188793 Views
300 Comments

Official church stance of homosexual marriage

Published January 19th, 2011 by Katie

Fellow Pastafarians,

I am writing about the official church stance of homosexual marriage (i.e. none). I am concerned that this stance is in direct contradiction with the will of the FSM. You see, I received a vision from the FSM this evening while (as is often the case) I was cooking a grilled cheese sandwich.

During his appearance he told me that homosexuals are gay because He has touched them with his noodley appendage. This is the reason that “experts” have had so much difficulty pinpointing what makes someone gay. And since gays and lesbians have been chosen by Him, to deny them the right to get married is an abomination in His eyes (meatballs). Of course many have argued that no major religion has ever accepted homosexuality. It should obvious to any FSM follower that the real reason homosexuals are shunned from mainstream religion is because of blatant prejudice towards those who have been touched by Him. A bigotry that I know many of my fellow Pastafarians have experienced first hand.

I am especially concerned because of the state of gay rights movement today. Too often gay activists argue that should be given the right to marry because of court precedent that says marriage is their “right as a human being” or essential to the “dignity ” of a relationship. Then they rely on the 14th amendment to say that they deserve “equal protection under the laws” and that under constitution gay people are “equal to” straight people.

Well I think to time to put these arguments to rest. Gay Pastafarians should sue because not allowing gay marriage is a violation of their first amendment rights since it is commanded by the FSM as relayed to me in my vision. Of course He works in mysterious ways and we may never why He commands that gays get married. But there is no question that He does.

Now if I know my fellow Pastafarians, you want proof. Attached is a photo of the grilled sandwich I was cooking when He appeared to me. I think it speaks for itself. I hope that it is satisfactory proof to convince everyone that we should amend the CotFSM’s stance on gay marriage to supporting it. Only then can gay Pastafarians demand true religious freedom and marry as the FSM intended.

May you all be touched by his noodley appendage,

Katie



300 Responses to “Official church stance of homosexual marriage”

1 2 3 14
  1. Keith says:

    Truly an inspiring vision of His/Her Noodliness.
    As far as first and forteenth amendments go, I live in Australia: we don’t even have a bill of rights or anything that says we should seperate church from state. My o/h and I were “married” 3 years ago but of course our relationship has not been recognised by the government, except where they can save money or extract more from us. It’s a bit like having a criminal record over here: you register your relationship and you are still treated like second class citizens. I’m not blaming His/Her Noodliness for our situation: a god who is perpetually drunk can only do so much.

    • gordon_uk says:

      Hi Keith

      Not sure how much weight UK case law has over in OZ (not sure if you highest court is still they privy council here in London) but there has been quite a high profile case where a judge determined that civil partnerships where the same as marriage in all but name. It was about a couple that own a hotel and turned away a gay couple claiming their Christian beliefs would not allow unmarried couples to share a double bed, the full story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Christian-hotel-owners-Peter-Hazelmary-Bull-penalised-turning-away-gays.html

      • Keith says:

        Thanks for the comments Gordon but Australia is not as progressive as Britain. My O/H an I could get married at the UK High Commission (I have dual citizenship) but it would still not be recognised in Australia. Civil partnerships/marriages between two people of the same sex are not legally recognised anywhere in Australia.
        Non of the governments, either state or federal are interested in changing that. When I said that we were “married” I was careful to put it in inverted commas because it was not recognised as a real marriage. It was a public celebration called “Loved up” held in November 2007 as part of the FEAST celebrations. Fifteen couples staged a wedding ceremony presided over by JPs. The press loved it, the public loved it, the politicians took no notice of it.

        • Keith says:

          Correction: we can no longer get married on British territory. Apparently the previous prime miniature, Howard, made certain of that:
          http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/marriage_os.html
          Just goes to show what happens when fundamentalists (the emphasis being on “fundament”) get into power.

        • Gordon_UK says:

          Sorry to hear that, maybe you should move to the UK, watching the news it looks as if we get less rain then you!!

