. Welcome to part two of my blog's discussion on Good Sex

"Will you engage in oral sex once you are married?" This is a question I have posed to countless single, 20-something, Christians and Non-Christians that I have a trusted relationship with from Indiana to Los Angeles to Jerusalem to Atlanta. The responses have been quite surprising. Heard everything from "absolutely not," to "yeah, who wouldn't," and everything in between. But I think it gets to the heart of the real question, which is: what is sexually appropriate within a marriage?

Now for this discussion I am not talking about pre-marital activity (we can debate that some other time) nor am I talking about homosexual behavior. This is about what is appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.

For example, I had a professor in college that said his fiancée came to him before they were getting married and wanted him to list all of his sexual fantasies. After getting married, she did all these fantasies, because she wanted him to think of her when he thought of these fantasies and nobody else. I had another couple I know well that is dating come to an agreement that when they get married, one of the first things they will do is go to the local sex store and each pick "something" out. I know another married couple who isn't using birth control, and on days of the month where she is most likely ovulating, they do, as he put it, "other stuff."

On the other hand, I know of marriages that have fallen apart because one partner was uncomfortable with what was asked sexually (which for privacy I won't get into those details).

The church does an awful job of talking about this topic. It makes comments like "sex is good," but the term is so ambiguous that it still leaves so much confusion for the married and single alike. Even on our show, we have had people call in with questions about oral sex and anal sex during open mic, and even though we don't mind talking about swinging or pornography, etc...we don't ever seem to take those calls.

Well that all ends here. We are going to do something interesting on the blog that I have never done before. I am not going to give you what I think until I hear from everyone else out there. I usually get about 200-300 visitors, yet never get that many responses. So I know you are out there. I want to hear from everybody. Feel free to lie about your name and e-mail address. "Who" you are is not important. But what you have to say about this topic is. And be honest! Married, single, engaged. Christian, Non-Christian, Atheist. It doesn't matter. Pass this along to your friends. I want to hear from anybody and everybody. What is your perception of a healthy sexual relationship and how do you draw the line on what you feel comfortable with and what you don't?

To get you thinking, consider the following items (but I want you to be more philosophical in response then just responding to a laundry list)

• Oral sex
• Anal sex
• Sexual fantasy or role playing
• Using pornography
• Swinging or "Threesomes"
• Using sex toys
• Adventurous and/or Sex in Public Settings

Seriously. How do you establish what is and is not ok within the boundaries of a healthy sexual marriage? I will explain what I think in a comment later on this week but for those of you who want a really boring, long read, you are welcome to check out my senior thesis on the topic.

I am an avid Bones fan. If you are unfamiliar with Bones you are missing out. But a quick summary so you can understand this blog. Dr. Temperance Brennan (Bones - or "the girl") is a brilliant, but lonely, anthropologist. Her partner is FBI agent Seely Booth ("Booth" or "the guy"). They solve murders. Before you read further, watch this clip.



This 2:30 does a better job talking about sexuality than any sermon/lesson/book I have ever experienced. Who knew the Fox cooperation could do more on the topic of sex than find news anchorwoman with really big boobs? But seriously, I love this clip. And if sermons approached sexuality from Booth's angle, I think we would be more effective at teaching a healthy, God-oriented view of sexuality.

While I will take issue with Booth's comments about fetishes (which I am actually planning on discussing in my next blog post), I think he is spot on. Sex is a miracle. What I love about the TV show Bones is that the continual dilemma of the show is basically summarized in the rational (Bones) vs. the irrational (Booth).

I typically find myself to be a insanely rational person, which can make me a "cold" individual at times. But I have a faith that essentially asks me to be irrational, because faith by definition is trusting in what we cannot see. Now in our hyper-educated society, irrationalization is usually seen as a point of weakness. Reason is the god of the 21st century. And part of me identifies with this. But it is that same reason that eventually leads me back to faith, thus it is reason that brings me back to irrationalization. And sex is at the heart of it.

