Same-Sex Marriage Part II: God’s Country and the Future of Our Children

READ ME

In Part II of this series, I outline the religious and non-religious arguments against marriage equality and expose problems in the argumentation.

Though it may be rightfully considered a religious issue, there are arguments used from both religious and non-religious sides.  Although, the reasoning of the non-religious arguments generally holds root in American Religious tradition.  It is known, albeit sometimes ignored, that our Constitutional provisions disallow any law being created for or because of religious doctrine or belief.  Even so, there are those among us that would seek to find some logical argument, even while exercising fallacies, to create a country in which their rights are sound and the rights of others are expendable.  This is the platform of those against marriage equality.

We will save the fun, religious arguments for later.  First, let us address the “non-religious” platforms for the inequality our country pronounces.  Of the three most used statements of non-religious origins, two of heavily involve the future of our children. First, ‘Allowing gays to marry would weaken traditional family values that are essential to our society.’  Second, ‘Gays marrying will confuse children about gender roles.’  Finally, ‘If I can marry a man, why can’t I marry a horse?’ The last one is my favorite.

‘Allowing gays to marry would weaken traditional family values that are essential to our society.’  This may be the most common argument used against same-sex marriage.  This is argument is one that is a surrogate for the religious arguments because it is not sound in constitutional law, instead, a much more defensive ideal that instills fear into the masses.  It solidly professes the idea that “they” will take away what “I” hold dearly to my heart.   The argument is not strong, however, because of the defensive, fear inducing motivation, and the illusion of “traditional family values.”   Traditional family values date back to the late 1940s/early 1950s.   We have all heard the term ‘Nuclear Family.’  A man and women, father works a middle-class day job and the mother is the homemaker.  They also have a couple kids that go to suburban public schools.  With the rise of fear of godless communism in the 1950s, the suburban family needed something to cling to.  Thus, the traditional family values that have since become obsolete.   Now, this tradition, being less than five generations old and already outdated with the rise of one-parent households, ambiguous gender roles, and the semi-acceptance of unmarried gay couples adopting children is irrelevant in the discussion.

Much more simply denied is the belief that gay parents would confuse children about gender roles.   In the early 1990s, unmarried gay couples adopting children started to become much more common.  Though the fear that it would destroy the future of the children was not realized, there are still groups that would perpetuate the opposite.  Since World War II, gender roles in the household have become more and more ambiguous and now, an equal number of men and women hold professional positions and do equal work in the house.  Like the previous argument, this one is irrelevant.

The final non-religious argument is my favorite.  While stating it facetiously, I enjoy using a southern accent.  “If I can marry a man, why can’t I marry a horse?”  Really, any barnyard animal can be substituted.   This is a perfect argument for the uneducated because it is a perfect example of the slippery slope logical fallacy.   Telling the layperson that the argument is a slippery slope fallacy will not convince them, so we will delve more deeply.  This is a comparison between a gay man or woman and a horse.  This argument exposes the true feelings of those against equality of any kind.  They believe that the others are lower beings, like animals.  There should be no fear that same sex marriage would give way to man-marrying-animal because an animal cannot consent and are not cognitively aware as Homo sapiens are.  If you worry about polygamy, then you’re not reading your bible very well- multiple instances in which the bible endorses it.  Additionally, Mohammed is famous for taking on many wives, and endorsing such acts if the household-head can support them all.

Though also irrelevant in law, the religious arguments are important to address because American religious institutions seem to not understand that they do not have political power outside of their own sect.  The first thing that American Christians tell you when you say ‘same-sex marriage’ is “I believe it is a sin in the bible.”  We all know what the passage reads basically that a man laying with other men as they do with women is an ‘abomination.’  The term ‘abomination’ is one of the most popular words for a Christian.  However, they seem to forget that in the same breath, the primitive middle-eastern writer also states that eating ham and wearing clothing of multiple fabrics is an ‘abomination.’  There is no way to reconcile this without admitting that the reader can interpret the severity of the sin and make their own assumptions as to what it is supposed to mean.  By trying, you take credibility away from your own argument because an average Christian parishioner is not equipped at all to interpret their own holy book.

Finally, it is common to hear that marriage sanctity is important.  Christians in America truly believe that marriage is the creation of Christians before them, and must be protected.  I will admit that if a church chooses to not marry two people, for whatever reason, the law cannot and should not force them to.  However, religious marriage and legal marriage as observed by the government are not interchangeable.  Obviously, the phrase “sanctity of marriage” is laughable, unless you include polygamy and womanservents.  I say: let the religions hate.  They will lose their members and die out (like the ultra-conservative Republican Party) unless they move with civilization into the 21st century and beyond.

