HOME | DD
Waffle-Wizard — Separate Marriage and State
Published: 2011-04-28 16:11:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 1843; Favourites: 29; Downloads: 7
Redirect to original
Description
Stamp template that I probably use too much by ~AbfcSomewhat inspired by Tailsteak, who worded it much better than I ever could: [link]
Now, I realize that everybody hates people who think like this, but frankly I'm just sick and tired of everybody on both sides of the aisle whining about "legalizing gay marriage."
Here's a big ol' fact that people just don't seem to get: marriage is a religious act. If we try to get the Feds to enforce its legalization, isn't that essentially controlling the church through the state?
Sure, the government can legalize a civil union, but nobody seems to care when they can yell about their pastor at church not wanting to hook up to guys or two girls.
Well, you guys need to suck it up. It's not a governmental decision. Stop being babies and take it up with the guys who actually decide this stuff, whether that be the guy who owns your small community-run mosque or the freaking Pope.
The government is legally unable to do anything. It's something called "Separation of church and state," and it was designed not to protect the government from religious interference but to protect the churches (of all faiths) from the government deciding what's holy, what God wants, and what priests should have to do. That means if you call your local representative because your pastor refuses to marry you for a religious reason, you're going to do nothing but stir up a whole heap of trouble that won't solve anything.
In essence, YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE POLITICS BEHIND A LEGALLY NON-POLITICAL DEBATE
And for those of you who think that the government should enforce acceptance of this kind of thing, I want you to really look at your definition of bigotry and religious oppression, because no matter who you're asking it's totally backwards. NEWSFLASH: this country was founded specifically BECAUSE the government of the motherland was oppression their religious beliefs, and the laws were written specifically so nobody would have to suffer from that oppression. Congratulations, crybabies, you have killed America!
Now let's see how many people accuse me of being homophobic and oppressive.
Related content
Comments: 87
So what you're saying is that because in some parts of the world "marriage" is done for selfish reasons that marriage is not a religious act nor one of love, and therefore my argument, which agrees with yours, is invalid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. My statement is that marriage started as A, continues to be A with mild tweaks to make it seem more about a relationship instead of about property. My statement is also that it was never about religion and is only about religion for those who make it about religion--which isn't everyone. & finally that a religious ceremony =/= marriage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
dude, it's a fundamentalist. their ultimate skill is plucking out only what they want to hear and masturbate with, then throw the rest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Marriage is a Gov't thing. Because the GOVERNMENT is the one who gives the 1000s of benefits to married couples. Not to mention the existence of Civil Marriage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You bring up an interesting point, but in so doing an important question: why doesn't the government just provide those benefits to the homoromantic civil marriages and not touch the religious marriages? No one can stop them from recognizing gay or lesbian civil marriages.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well Places of Worship always reserve the right to deny marriage to anyone they wish ^^ That's always how it's been 
Noone should even try to force Places of Worship to marry couples they don't wish to- a bill like that would never pass. Civil Marriages are all (most) people ask for
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Civil Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious places should not be forced to perform marriages for couples their faith doesn't believe in, but religion has no place in Civil Marriages.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right, so as I was trying but obviously failed to communicate, the government can decide the laws on civil marriage but can not on religion. Tailsteak once suggested that the two would probably ultimately end up being completed in the same ceremony, so religious marriages and civil marriages could happen simultaneously, which I think is fair. And it provides the alternative that you can be civilly married without being religiously married, and vice versa. So it's a nice little compromise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're sentiments are homophobic and oppressive. If a few people of the same sex getting married killed America, I don't think it's worth fighting for.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, wow. I knew posting stamps like this would eventually attract criticism from people who didn't read a word that I said, but I expected you to at least be able to tell the difference between homophobia and honestly not caring either way.
Not a single word I breathed was homophobic or oppressive in any way. In fact, it's the opposite: if what you're saying is that politicians should be able to force churches to recognize same-sex marriage, then you've officially announced that you don't care about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or anything that the only nations in the world worth living in stand for.