        • Keith says:

          Re: the rain situation. South Australia (where I live) is the driest state in Australia (NT is a territory) We love it when it rains. we can’t get enough of it! It tops up our tanks, our dams, and the river Murray (most of the water is taken from the river before it reaches us). Our water supply was privatised so we pay through the nose for the priviledge of turning on a tap. (Thank you John Olsen)

        • Pirate Johnson says:

          How do you sail ships. Is it like something from the MAad Max films. Yay 4th movie in production. I think it might help to import large reserves of sea water. This would please Spaghedeity enough to allow you to keep the water (especially if you pirated the water).

        • zarathustra says:

          One would have initially thought that the emphasis was on on “mental” bur “fundament” is beautiful. Thanks for the teehees.

        • Keith says:

          # Pirate Johnson.
          We don’t sail in ships. We all ride on dinosaurs (mine is a parasaurolophus: you should hear it honk!) and when we get back to our wattle and daub huts we lock up our dinosaurs and hide the keys under the rocks we use for pillows.

        • Tucci78 says:

          For is it not written that those who are entwined together in His Noodly Appendage shall be united forevermore in the bonds of wedlock and community property (no matter how many of them get in there at the time), and that no mere mortal sucking up taxpayer dollars as an employee of the government shall put them asunder?

          Did He ever require that there should be only one sausage on each plate, or that two cannelloni could not be apportioned together, or even that His faithful followers shouldn’t join in numbers greater than twain to scoop the Red Sauce of Life over themselves?

          Go, therefore, and be farinaceous and multiply.

          Or not, and think about adopting, so that the seed of the unbelievers shall not fall on barren dishes and be wasted.

    • Jolly Roger Jeff says:

      What do we have to do to get Pastafarianism recognised as a “legitimate” (read legal) religion in Australia? I’d happily be Ordained as a minister in the Church of the FSM and marry the both of you. Imagine the really cool ceremony we could make up; pirate costumes, beer, a male stripper holding the ring. The possibilities are endless.

    • Candy says:

      Keith, I’m an Ordained Minister with FSM, and if you are ever wanting a “wedding” ceremony, I’d be more than happy to do it for you

      • Keith says:

        I’d like that, Candy but my O/H insists that if we get married (assuming the god botherers in parliament get off their high horses and see common sense) there will also have to be an ordained Ceiling Cat minister in attendence.

  2. edd says:

    I must admit that, at first, I would have opposed an ‘official church stance’ on anything since we Pastafarians are known for our loose moral standards and our deity’s tendency to let us live by our own morality, as evidenced by the Eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’t's.

    The photo, however, is obviously an undeniable testament to His Noodliness’s endorsement of this message so we have no choice but to go along with it (and I’m not just saying that because it coincides with my own viewpoint).

    • Mia says:

      Katie has clearly been granted the gift of Prophecy! And as if that weren’t cool enough, she has also witnessed a miracle, His Noodliness revealing his divine form on her cheese sandwich. Not only that, she actually got a picture of the sandwich in question: although many other religions have told of wondrous events, none of them has ever documented them decently, so it must be a miracle that the FSM granted Katie the presence of mind, at such an awe-inspiring moment, to whip out her cell phone & take a photo, proving the miracle. Plus, the original Prophecy probably counts as a miracle, too, right? So that’s *three* whole miracles! I think the Committee on Saintliness (we do have one of those, right?) should vote to declare Katie a saint right away! She definitely qualifies. The Catholics, who are considered to be among the more meticulous religions when it comes to such matters, only require two miracles, plus they’re willing to accept some pretty lame ones — like if somebody had explosive diarrhea and then started to get some relief shortly after they prayed to the prospective saint to “say hi to Jesus for me…oh, and could you ask him to do me a little favour?” (even if they had also taken a bismuth sulphate-containing medication, J-man is presumed to have interceded.) It’s admittedly true that you have to be dead to be a Catholic saint, but I think that’s a stupid requirement b/c you can’t properly venerate a dead person.