The next part in this series will discuss the arguments for marriage equality.  If you wish to refute my arguments or discuss further, please comment and share this article.

 

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

Same-Sex Marriage Part I: A Queer History

same sex marriage

Virginia, 1835 – Can it not be said that because Negros are lower forms of being in God’s great plan, that it would be blasphemy to the Lord’s word to allow them liberty the same as Whites?  It is not by man’s fear of the unbiased allocation of power that drives the status of blacks in the South, but that nature of which God has given Blacks and Whites that hold on this Earth.  White men and women were endowed by their creator with large brains, reasoning capabilities, and with the determination it takes to learn, and comprehend.  Negro men and women were created for a more simple life; for a more simple work.  Those Blacks owe their lives to White men and women because without them, Negros would be lost.  Do not let the Negro’s destroy our livelihood.  Together we are strong and will not fail.  –An interpretation of arguments presented by many Southern Slave owners and advocates, included Elisa McCord

Germany, 1939 – Our once great nation of Germany, still in shambles from the Great War two decades ago, is having its rebuilding efforts thwarted by a growing enemy within.  The Jews are destroying any chance we have to make our country great again.  Our economy is struggling, our government is failing, and our livelihood is lost, unless we take action.  The Jews must be erased from Europe. They are pests that mock our savior and jest at our hopes for a future of prosperity.  Join together, people of Germany, and unite against this enemy.  Together we are strong and will not fail.  – An Interpretation of arguments made by German leaders that lead up to the start of World War II

United States, 2010 – A devil has been allowed to rise to prominence in our society.  A deviant and bottom-dwelling lifestyle choice with aims at undermining all of the moral teachings that had been propagated in the last fifty years is spreading.  This disease will take children and destroy the foundation which they need to become great workers and leaders in our country.  It will annihilate the traditional family as we know it.  This unhealthy and unnatural existence is plaguing the overtones of our growing problem of immorality.   The gays must be eradicated.  Remove them and their kind from our churches, communities, and public offices.  Until they decide to live the lifestyle that we live, disallow fundamental rights that we, the majority hold. Together we are strong and will not fail. –An interpretation of arguments that have been made to me while discussing the topic of same-sex marriage with people in my personal life

It would seem that these narratives are obviously facetious and worthy of the ridicule to their represented points of view.  As a society, we observe that blacks are not only three-fifths of a person and that people of all religious upbringings can and should be allowed to be productive members of our society.  However, there is still one battle being fought in our society and legal system.  That which would allow gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender couples to wed and enjoy the same rights that any other couple would.

In the 1950s, American suburban dwellers started to become more aware of homosexuality.  The decade was ripe with propaganda. There was even (mis)information floating around that homosexuality was linked with child-molestation.

The video above speaks of homosexuality as “a sickness of the mind.”  A homosexual is described as “Someone who demands intimate relations with someone of the same sex.”  The view of homosexuality being linked to child-molestation has since been accepted as false by society, but there is still a fear of homosexuality as if it was an intentional obscenity uttered by those that would seek to do harm to the establishment.

Society was not ready to accept gays at that time, and wouldn’t be for decades to come.  Ten years later, however, saw the civil rights movement for African-Americans.  It was a time in which societal standards of acceptance and disallowance of discrimination first came to fruition in America.  This was the ignition of social acceptance movements that many are still fighting for today.

The 1970s and 1980s saw a partial change in social norms.  As the household structure and gender roles of the home had begun shifting because of the rise of women in the workplace, it was also starting to become acceptable to be an openly-gay man or woman to lead more public lives.  While still dangerous and unaccepted by some, prominent figureheads in the LGBT movement showed the masses that homosexuality was not heinous like the previous generation had been led to believe.

Then, in 1981, five gay men were hospitalized with a new disease.  These men had severely-compromised immune systems and all perished.  By the end of 1981, five to six new cases were being reported every week.  In June of 1982, there had been 355 cases isolated.  The next month, the condition was given a name: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS.  AIDS ravished the homosexual community and led to a worldwide change in how sexual relations were practiced.