And saying I'm homophobic is a big ol' pile of laughs. I have TWO friends who are straight, bringing the total to THREE people I know and care about who would refuse sex from someone of the same gender. Everyone else I know is bi or gay, and you know what? We get along just fine. Half the time when we're talking about the politics behind gay marriage we even agree.
The dividing line between us is that I'm religious and about 99% of them are not, and even then none of them think that politicians should have a say in how a church operates. And if they did they would be HUGE hypocrites. Much like yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, so you aren't homophobic. For the sake of gay couples who want to get married sometime this decade, I ask that you don't vote for propositions or initiatives banning it. You can have that opinion that you disagree with it, but I don't think it's right for others to interfere with others lives like that. And churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want to. Gay couples if they want to can get a marriage certificate without setting foot in a church or meeting up with a priest. In states that allow marriage I never once heard of a church forced to perform a ceremony.
You may be accepting of gays, and you might have your own reasons for wanting to ban gay marriages (the harm of two men or women getting married I don't understand), but issues like this and adoption have been used by fundamentalists time and time again to oppress gay people.
So you can have you opinion, just don't intrude the opinion on others by banning it. Thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you commenting on the wrong deviation? I never said I wanted to ban gay marriage. I'm perfectly fine with the whole idea. The only condition _I_ need to accept a union of two people is that they love each other. I'm not arguing that we should ban anything; I just want people to stop bothering the government over the actions of the church.
And do tell how adoption comes into the picture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was just pointing out that in the united states getting a marriage license is handled by the government. It has nothing to do with churches at all. Civil Unions don't give gay couples important benefits like power of attorney after they die or the ability to see their loved ones in hospitals and a thousand other rights.
Unfortunately fundamentalists try to spin the issue that churches are going to be forced to marry gay couples (when to the best of my knowledge this has never happened). This isn't what marriage equality is about or what legalizing gay marriage will bring. It just recognizes their rights in the name of the law. And the churches they don't want to marry gays won't be forced to. That's the truth of the matter.
Adoption and custody rights also tie into marriage which is why I mentioned it.
Again, I don't know your motivations for wanting to ban gay marriage, and you might tolerate gay people. But when you tell them they don't deserve a right like that don't be surprised if they take it personal. It's hard not to when it affects their personal lives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But I don't want to ban it. I just wish people would stop making such a big deal about it.
The entire point of this stamp is to point out that it doesn't matter either way what people do because the government can not define a religious union.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, I understand that. I'm glad you don't want to ban it. But what I'm saying is that the concept of marriage has existed for thousands of years, and it wasn't always a strictly religious union. Nobody's been talking about removing rights from churches. Just giving more rights for everyone. Some churches, and many religions do recognize gay marriages as well, and I don't think it's right to not allow those churches from marrying couples too.
It's only a big deal when there's an attempt to ban it. I think if there wasn't an effort by a lot of intolerant people to stop it, this wouldn't be an issue. Luckily the newer generations don't really care about this as much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People don't want others to say "That's so gay." yet want gay marriage? I have nothing against homosexuality, but civil union seems like more of a win-win, that way both religious and homosexuals can be happy, and perhaps there's less tension.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, this isn't hard to figure out: religious people can't touch governmental unions and the government can't touch religious unions. If you care so little about your religious beliefs that you'll have sex with someone of the "wrong" gender, why do you even care what your church says about it?
There are some things that JUST DON'T need to be as complicated as people make them.
And yes, that ad was real. They lost me on the first sentence just because of the crowd I hang out with. The most tolerant people I have ever met use "gay" as an insult. Why? Because it's funny, it's easy to say, and it can be applied to almost anything.
Thanks for the fave
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, it's like a balanced scale, and keeps life fair for people. it seems like people see religion as oppressive, and nothing but nowadays. About church thing, I guess maybe some of these people belonged to religious families? Perhaps harassed? Then again, I heard that even the just man commits sin, seven to be exact.
