Freedom of religion...

...is also freedom FROM religion.

Whenever I get into a debate about LGBT rights, I'm constantly confounded when people bring up religion as though it was actually pertinent to the argument/subject. I honestly fail to see what religion has to do with any of it.

For one, your religious beliefs are your own. They only matter to you and do not necessarily mean something to everyone else. What you choose to believe is your business, but with that being said, stop assuming that everyone believes in the same things you do, or that they should. It doesn't matter that X number of people believe in the same thing(s) you do either.

Secondly, when you constantly fall back on religion as your argument, it only shows that you believe your religion to be law and that everyone, regardless of their own beliefs, should obey the doctrines of your religion. Why should we? You don't even follow the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sihk, Buddhist, etc. doctrines. It's hypocrisy to expect everyone to obey your religion but you refuse to acknowledge anyone else's.

But marriage was institutionalized by God.

False.

There is zero evidence to support this conjecture other than what is written in a book, which amounts to nothing since there is a lot of evidence that proves marriage actually predates religion. (Also, I have books that say wizards and mermaids are real.) Indeed, marriage existed before the Abrahamic religions did and it most certainly did not originate from the garden of Eden. It even predates recorded history as far back as 20,000 years, which evolved from polygamy to monogamy. How can an organization claim rights/credit for an invention that existed before them? It simply does not make sense to claim credit for something that never belonged to you to begin with.

Furthermore, if marriage were truly institutionalized by God, then how does it also exist in all other religions/cultures throughout history? Religions/cultures, I might add, that not only had no contact with one another until much later, but also predate Abrahamic religions.

Marriage is a legally binding contract. Here I put emphasis on legal since churches have no legal authority to distribute marriage licenses or divorces. These are handled by the court, that being the actual law by which all people abide (or are supposed to). The only reason why the church is so assfuckingly anal about the marriage thing is because it's the final straw in the absolute seperation of church and state. We are finally putting our foot down and saying that we'll no longer accept their shenanigans and they need to keep their noses out of politics and government.

The church does not get to define what marriage is. Only the people can and the people comprise of more than the 33% of Jews, Muslims and Christians. The other 67% has had enough of your BS.

Stop it.

But marriage is for making babies. That's why it's between a man and a woman.

True and false.

Marriage may have once been for the sole purpose or procreation, but that is no longer true now. After hitting the seven billion mark - that's 7,000,000,000 and rising -I'm pretty sure we're doing ok where it concerns propagating our species. This, I might add, was still achieved REGARDLESS of the fact that homosexuality exists.

You also have to take into consideration that there are heterosexual couples who are unable to have children through sexual means, who then may choose to not have children at all. Are we to annul their marriage(s) simply because no offspring were produced as a result? If we are to deny same sex couples the right to marry simply on the fact that they cannot have children through sexual means with one another, then following this (ir)rational, we must also deny heterosexual couples who do not produce children the right to marry as well.

Another thing to consider are couples who do not want children. Should we deny them the right to marry as well or force them to procreate? Do we have that right? Do you?

Also, what about single parents? Do we deny them civil/human rights because they either choose to or simply don't have a partner?

In what universe do we define the quality of parenting by the genitals that dangle between your legs? If a single father can raise his children up to be good, decent folk, then two fathers can do twice as well. The same can be said for women as well.

But gays can't make babies, so what's the point?

False.

Simply because they're homosexual does not mean that their reproductive organs have stopped functioning. They're fully capable of procreating should the need or desire arise. Being unable to biologically procreate with your same sex partner is no different than being unable to procreate with your opposite sex partner. The methods in which heterosexual couples use in order to have children are the same for same sex couples:

In vitro fertilisation.

Artificial insemination.

Surrogacy.

There are also many heterosexual couples who choose not to have children through biological means and opt for adoption. The same option is now available for same sex couples who wish to have children through this mean.

But my religion says it's wrong!

While your religion may not agree with it, these are your personal religious beliefs and have no impact on the lives of others, nor should they. Being tolerant means that while you disagree with something, you acknowledge that not everyone will believe in the same things you do, nor are they obligated to believe in or live by your precepts.

While other religions/cultures have no right to impose their beliefs onto you, you have no right to impose yours onto them. This planet is no longer a theocracy (generally speaking). Your religion is no longer law. It's simply something you will have to learn to accept.

But if we allow gay people to marry, we'll have to allow adults to marry children and/or animals.

False.

Marriage is defined as the consensual matrimonial contract between two people of adult age or of an age to be consented for by a parent or legal guardian (which is usually an adolescent between 16-17) according to the respective laws of their state, territory, province or country.

A child cannot give consent, nor can an animal. No argument against these facts will be accepted or be acceptable. Therefore, marriage between adult and child will never be accepted under any circumstances, at least not in any country that enforces these laws.

To clarify: By child I mean someone under the age of 13, not an adolescent/teenager. Even if it makes me seem like a hard head, I will still accept no arguments that children that young can consent.

But if you don't believe in our God, then you don't believe in anything at all.

Atheism is not the absense of belief, it is the absense of belief in the God mythos. Nothing more.

And simply because someone doesn't believe in your God does not mean that they don't believe in anything at all. Nor does believing in God give you the right to be a douchebag, or the right to act like you're better than everyone else. Your religion is absolutely no different than every other religion, you don't get any special treatment just because you think your religion makes you special.

But God will smite us.

No fucks are given.

Have a fucktastic day.

---

Stamp background provided by `AssClownFish .

The boarder is my own. You can find it in the stamplates folder in my gallery along with other lace stamplates.