Many people thought that this disease could only affect homosexual people, but in 1991, NBA player Magic Johnson announced that he had HIV and went on to crusade for the spread of knowledge about the disease.  There is still no definite cure.

Now, we face a new challenge.  The millennium has come and gone and there is still a disconnection between fundamental rights of ‘straight’ couples and that of homosexual couples.  Over the next three parts of this series, I will discuss the arguments on both sides.

I aim to explore the religious and non-religious reasons why same-sex marriage should/should not be allowed; to try and understand the worthiness of any claim that people of any kind are, and can be treated as unequal in liberty or rights.

I will also discuss the common arguments for the acceptance and allowance of same-sex marriage, as well as presenting some of my own, in order to shed light on the growing movement of advocation that is sweeping modern civilization.

This is an issue of equality.  Our aim is to decide how much is too much when it comes to equal rights – or to decide that people are to be allowed the same opportunities across the board.

The next part to my series will discuss the arguments against same-sex marriage. Please continue to follow this page, share with your friends and colleagues, and discuss with each other (in a civil, understanding, and open way) in the comments.  Respect others as you discuss the topic because they likely have just as much reason to feel strongly about their side as you do to yours.

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

Update: Marriage Equality to Come

equal

 

Good day to all of you,

I had taken a bit of a hiatus for spring break, in which I spent a lot of money and got rested and ready for the last month of the semester.  I want to announce that my next topic has been inspired by the cases being heard in the Supreme Court, as well as the social media movement of equality, which I admit to getting behind.

The issue of marriage equality is has many faces, and most are ugly.  It is an issue of civil rights, the religious rite, family values, economics, love, and hate.  Like many of the topics I cover on this site, marriage equality is an issue that is too large for a 1200 word article.  For that reason, I have decided to produce a multi-part series on marriage equality.  The first part will debut tomorrow, with the other parts coming periodically throughout the week.

I will be discussing the religious and non-religious aspects of the issue, as well as the avocation and dissent of the movement.  I aim to come to a consensus on the issue and help shed light to both sides (although I will be arguing for a certain end).

If you feel anything about the issue, one way or another, I invite you to follow this page for as the week progresses.

Thank you,

Dustin McMahon

Cloudy With a Chance of Acid-Rain: How to Turn Our Blue Planet Green

Image

It is hard for many to take environmentalism seriously.  Even the term ‘environmentalist’ lends itself to harsh and humiliating social terms that make the practice seem unfashionable.  The public’s perception of environmentalists always ties into ‘liberal’ agendas.  This misconception is a dangerous idea that has been allowed to fester and will be the death of the planet and all living organisms on it, unless it is changed.

The issue of protecting the ecosystems, the inhabitants of, and the planet itself is not a political issue.  It is an issue of humanity, and an obligation of the rational-beings we have evolved to be.  Homo sapiens are the most successful macroscopic being on Earth, and have developed the ability to reason (though some choose not to), and therefore, have the duty as apex-species to protect the ecosystems that we are destroying with our gross overpopulation and the consequences of our advanced societies.

I submit to you, a plea to actively pursue a change in mindset of how the average person affects the habitat in which they reside.  Americans in particular are extremely passive in attempts to minimize the harm that they do.  To change for the better, we must have a reform of the way we live our lives, as well as supporting funding for clean resources and energy requirements for the technology we use.

Human beings are the most harmful thing to ever happen to planet Earth.  We are one of the most adaptable organisms on the planet, we are an apex-species, and our brains are developed to the point in which we can affect the entire planet as a collective, be it for good or harm.

Cane toads were introduced to Australia in 1935 with the aim of eliminating an insect that had been effecting sugarcane growth in parts of the country.  The effects of the toads on the ecosystem were unprecedented.  Now, almost three quarters of a century later, the toads are overpopulating and killing many large predators that have not had time to adapt to the toxins in the toad’s skin.

These toads do not have the mental ability to understand the harm that their presence is doing to the ecosystem.  Human beings do, and yet, choose to abstain from real solutions.  With our ability to rationalize actions, we have an obligation to protect and preserve the land and species we affect.

The problems of our overpopulation of the planet are much more wide-ranging, but just as harmful as the Cane toads in Australia.  Human beings are polluting the oceans, destroying the atmosphere, and pushing species that are unnecessary to our survival into extinction.  It is no coincidence that populations of cows, chickens, and pigs are booming, while the populations of snow leopards, giant pandas, and white rhinos are dying out.  These are not a result of natural selection, but of our infringement into the territory of those species, as well as the selfish slaughtering of those animals for parts.  It can be debated if the end to Darwin’s natural selection inevitably comes with the destruction of all species on the planet, except one op species, and a few others that are allowed to continue as sustenance, but does not have to be that way.