Very true, I've just learned one thing about marriage that could turn many things around. On the topic of straight marriage in a Christian point of view, marriage is only official in the church, because you are married in God's eyes, it is a sacrament, meaning when you get a divorce and remarried, you've married two times, in God's eyes. On the other hand, marriage in court kinda doesn't count. So gays could marry in court and there may not be much of a problem. The reason why Christians don't want gay marriage in the church is because marriage is a sacrament, and homosexuality is viewed as a sin there, it's kind of like accepting the blood and body of Jesus Christ in a state of mortal sin. And that can be completely understandable.
Yeah, that crowd annoys me at times. I guess it would be nice to look where you say it, but back in the day "Dang, darn, jeez, gosh" and other words used for substitutes for cuss words were offensive back in the day. Boy was an insult. If it isn't used in an offensive matter towards someone, why get so worked up?
Sorry for my wall o' text there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think it has been said, if not i win, But in the UK correct me if i'm wrong, But isn't it all ruled by Government and law? Why does it have be complicated, Just have one thing rule it universally so i don't get all confused.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know the situation in the U.K.. I know Ireland will have eliminated homosexual marriage because it was on their "things Christians do I think" checklist
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What about civil marriages? Not all marriages are religious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You didn't read the description, did you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did, but the description and stamp seem to suggestion that all marriages are religious and I was wondering about your views on non-religious marriages.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In this case it's all a question of terminology. I'm separating civil and religious unions by using "marriage" to define religious unions and "civil unions" to define the irreligious. It's just slightly easier that way.
As for my views, honestly, I support having the right, but I don't take a position on whether it's morally right or wrong. It's none of my business who people decide to marry, and if the Feds are nice enough to allow that then good for them. It'd be horrible if they didn't, and clearly a violation of their rights.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"In this case it's all a question of terminology. I'm separating civil and religious unions by using "marriage" to define religious unions and "civil unions" to define the irreligious. It's just slightly easier that way."
This is all the matter,thank you for clarifying that!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Who cares if America's dead? It's England's kid, and if I were England I wouldn't even love it anymore because America was a spoiled child and acted like a dick to everyone around it. :C
Anyway, while I do wish that people would accept gay marriage as a normal thing because there's nothing wrong with it, I do agree that others have their rights to an opinion - so if they want their church to not allow gay marriage (follow in the entirety of the Republic of Ireland's steps, why don't you, guys) then that's the church's decision to give into the masses, not so much the state's, and it shouldn't be forced upon people to accept gay marriage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually, do you know why Ireland did take that step? Is there a reason why their laws ended up conforming to traditionalist conservative Christian philosophy?
And I'm not saying that I don't support gay marriage. Love is love and who am I to decide who someone loves? I just really don't get why the government needs to hold our hand on this one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think Ireland took the "move away" step because England invaded them a few billion years ago or some shit. Why they became extreme Catholics, on the other hand, I have no fucking idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, so it's probably the same reason the U.S. became yippee-kai-yay color-is-spelled-without-a-u football-is-more-awesome-here separatist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Although for some reason "opossum" starts with an "o" now...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Although I hope Westboro Baptist Church ends up in flames one of these days. Fuck I hate them so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agreed, I guess.
This whole mess is so darn complicated, that's what. And people only make things more complicated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've often wondered if the bigotry and hatred that gets injected into this debate would even exist if people just stopped making a big deal about it. That means stop being so militaristic about defending it and stop being so barbaric with attacking it. I guarantee you there would be a lot less hate.
Just yesterday on my way home from school I heard an infomercial on the radio about a website spawned specifically to stop people from saying "that's so gay" as a joke. I really can't think of a better way to make people angry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed. Half of the incident of someone being offended is the person being offended in the first place. People need to not only be respectful of others but also stop being so touchy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |