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,


375 Responses to “Official church stance of homosexual marriage”

  1. Insightful Ape says:

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the creator of all thing bright and beautiful, loveth all His children equally. It would an abomination in the eye of the LORD of the hosts, His Noodliness, that there be injustice against part of His creation, on the basis of sexual orientation, sayeth the LORD. The LORD FSM desireth equally for all his creation, irrespective of color, sex, national origin, age, physical disability, or sexual orientation.
    (Now wouldn’t it be nice if rather than observing the sabbath or making graven images, ancient Hebrews had come up with something like, thou shalt not discriminate. But who am I kidding).

    • Puma says:

      Ramen! RAMEN!

    • Rainbow Pasta says:

      Said like a true Pastafarian. May His Noodly Appendage Touch you oh Wise One

  2. Alaric says:

    Not only do I think our church should endorse same sex marriage, but I think it is our duty as a church to marry people. Or I least I have heard that that is something that churches typically do. And wouldn’t that pirate costume be perfect for the ceremony? And pasta? Who wouldn’t want a wedding cake covered in tomato sauce?
    We need to be doing this!

    • Puma says:

      I agree! With pirate ships there is always a captain, and everyone knows captains can marry people. Combine this evidence with the compelling sandwich vision and I am thoroughly convinced that his great noodlieness wants us to.

      Ramen my brothers and sisters!

  3. FireCat says:

    i would be willing to be ordained ( by the Univeral Life Church if
    neccessary ) to perform such ceremonies. Does the CFSM offer
    ordination ?


    • skrue_luse says:

      I right w/ you, and already ordained through the ULC. I’m also interested in the idea if ordination through CFSM, as a number of people in my area have expressed intrest in the idea of establishing a physical FSM church.

      • Puma says:

        I to would like this!

  4. gordon_uk says:

    I have an issue with this post, now I may upset a few people with this, so apologies in advance but that sandwich is clearly fried not grilled!!!!

    Anyway, personally I don’t think we need a stance on homosexuality or for that matter heterosexual marriage, if two people want to make a lasting commitment to each other why should it be down to everyone else to determine the validity of their relationship? The way I see it is that it does not affect my way of life or devalue my marriage, it dose not increase the ‘risk’ of me or my kids ‘turning gay’ and if a couple in a same sex relationship want to adopt well that’s one less kid in a foster home.


    • Dale says:

      The point is to show that if it is valid to deny something because some religion says so, then it is valid to claim the opposite because some other religion says so. At the end what makes one religion better than another?

      • TiltedHorizon says:

        @Dale who says: “At the end what makes one religion better than another?”

        Size, apparently. Just like a phallus, the devout like to assert their numbers as evidence of their superiority. This, I assume, is the reason they become phallic when arguing for their beliefs. Ironically, this puts the “created in his image” statement in proper context.

      • Gordon_UK says:


        Sorry mate but you’ve lost me, how does you response relate to my post? My point was that we should have no stance on the subject as its up to the couple in question as to whether their relationship is valid and not a religious group, Pastafarian or otherwise as that seems quite condensing.


        • Puma says:


          Yes in a civilized society you are correct. Those of us in the states do not live in a civilized society. We live in a society where regardless of the individuals choice and commitment, gay couples are discriminated against. On instance where being married would make a difference, over just being committed, is in the case of health care. When one partner is not capable of making their own medical decisions, normally this would fall to the spouse; but sense gay folks can’t marry, they have no “spouse”. There have been cases where the partner isn’t even allowed to see their mate wile they die.

          There are other places where being legal married provides given advantages over just being committed to each other. Forbidding marriage for one group wile allowing it for another is discrimination.

  5. Just Ducky says:

    I’ve always believed that, in general, the CotFSM’s official default stance on social things is kinda something like “Yo, Ho, Ho, and a bottle of Whatever Floats Your Pirate Ship.” That being said, I believe that the Church should take a position when there’s an obvious situation of civil rights, i.e. that the People have a fundamental (pun intended) right to not have to sit in a publicly-funded classroom and be fed religious felgercarb in the guise of “science”.

    My personal default setting for civil rights in marriage is along the lines of “if you don’t want somebody to have the right and power to tell you who you can marry, then you have to give up the right to tell other people who they can marry.” Clearly, to prevent victimization, there has to be some boundaries about age, familial relationship, mental capacity, species, consciousness, etc. But, on the issue of gender, either physical or mental, if you find somebody to love, and they love you, I can only feel glad tidings for the happy couple.

    Then, like all married couples, they can settle into the really important issues. Toilet paper over the top or out from under? Cat or dog? Marinara or alfredo?

    • Mia says:

      > Marinara or alfredo?

      This is an important theological question that we need to address!

      • Keith says:

        I just let my husband decide. I cook and he eats. It’s a perfect arrangement.

        • Rainbow Pasta says:

          R’amen Brotha, R’amen

  6. tekHedd says:

    I was inspired in part by this discussion to report on an important issue: is gay marriage killing bees? http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Is_gay_marriage_killing_bees%3F I’m not often moved to commit acts of senseless satire, but I had no choice in this matter. Perhaps his noodle was upon me at the time.

    • Gordon_UK says:

      LOL, that could of been taken direct from the daily mail!!

  7. Keith says:

    Thank you for the link, tekHedd: that was hilarious.

  8. JamesL says:

    I have on controversial view on marriage, for sure. I believe in a state-recognized union people gay or straight can participate in, and if you want to get the title of “married”, do it with you religion. I also believe couples without joint accounts should get benefits that all couples with joint accounts currently have. I believe in child support but no alimony or current 50/50 divorce settlement bs, because whoever you are; guy or gal, you’re getting fucked. Someone’s going to get a lot of someone else’s shit, and nobody likes when that happens chick or dude.

Leave a Reply