church allows marriage to (un?)dead/spirit but not same sex?
November 24th 2010 04:03
I was just watching a show where nuns were marrying christ and it got me thinking. Why is it okay to marry a zombie/corpse/spirit, but it's not okay to marry someone of the same sex? I remember some of the more idiotic responses mentioning that if same sex couples were allowed to get married soon they would be marrying farm animals..huh? Yeah, I didn't follow the reasoning either. Yet, getting married to something that's long dead is fine? I could see that leading to far stranger things then farm animals.
| 106 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
You, likewise, are entitled to your opinion on the subject, however, Christians are not the ones who are so vehemently against homosexuality, they are simply the ones you chose to target. Let's look as Islam, as an example for a comparison, which some people find uncomfortable to do since we are supposed to UNDERSTAND them instead of judging them for their beliefs.
In Iran, just a few months back, homosexuals were rounded up and killed. When is the last time a Christian did that? Why is it that you did not mention them?
As far as the symbolic "marriage" goes, they Nuns, to whom you are referring, are giving their lives over to the church. They are agreeing not to take a husband, and as such, they are considered "married" to the church itself. Of course, they don't get the tax deduction either.
If someone wishes to have a CIVIL marriage through the government or a judge, I could care less if it was two women or two men. Having the government attempt to dictate church doctrine and belief in right and wrong is just, well, wrong. JUST as it is wrong for a church to dictate government policy.
Comment by Ruth Moratz
Treasure Hunt Adventure
Lilac Blue's Pad
I agree that a wedding ritual is a religious event and the government has no place in it, yet there it is, right in the middle of it all and the religious community seems to have no problem benefiting from that relationship. If they want to be able to dictate who can and can't get married then they need to sever that relationship and the government should only recognize civil unions.
Then everyone would have the right to have a government recognized civil union and that would be the only type eligible for government benefits (taxes, insurance, etc). Those that are religious could have a wedding ceremony through their church, but would be required to also have the civil union if they wanted government benefits.
Comment by Anonymous
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
Marriage, itself, is a cermony given in a place of worship, but the union becomes CIVIL when the paperwork is filed and completed at the courthouse. Then a new social security card is filed (if the woman chose to change her name.)
So, you ascertation that the church is all up in the government in a case like this is erroneous.
As I said earlier, I have absolutely no problem with civil unions. (Much like I have no problem with most abortions, (barring the "partial birth" variety,)) I do, however, have a problem with the government forcing a church to go against its beliefs and I have a problem with a church forcing its will on others.
"Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar and to God that which is God's." - Jesus
I would like to touch further on the abortion issue, and how, being a Christian myself, I have no problem with it.
In the Old Testament, it states that if a person harms a woman that is pregnant and loses the child as a result, they should pay a fine. That does not equate with what it says should be done for murder. For murder, the person is to die. So, THAT means that the bible does not equate abortion to murder.
However, there are some problems with the abortion laws vs criminal law and civil law.
1. If a fetus is not a "person" and does not have a "right to life," how can it be protected under the law and be able to inherit?
Let's say I spit in a glass before I die. That spit grows bacteria, however, my DNA (from the saliva) is still present. It is NOT a living being either. So when I die, can I leave my TV to my glass of spit? I think not.
2. If abortion is not "murder" because the mass of cells does not equate to being alive, how can someone go to jail for murder (usually murder 2 as a maximum penalty) for causing a woman to lose her baby? It's a mass of cells. Not a "baby" until the 3rd trimester.
Yet Scott Peterson, who murdered Lacy Peterson, who was pregnant, in California went to jail to serve TWO life terms. Their excuse was that the baby would have naturally formed on its own. Well, so would any other fetus.
So, there are clear disparities in the law. Either it is alive or it is not. It can't be what is convenient for the moment. It is, what it IS. There needs to be consistency in the law so there is less confusion.
But, the "Birthers" will disagree with me saying that I am taking the Bible out of context, and many (but not all) "Choicers" will disagree and say that I am against women, so I guess I lose either way. I just want consistency. What do you think?