Monday, November 2, 2009

The sky daddy is not my daddy. Who’s your daddy?

The sky daddy is not my daddy. Who’s your daddy?

I’m often asked what my beef is with religion. I’m accused of being an “angry atheist”. I think missions are destructive and poisonous. I think creationism sneaking into the science classroom would spell the end of critical thinking. I believe fooling people into believing they have to believe in god to be moral is incredibly reprehensible. But what really gets me angry is when religion impedes freedom, liberty, mutual respect, equality and love. And it does this in the name of family.
Family means a great deal to me. My family is my world. I can’t imagine life without them. Whatever I used to do to fill my days before I had kids is beyond my recollection. Family is everything to me.
It may surprise you to know that on the surface, we look like a typical Christian family. We could be going to church every week. We could belong to the Focus on the Family community. I work; my wife stays home with the kids. We have two: a son and a daughter. We look like the “traditional” family. But this is purely a coincidence.
My wife and I just happen to have decided that the life we want together matches what a “traditional” family looks like. We enjoy our family so much; we couldn’t possibly imagine trying to keep others from experiencing this kind of joy and fulfillment. But, as we all know, there are bounds of asshats trying to keep people whose families do not happen to match their perceived formula from having families. I find this to be the most egregious abuse religion inflicts upon us today. Why do they do this? What is the purpose?
It should be no surprise that religion, especially the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are misogynistic to the core. Women are subservient to men, and must always be so. In a family that has more than one male, or no male, how can you tell who is subservient to whom? We need to be able to look at a family, see the penises, and locate the power. That is how families are supposed to work: the male is in charge and all others submit to him. See, to the religious, love is not in the equation. The only equation is 1 dominate male + 1 submissive wife. It has nothing to do with people who love each other.
When people who oppose gay marriage try to use this “defend the family” bull or “preserve the definition of marriage” insanity, I ask them what a family is, or what their definition of marriage is. They give me this crap about a man and a woman, and some other crap about tradition. Apparently, these imbeciles don’t realize that marriage has been redefined over and over again, as society changes. And while I may have a “traditional marriage”, it is not because I wanted to follow tradition, but because this works for me. If you don’t follow tradition, you ought to do so because that works for you, not because you want to rebel against tradition.
A family is a group of people who call themselves a family. A marriage is a public contract between consenting adults to share their lives. I see no problems with either of these definitions. Why do believers? Why are they fighting so hard to keep gays from marrying and having children? Last I checked, gays don’t have many accidental children. Why do we try to amend constitutions and place harsh restrictions on love?
Religion isn’t about love. It’s about control. It’s about authority. It’s about obedience and servitude. Religion wants to control your life to the finest detail of who you love and how. You will only love certain people. You will express this love within these boundaries. You will obey these people. You must, or you shall burn in hell. And god loves you. He’s the only one who really does. And if you don’t believe that, he’ll smite you with all his might.

I say it is time once again to redefine marriage. Better this word that those of liberty, freedom, equality, and justice. I say we redefine family. What if we were to have families rooted in love, instead of faith? What would happen if we, as a society, recognized that not everyone has the same tastes, preferences and desires? What would be the result? I’d love to find out.

No comments:

Post a Comment