      I further propose that if Katie should receive the ultimate blessing, to be martyred for her Pastafarian faith (as she herself noted, many are bigoted against those who have been blessed with the touch of His Noodley Appendage, so there are plenty of opportunities here, but regardless, I bet we could figure out a way to explain just about any death as a martyrdom), she be designated a Supersaint, and a series of graphic novels be produced describing her exploits in highly exaggerated form. There should also be a Feast Day in her honor at which Pastafarians ingest her favorite spirituality-enhancing substance in her memory, and of course, a relevant ride at the Pastafarian Theme Park where a cleric performs gay marriages. (The US government has ruled that Native Americans can use peyote, a Schedule I Controlled Substance, for religious purposes, so surely they can’t discriminate against us when we need to use a spirituality-enhancing substance in order to properly venerate a saint and prophetess. After all, we are a monotheistic religion, which, as everybody knows, makes us more advanced than primitive pagans like those Native Americans. Our traditions therefore are more valid than theirs, so we should get to break more laws than they do in the name of freedom of religion.)

      Katie, I hope you saved the sandwich so we can venerate it as a Holy Relic. (I guess we should have it preserved to keep it from getting all smelly and icky.)

      Seriously, our first saint — just think what this will do for our PR! We should try to get some media coverage to spread the holy message and increase hits to our site.

      • Katie says:

        I am humbled at your suggestion. I would, of course, be honored to be a pastafarian saint. While I have never thought I could be eligible for sainthood, if it is propagated by the FSM I would have no choice but to accept. Thank you, for the endorsement.

      • Noodle Lover says:

        RAmen

  3. Ubi Dubium says:

    Worth a try, but I don’t think the strategy will work. Fundamentalist Mormon men say that their religion demands that they be allowed to marry large numbers of unwilling underage girls, but so far the government does not agree that they have the right to do this, even under freedom of religion.

    I think our “eight i’d really rather you didn’ts” already give us some good flimsy guidelines on this issue: “man=person. Woman=person. Samey-samey.” I think that covers it pretty well.

    • Katie says:

      I think that the state would have more difficulty showing a legitimate interest in preventing gay marriage on religious grounds than polygamy, since as you mention there is a lot of abuse in polygamist relationships.

    • chadachada123 says:

      The difference being that (besides the true God FSM supporting our beliefs), gay marriages have willing participants. Mormon polygamists…not always the case.

      Though, if the Mormon girls ARE willing, it’s none of our business. It’s between them and His Noodly Appendages.

      • Puma says:

        I’ve always thought it would work better with more than one male in a household. I know polygamy is normally multiple wives, but what if it were husbands?

        As a husband, there has been many a time I would have like to split that “honey do” list with someone else. You know the list, the one that physically needs more strength to complete.

        • Attila the Bun says:

          What people commonly refer to as polygamy is actually polygyny: multiple wives for one husband. The opposite is called polyandry, and it is practiced in some parts of the world. The term “polygamy” properly refers to either.

          Pardon my pedantry, but I’m passionate about the proper use of language. (And alliterative as hell, too, apparently.)

  4. bruceo says:

    “an abomination in His eyes (meatballs).”?!
    The FSM sayth onto you, “HEY! My eyes are UP HERE!”

  5. theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

    Extending basic human rights to gay people is seen as an affront to straight people. Much like the inclusion of blue cars on the expressway is an affront to those of us with white or black cars. How dare they drive on the same roads as us!

    • Olio says:

      Not an affront to this straight couple. Only the ones vocal about being opposed. We are all for equal rights. What is the objection exactly -do people fear a takeover? Is it like this in other countries or just the USA? A more honest approach would be for objectors to say keep people in the closet. That is going to help nobody and probably create more problems.

  6. MarkFitz says:

    Seems legit. I’m in.

    • Demosthenes says:

      As am I.

  7. Constance says:

    Ramen. May we all be touched by his noodly appendage.

  8. Impossibly Stupid says:

    “He works in mysterious ways and we may never [know] why He commands that gays get married.”

    I think I know. As it is natural for opposites to attract, it almost goes without saying that for identical pairs to be brought together *must* require some kind of higher power. Since the FSM acknowledges being that power, any faithful Pastafarian who is a homosexual *must* affirm their belief in Him by seeking out the earthly bond of marriage. It makes perfect sense, and any society who would deny it can’t be said to have religious freedom.

1 2 3 14

Leave a Reply