Outside of the challenges our species causes to other living inhabitants of the planet, we are pushing gases into the atmosphere that destroys our only protect from the sun, while defiling our planet’s natural sources of drinkable water, and condemning the rainforests, which are the planet’s source of 80 percent of its oxygen.  As a result, we are committing a mass murder/suicide.  Humans are destroying their own sources of water, oxygen, and cosmic protection while simultaneously condemning any creature that still lives, or would continue to survive after we perish.  It is impossible to morally justify these actions.

Whether one chooses to ‘believe’ it or not, scientists in all fields agree that global warming and the greenhouse effect are occurring.  Cosmic rays from the sun are becoming trapped inside our atmosphere, causing rapid changes in the temperatures and weather conditions of our planet.  Whether global warming is happening rapidly or not, immediate actions are necessary to prevent any more damage, or one day soon, our beautiful blue planet will be as desolate and as uninhabitable as Venus.  We caused this process to accelerate, with the air pollution we allow (and I’m not talking about Justin Bieber).

It was not until the 2000s that recycling became ‘fashionable’ in American society.  Though European countries have been recycling since the 1970s and in some cases longer, it is not enough to stop the destruction that the materials we use and pollutants we throw away cause.

Big business markets ‘green’ materials to consumers because those items sell, not because those items are better for our planet.  Companies are still largely unregulated in the products that are manufactured, the pollutants from machinery that are spewed from factories, and the materials used in many household products like Styrofoam.  Citizens must actively support legislation and legislators that will endorse regulations on companies large enough to affect the planet on a massively-negative scale.

We, as consumers have been fed the idea that ‘buying green’ or reusing grocery bags is enough to protect our planet and its resources, but that is false.  These are passive activities that, while mildly-effective, do not give substantial support to the wildlife and natural resources on Earth.

The mindset of “I will help the environment when it is convenient for me,” must change.  Support regulation on the largest producers of pollution.  As electors, we do have the power.  If it is the focus of the vast majority of constituents, the elected officials will follow or they will be unemployed.  Help control human overpopulation, in any way you can and curve the destruction of our ecosystem for artificial growth.  The power is in our hands.

Every person must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  The human mind is not often used to look at the world in a broad spectrum, and I fear action will not be taken until much more luminous problems arise from our actions.  By then, it will be too late.  Look beyond yourself and strive for humanity, not the individual.  Advocate clean energy, low-emission transportation, and reusable materials.  Support those who would do well for the environment.

The planet will be here tomorrow, whether or not you are.  It is imperative that you live proactively to ensure the continuation of our personal cosmic wonder.

 

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

1000 Hits: To Continue a Great Dialogue

Friends,

It has been a six days since my last post.  I do not have a set schedule of when to write posts, I had just been writing when I had free time.  Unfortunately, I have not had that luxury in the past week.  I will come back as soon as tomorrow evening with another topic of discussion that I hope will be as lively as my posts about health care, gun control, religion, and conservatism.

I started this ‘blog’ three weeks ago with no aspirations.  Yesterday, I surpassed the mark of 1000 views. I want to express my gratitude to all of you for coming to read and discuss the topics that I find interesting.

I have also been receiving a large number of comments.  I have been trying to answer all of them and will continue to do so, but please forgive me if I do not reply immediately to them.  I value all of your opinions, as I hope you value mine and encourage you to continue discussing these issues with me and among each other.

I hope that our great dialogue can continue to 1000 more site views and beyond.

Thank you,

Dustin McMahon

If They Die, They Die: The Ethics of American Health Care

red_cross_round_red

Do you want to hear a joke?

…A healthy American.

It would appear that the health of American citizens is a joke to many people in power, and the so-easily coerced masses.  If you’re like me, you have an appetite for the ironic.  The American government has actually convinced about half of its citizens that being healthy is not a fundamental right.  These people have been led to believe that it is treason to support paying taxes towards a collective pool of funds allocated to ensuring that every American citizen can have a right that many other world superpowers have: Health.  In direct result, the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than almost any other civilized country, and about 45,000 people die every year because they are unable to pay for health care.

Health can be a broad term.  To an American, health is a privilege that is given to the ‘hard workers.’ Health is a commodity and for some reason, there just isn’t enough to go around.  This post seeks to explore the American health care system and understand whether or not health is a fundamental right for a citizen.

Many of my readers are not America.  If you are one that is not American, you are probably shaking your head right now and your inner monologue is saying something like this: “These Americans are bloody crazy.”  Please forgive my bad accent.  Another bit of Irony would be the statement that many Americans that hold the opposite viewpoint of mine would say the same thing about you.

The United States has a very unique system for health care.  In America, independently owned and operated businesses are in control of the health insurance system.  Until President Obama introduced the Affordable Health Care Act, or “Obamacare,” health insurance companies were completely unregulated by American government.  This resulted in prices for insurance that were so high, that almost one in every seven Americans was uninsured and could be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars to be treated for any ailment.  These insurance companies could even chose to not insure a person for any reason.  Pregnancy was considered a pre-existing condition.  Ask a single mother about how hard it was to get insurance for her and her child.

It is an interesting thought that health may not be considered a fundamental right in America.  The country was founded on the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it seems as though the term ‘life’ does not include ‘the preservation of…’

I hold that it can never be ethical to deny the care of a person in need of health care.  The rights of an American do undoubtedly include the right to be healthy in the pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness.  It is the ethical responsibility of any member of the health care system to complete the actions in which they have been trained.  An insurance company or Doctor denying care to a person in need that cannot pay is like a fire fighter choosing to not respond to a call because it’s too far of a drive.

I do believe that health is a self-evident right, but some may not believe so.  Consider the reality of our situation on Earth.  We are the apex species, and yet, thoroughly insignificant by galactic standards.  Our closest possible living, celestial-neighbor is yet undiscovered, but more than a lifetime away from us by current propulsion standards.  All we have is each other.  Sure, there are those that seek unabridged wealth and power and mean to keep it all for their own pleasure. But that is not how our species should strive to be.  It is nothing less than necessary to ensure the best for every member of the species.

The implications of these changes to our health care system are such that there must be a change to a system in which a collective pool of tax dollars are saved for the health emergencies of the citizens.  As I have noted in previous posts, Americas are very individualistic.  The standard retort to a health care system change is: “I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s health care.”  There are two parts to that statement:

The first is they do not want to pay for someone else’s health care.  This is an argument used commonly by people that are fortunate enough to have adequate health insurance.  These people do not understand that they too may not always have the adequate health insurance that they embrace with locked-fists.

The second is that they do not want to be forced to do something.  Again, Americans are very individualistic.  Generally, the idea that Americans do not have the right to choose what they want to do with their money and bodies scares them.  However, the same people that don’t want to be forced to pay for other people’s health care also believe that gays should be forced to stay unmarried and a woman that have been raped must be forced to have the child.

Obviously, that argument is not well thought out and should be considered no more.

America is a great place to live, but the country is losing its status as a superpower.  Our citizens are poor, stupid, and unhealthy.  I have shown that the American idea of health care is broken and that it is the ethical duty of all Americans to embrace a system in which all people have access to health care.

If America is to last into the future, as the mindless ethnocentric citizens wish, an even more drastic change to the way Americans are healed needs to occur. A change that is not only to a broken system, but one that shakes the deepest convictions of the American public.

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

Women’s History Month: God is Looking Down on Us, and She is Pissed!

Hands new

As you all know, it is March and that can only mean one thing: Women’s History Month. I’ve decided to show my support for women with a refutation of the religious oppression of women, as well as an exploration into the right way to personify God.

The Problem of God’s Manhood

It is not much of a secret that the Christian church has had a long and spirited history with how to handle the problem of women.  Men had already taken the political, social, and economic power, and left women with household management and child rearing.  This distributing of societal standards set the precedent of which women will have to combat for almost 2000 years. With the rise of Judaism and Christianity in the West (as well as Islam in the East), a golden opportunity appeared to ensure that men would maintain power over women.

In the story of creation from the Old Testament: God created Man in His own image; the woman was created in Man’s image.  It is very interesting that people often overlook the overt sexism that is in the first couple pages of Genesis.  Aside from the numerous instances as God being personified as a man, which I will address in the coming paragraphs, God created man first, and then created a woman for the man.  The story of creation in the Old Testament was a way for men to exercise their claims that men are closer to God than women.

