Stamp template that I probably use too much by ~Abfc
Somewhat 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.
Wait, so basically religion controls marriage? I thought that the Government controls it? So you must be Christen and have your marriage in a Church and be blessed by God even though you are marriying because you love the person, and not the religion?
I know this is an old comment, but this is the most ridiculous statement here. The other comments are silly being all pro-gay, but being Native American myself, I find your generalization of Natives very misleading and quite frankly, offensive, that you will bunch us all together as if we all supported these nonsense.
Here in Canada, gay marriage is legal all throughout the country, I haven't seen any church that has objected to marrying gay people, and basically no one has a problem with the whole gay marriage thing.
oh, and desperate attempt to inject religious control into the government as well as corporate greed is what's killing America, not people who think you should shut up already about how mighty your ego- I mean, religion is and how it supposedly should be the ruler of all because your ego- I mean, god supposedly says so.
marriage was invented by pagans, not christians, morons. stop crying that christians should decide what happens to it because you "own" it... because you don't. and before you try the asspull defense that you mean general religions, keep in mind that only christians and your abrahamic buddies are butthurt over homosexuality- other religions don't cry as much about gay people, if at all. So stop trying to give all the power over marriage to christians under the guise of "religion owns it!" because- news flash!- christians aren't the only religion, and other religions will disagree with you. And why yes, you sound homophobic, and no, i'm not a crybaby for seeing how desperate you are to french kiss your pope's ass.
tl;dr christians don't own marriage either, and most religions aren't as homophobic as you abrahamic fucks, so shut up about having the power to kick gays out of marriage.
Oh, and I'm agnostic. That is, I believe that there is a god, but I also believe that you're shitting all over his image for the sake of your personal opinions and butthurt.
First of all, congratulations on picking up my subtle series of clues that implied that I am, in fact, a Christian as opposed to anybody else! I'm sure that absolutely nobody would have guessed from only my extremely long description which used phrases like "church," "pastor," and "priest!"
Secondly, congratulations for demonstrating your open-mindedness and your ability to see through BS by reading said description and gleaning from it that I am anti-gay marriage and that THAT is the reason I made this stamp! The fact that you are totally wrong only urges forward that you are extremely good at telling me something about myself which I in my 20 years of living with myself have never noticed!
And thirdly, non-sarcastically, congratulations on getting from my distinction between "civil union" and "religious union" that I believe only religious unions should be legal, because in doing so you have demonstrated a complete inability to do anything but bitch about imaginary problems to people you don't know and have never met before. Congratulations for thinking that my pulling the "separation of church and state" card was entirely geared toward destroying government control in favor of religious control. Congratulations for demonstrating your ignorance, insecurity, and closed-mindedness.
After reading several of your defensive posts, I realized what point you were actually trying to get across. But man, you are horribly bad at delivering your points.
I've read the entire paragraph, and honestly, you need to take some extra classes for reading/writing comprehension, because all your essay gets across is that you are butthurt about law telling your biased religion to bugger off when it comes to human rights, but you are trying to generalize religion and claim you're totally not homophobe as shields, but it just looks all too desperate to make it look like you're totally not butthurt. What little actual points there were were drowned in butthurt and whining, and it became hard to tell what the hell you were talking about at points due to said whining. Seriously, look at your own rant, you look like the "goddamn crybabies" you claim people questioning your intentions are.
And you only got even more butthurt, raving in a paragraph containing no actual points other than insulting and over-emphasized sarcasm. Congratulations on making yourself look like a sensitive moron. No, really, it's such an achievement.
"you have demonstrated a complete inability to do anything but bitch about imaginary problems to people you don't know and have never met before"
I smell hypocrite.
"Congratulations for demonstrating your ignorance, insecurity, and closed-mindedness."
Even more hypocrisy. Of course, that's the trademark of easily-offended christians, so that goes without saying.
As it is quite the feat, congratulations yet again on making yourself look like a stereotypical raving bibliophile idiot. Seriously, learn how to write without getting massively butthurt.
Oooooh, you're going to get a lot of "It's a FACT that YOUAR WRAWNG!"'s for sharing your opinion. You'll notice that one pro-gay marriage stamps, there's lots of "OHEMJEE DIS IS SO RAIGHT", but if you put a stamp about it like this that's against gay marriage, the hate cometh.
Marriage was never a religious act, it was an act of property, men bought and sold women for a price--today the ring your future-husband proposes with is considered to be the same as a dowry would have been to our ancestors. Marriage isn't even about love in some places today, there are still arranged marriages and there are still opium brides (often children sold to pay a debt to a drug lord and then used as sex slaves, and still they are brides because of their monetary value)!
The fact is, you can go have a marriage in a church, but it means nothing to the government (or for the benefits you would gain from a marriage) unless you get a marriage license first from the government. It's really that simple. You don't get marriage licenses from your priest/rabbi/pastor/minister--you have to go to a court house, fill out some paper work, and pay roughly $40 for a piece of paper that tells everyone you're married and can receive marital privileges via the state. Yes, religious ceremonies have nothing to do with the government, but that's because (at least in America) state is separate from religion. Every religious place of worship has the right to deny their sanctuary to be the place of someone's marriage--some Catholic churches won't allow a Catholic wedding to someone in their church that isn't part of their congregation (even if they are themselves Catholic). Religious places are private institutions though, so by law, they have the right to do that. The government as a body that is meant to protect all of its citizens, however, should not be held to the ideology of the many different religions in America.
Government marriage =/= religious ceremony. Marriage =/= love (all the time) & started as a business (historically speaking).
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.
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.
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.
Well Places of Worship always reserve the right to deny marriage to anyone they wish ^^ That's always how it's been Of course, some places of worship DO want to marry gay couples- they should be allowed to, as well.
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
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.
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.
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.
drunkpimp3000Featured By OwnerMay 20, 2011Hobbyist General Artist
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.
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.