Creation I believe is the best evidence for God, and I think He wanted it that way. The complexities of our universe, and even our own bodies just could not have happened completely random. That is all fine and good, but that doesn't mean God is personal or loving or even good. But I think love and sex are the evidence of that. And I think subconsciously we know this to be true. It is why it is the one thing we all seem to long for and desire, but don't really know why (seriously, why do you desire to be loved?). And subconsciously, I think it is also why the church tries to defend it so vehemently (although usually it fails in its methods).

For example, did you know that the clitoris (as Family Guy puts it: "Nature's Rubik's Cube") has no other function whatsoever that to provide women with sexual pleasure? It is the only organ in either male or female that's sole purpose is sexual pleasure. What does that say about our Creator (other than that he is nicer to women than men)? Have you ever stopped and thought about why sex is pleasurable? Seriously. What evolutionary purpose is served by sex being pleasurable; by it being bonding; by it being, dare I say irrational.

I once read an author that said the sexual orgasm is the closest thing we come to experiencing the euphoria of God's entire goodness; or maybe better put it is the closest thing to heaven. In addition to that, the phrase, "with our bodies we worship Thee" used to be included in wedding vows. Why? Because sexuality, good sexuality, is designed to be such a transcendent experience that it can no better be described as worship. The miracle of two, trying to become one, even though physically and scientifically impossible, becomes possible through the act of sexuality. And that my friends is a God I can worship. That is a God I can trust to be irrational.

With that said, I look forward to a very interesting discussion in my next post about what good sex in marriage is like.

Please note this article was originally written for my Newsvine Column so verbiage is slightly different.

We interviewed David Levy, the author of Love and Sex with Robots yesterday in London in preparation for a show we are doing this weekend roughly titled "Why We Get Married?" His prediction is that by 2050, Massachusetts will be the first state to legalize human-robot marriages.

This got me thinking about evolution (which I am sure has got Mykola floored). Now, I am not a total believer in evolution. This is not to say I don't think it could be true - I have no quarrels with the theory. I just don't think scientifically there is the evidence for Macro-evolution. But that is not really my point. My point is that if evolution is true, I think robots are going to be the end of human existence.

We usually think of the end of human existence with robots something a-la-Terminator or Matrix. There is a giant war between the robots and their creator, yet inferior humans. But robots are far too smart for that. They are going to take over the world more subtly.

In the interview, we started to talk about if a human-robot marriage will be able to have kids. Sure enough, David responded by saying that the robot will be designed to produce genetically similar mini-robots that will combine traits from the "natural human" and the robot. Thus making kids.

So here goes. In theory, all things being equal and morality set aside, I think humans will naturally want to have relationships with robots more than humans assuming you can't tell the difference between the way a robot looks/acts/talks/etc...when compared to a human. Why? Because life could be all about the human. Everybody could marry a supermodel or "Dr. McDreamy." The robot could cook and clean, etc...sex would be what you want, when you want, how you want, etc...You could have the number of kids you want, not what your spouse wants. You would have no in-laws. It is essentially one less person to "feed / house / pay for." Conversation would always be about what you want to talk about, and it can be as deep, intimate, or shallow as you would want. You could essentially create a life that is all about you.

Now, throw in that the robot can manufacture robot kids and then you have the start of an evolutionary process that essentially wipes out the human race. Sure there will be some that will hold on (I'd like to think I would be one of them), but sooner or later the robots will become the far superior race and with survival of the fittest kicking in, they will easily be the next step in the evolutionary chain.

Side notes:

1. I should state for the record that a.) I don't think human-robot relationships are a morally acceptable and valid form of intimate relationship, and b.) I don't believe that robots really will be the end of human existence. But it is interesting nevertheless.
2. P.S. You should really listen to the interview if you have 6 minutes. I think it is really interesting and, yes, I am the "Andy" they make fun of in the middle of the segment for not being able to find a girl.
   http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Home/play.php?FileURL=...