To keep my point manageable, I will not refer directly to the almost enumerable passages about ‘womanservents,’ slave girls,’ and ‘multiple wives in a household,’  or the passages stating that men rule over women, but please note that I am not pulling these connections between female oppression and the Bible out of thin air.

God is thought to being an ultimate, supreme, and perfect being; with qualities of Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Omniscience. This description has held true through more than two millennia (though questioned by many Christian philosophers), and is one of the first pieces of propaganda that children are taught in Sunday school.  God is also said to have human characteristics and traits, based largely on the depiction of God in the Bible, such as love, compassion, morality, and jealousy.  God is the creator, the judge, the jury, and in many cases, the executioner.  God is also a man.

Aside from the obvious paradoxes that come from combining any of these traits into one being (such as a being that is all-powerful and all-good trying to perform an action that is immoral), the assertion that God is a man, or has any trait of manhood has no logical expounder.

To give God a gender is to say that one gender is more God-like than another Gender.  This is to say that one gender, manhood, is more Godly than women, therefore, should hold dominion over the other.  However, many Christian and non-Christian philosophers, including St. Thomas Aquinas have decided that it is impossible for human beings (finite), to understand or comprehend God’s essence (infinite).

For these reasons, we can reasonably toy with the notion that the story in Genesis and the conviction that God is a man are purely propaganda pieces used to oppress the rights of women for whatever the necessary end.

The End of Religious Chauvinism

Is it not possible that if a new monotheistic religion, like Christianity or Judaism were invented today, that the God would personified as a woman?

We understand that the Middle East, circa 200 B.C.E. was not a particularly friendly place for women.  However, now, in the West, women enjoy many of the same rights as men.  Women are known to be physically inferior to men’s strength and muscle mass, but women are shown to have a higher capacity than men in many academic settings.

These facts have led us to a society in which women are thought of as more equal to men than ever before.  Though it must be conceded that women are not considered completely equal to men yet, (women have less opportunity and are paid less in professional settings than men), women are more to our modern civilizations than they have been to any in history.

Women are also the leaders of the household in many homes in our modern societies.  Due to broken homes, a drastic shift in gender roles, and the growing acceptance of homosexuality over the last twenty years, women have become as entrenched in political, social, and economic roles that were until recently, left only to men.  With these changes, the necessity for a monotheistic God to be a man in order for the religion to be socially acceptable is nullified. This means that our modern societies could accept a female God.

If we may look at the traits that I mentioned earlier, which are given to the Judeo-Christian God, we see three main characteristics: Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Omniscience.  A new monotheistic God must have these three traits in order to compare to current God that is perpetuated by the three modern monotheistic religions.  Our new Goddess must have the traits of Infinite Goodness, Infinite Power, and Infinite Knowledge.

It is not hard to believe that our Goddess could be infinitely good/moral.  By our modern societal standards, women are just as moral as men, and less akin to immoral actions of the flesh.  There is a discrepancy that could be argued: The social taboo of women being “sluts” or “whores” could be used as a counterpoint to my point.  However, those terms are a result of a male-driven society and do not hold up to scrutiny.

Our Goddess could also easily be with infinite knowledge.  I argued in an earlier paragraph that women do score higher than men on many academic tests that measure the capacity for learning and understanding in many subject. Therefore, if a male God could be all knowing, so could a female God.

The status of an all-powerful female God could be disputed by a chauvinist.  It cannot be defamed that men are stronger than women physically.  Even so, women, and mothers in particular are the force that give children everything that they need to grow into adulthood.  That is a power that cannot be denied.

Thus far, we have decided that in modern western society, a female monotheistic God is just as possible as a male monotheistic God, but I have not made a claim that would decide for certain that our new God would necessarily be personified as a woman.

Consider this: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.  These traits are common with a monotheistic God’s essence.  However, the original purpose of primitive culture’s beliefs in Gods is the explanation of world around us, and before modern science, the answer to how we got here; a creator.  This is how we can know our new monotheistic Goddess will not be hijacked by men and used for oppression.

Women are the creators of life.  Women harbor the necessary tools for reproduction, in which a new life is produced from the previous form of life.  Is this not what the story of creation in any religious tradition is about?

Without the social, political, economic, and household stigmas that held women oppressed for thousands of years, we can be certain of one thing:  Our new monotheistic god will not be an oppressive and jealous oaf that must have a pissing contest with any of the creations that defy Him. Our Goddess will be loving, compassionate, and caring, like a cosmic-mother and creator should be.

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon