religion & marriage. does anyone see the connection??

[Headless Rat]

Hi ABers, I've been reading the recently posed questions on the "M" word and it has struck me that no reference has ever been made to the word "religion" when discussing the topic of marriage.

To me this is bizarre.

I just wonder if anybody else thesedays sees religion as wholly inter-twined with marriage, a commitment made to each other before God to stay together forever, a promise to bring one's children up ( if applicable) to follow the faith or is marriage just seen as a chance to further one's relationship, to take "the next step", and have a big party?

Should marriage not be valued as infinitely more sacred then just co-habiting with the next boy/girlfriend that comes along??

In my opinion it should be, but I'm interested to know what others think!

Good Irish Catholic girl here- if you haven't already guessed!

[Headless Rat]

oh, and also, MargeB, the paragraph you cited, no. 24, about priests thinking that their chosen state is preferable to marriage, is wrong. I read the paragraph and it said nothing about being a priest. It did talk of virginity, however. Completely different.Gosh, IMAGINE if there were people roaming the world as we know it who aren't married yet who are still virgins!!MY GOD, what would happen us all??!!

[lilyfrog]

Excuse me, but who what and where is it said in the marriage essentially means before god?? No dictionary I own!

I take my marriege very seriously as a commitment made to each other before my family and friends to stay together forever, a promise to bring one's children up as loving, caring etc etc individuals. God has diddly squat to do with it and because I took my vows in a civil ceremony does not mean that my marriage is any less important or relevant to any one who goes for the whole shebang

good athiest girl here if you cant tell

[MargeB]

Almost all Roman Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy. Normally these people are assumed to be virgins, so 'celibacy' effectively means 'virginity'. Monks and nuns commit themselves to Jesus as 'virgins'. Virginity is OFFICIALLY touted by the catholic church as a 'more perfect state' than marriage. IE sex itself in some way makes you less perfect. Given that masturbation, extra marital sex, lust, premarital sex, abortion, contraception, and sex education of the young are all 'the biggest hottest issues' in catholicism, who but a fool would try and suggest that the catholic church does not have a serious complex about the issue.

By taking the line they do on contraception and the none use of condoms, I think the catholic church does more harm than good to the developing world through the spread of AIDS.

If you see someone (Hitler) doing something clearly wrong, you stand up and protest against it, in alto voce. One pope already did not stand up against the nazis when they were gassing the Jews en masse. Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler youth. Given his obvious right wing views, I think it is grossly insensitive and actually dangerous to put such a person in this position.

[lilyfrog]

I love Marge B.

[lizzierose]

I am not religious either. i want to get married in a civil ceremony. my brother and his wife had a civil ceremony all the close family went. she is french and the marriage was performed by the mayor of the town. he made a lovely speech about the union of england and france and how we were a source of hope to them in the war etc. it was lovely. they exchaged rings. everyone made little speeches. we all cried with joy. we were all so happy they'd found each other. religion or lack of it was never an issue

treating others as you would like to be treated is just being a nice person. i care deeply for the rest of humanity just because i'm human not becuase i follow a code of morals from god or elsewhere. wars are fought in the name of religion. which faith you follow has cause so many problems in the past. i don't disagree with religion but at the same time i don't think it can be sought as an answer to the worlds ills

[MargeB]

If people fall in love and get married, that's great. If it hits rough times, it's great if they try and work through it through commitment.

When it hits extremely rough times, e.g.:

-they clearly fall out of love with each other

-one partner is repeatedly sexually, physically, emotionally or otherwise abusive to the other partner or the children

the best thing is for the couple to split and move on. The catholic church say that the couple should stay together, for life, and that neither should engage in another relationship for as long as both are alive. If they do so, they will fall out with God and he will put them in a hot pit for ever and ever. (By the way, he loves them with an eternal love).

So tell me. In the scenario where a catholic couple get married, have kids, the husband starts fooling around with other women, beats and rapes his wife, sexually and physically abuses the kids: that this wife should stay married to this man for the rest of her life and that she should never enter a relationship with any other man as long as this one is alive? (And this type of situation is not far fetched, similar things happen to hundreds of thousands throughout the UK).

[RevShirls]

Good debate going here and lots of valid points. I think the important point to stress here (as has been already addressed) is that although marriage is important within various religions, it is not exclusively, never has been, and nor should it be, a religious rite.

Interesting and informative link from WaldoMcFroog although it seems to define religion as Christianity (in the section: "when did religion get involved?). There were many religions long before Christianity and marriage seems to have been celebrated in some form or other). Not all Christians/believers would be shocked by the idea of gay marriages. I, for one, have conducted a few gay blessings before. It was only the civil law and not my theological views that prevented it being a "proper" marriage.

Marge, I would take issue with some things you said (though not all) because I think you stereotype all those who believe in God as having judgemental and fundamentalist views. I know that you do not believe in God and I have no problem with that. Furthermore, I respect your position and in some of my views I would tend to agree with you more than to agree with religious believers with narrow, restrictive, and condemnatory views.

Marriage is primarily a civic proclamation of a couple's desire to be together. For those who believe in God, then it is natural that they want some reference to God or some religious blessing as part of the ceremony.

[RevShirls]

Marge, I have just read your last posting (above my own) and I agree with every word.

I do think if there is abuse (physical or emotional) or even if a couple has fallen out of love or grown apart then it is a much more loving and liberating act to separate or to divorce.

[mfewell]

MargeB, please please elaborate on your point 3) in an earlier answer about the NT being 'made up'. Have you been reading books such as Jesus the Man and The Messianic Legacy that have come out in recent years ? In fact there is more documentary evidence for the authenticity of the NT than any other ancient literature (such as Caesar, whom I expect you would believe explicitly). I regularly read 'anti-Christian' books because if there are, say, 9 completely different versions as to why the NT is twaddle, I know that at least 8 of them must be wrong ! And that helps me a lot.

[RevShirls]

oops I just noticed a wee error in my first posting above. What I meant was that marriage IS a religious rite but not exclusively so and has never been exclusively so.

[Headless Rat]

Personally, for what they're worth, these are my views on the subject:

People should not get married in CHURCH ceremonies if they are not believers or do not practice the faith.This would be just hypocrisy.

If there is abuse, physical, mental etc going on within a  marriage then it is time to leave, and the sooner the better for the spouse and kids if there are any.

As regards the church's stance on not condoning the use of condoms in AIDS-ridden countries, well is there view of abstinence from sex not a better idea altogether?Afterall we are not animals-we do have the power to control and manage our "urges"(for want of a better word!).simply handing out condoms is NEVER going to solve the problem.

Also, catholics take FAR too much slack from people who don't agree with what or who we believe in. Do we ever hear as much criticism regarding Muslims and all the restrictions it places on half their population, namely women?No we don't because if we did stand up to it then we'd be accused of being racist or something ridiculous like that.Neither do we hear the same scathing derision of Buddhism etc.When it comes to Catholicism though, well it's a totally different kettle of fish.Double standards completely.

All catholicism has ever tried to do is ultimately bestow respect on EVERY individual and to love them.What's the problem with that?I think it's just a case of bad PR by the priests!especially with all these child molestation cases being brought against them(well, in Ireland anyway....dunno what they're like in England)

[MargeB]

We are animals.

I did lay into religion a bit and layed the blame at the door of religion in general when the London Bombings were up for discussion. I genuinely believe its a religion problem, not an islamic problem as such. The problems I have with Catholicism are largely the problems I have with any religion: "hey, yep, lets all live together, and lets all agree on common terms and live within reason: and then some groups band together and say 'we'll do that, but will let our lives be dominated by something that does not stand up to even modest intellectual scrutiny.'

That said, I do have some very serious issues with catholicism as such (I'm born and bred catholic, by the way), and have outlined already about half of them. And by the way, this isn't motivated by any kind of hatred at all, just saying things as I see them. When I was a catholic, some friends would occassionally say things about religion that I found most displeasing, but would heartily thank them now for their honesty.

[MargeB]

Headless, I'm sorry but your last paragraph, though nice to believe, is simply not the truth. The catholic church says that "as an institution" (whatever that means. What else? As a frog?) it is without sin. Which neatly passes over a few basic historical facts like:

burning heretics

torturing heretics

killing Muslims and Jews (in its own name)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, and I'm sure there are plenty of priests and nuns, though grossly mis-guided, try to help people, but I would never ever want my name associated in any way with an organization that killed, maimed, tortured and exiled so many thousands of people who simply did not see eye to eye with it.

[RevShirls]

Headless Rat, re. the contraception issue you mentioned, I do have a problem with the response about what is wrong with abstaining from sex. I take it you're talking about this in general (which includes within marriages). To me in a relationship sex isn't just about satisfying urges (although to some it may be). For many people it is an intimate extension of their relationship. To limit it to saying "we must abstain at this certain time during the month (or indeed until we're no longer fertile which could be years)" takes the spontaneity out of sexual intimacy.

Furthermore, in any moral act, intention and means are involved. By saying that abstaining is ok is to mean that you agree that it's ok to prevent birth. What you do disagree with then is the method or means involved (no to conoms, yes to abstaining). I know that the Catholic Church's argument on this is that condoms or the pill are unnatural methods (compared to abstaining). I find this argument rather flimsy because the intentions are the same and I really can't see what is wrong with unnatural methods. If unnatural methods are so wrong then why accept that people should be allowed to have false teeth? I have discussed this with many colleagues before, including Catholic Priests and many of the priests are in agreement with me about this.

[AliFlump]

Just want to raise a point with what Headless Rat said, Can anyone else see a problem if everyone abstained from sex?

[RevShirls]

Marge, you said that you believe it is a religion problem. Surely that can also be extended to many areas other than religions such as political groupings that have followers and adherents where a small group within them can twist the message or condemn those that don't share the message. In this instance of the London bombings, it was a religious group (and of course in many other situations in history) but I don't believe this is an exclusively religious problem.

[Headless Rat]

Thank them for their honesty??so you say that religion wouldnt stand up to even a modest intellect, yet you believe your friend's opinions on such a controversial, ambiguous & subjective (apparently)?sounds a bit bizarre to me.

And just for the record, we are NOT animals.Animals do have a brain but they DON'T have a mind.they do not possess the same rational decision-making capabilities as human's do, they do not have consciences, they do not have the same mental make-up as humans do.humans are far superior to animals. to compare us to animals is outrageous and shows a worrying lack of respect for humankind.scary that there are people out there who value themselves at the same price as a bullock in the field.30 pieces of silver, is it?

[Headless Rat]

Alfiflump, i never said that everyone should abstain from sex.however, do you not see a problem with everyone who has a fatal, contagious disease going round sh*gging each others brains out?STDs?unwanted babies who end up being infected with the virus?open your eyes, for heaven's sake.

and before you go getting the wrong end of the stick yet again, i do advocate people who have aids having sex provided they take the necessary precautions to curtail the spreading of their disease.

[Headless Rat]

Also, Revshirls, i wasn't saying about abstaining from sex within marriage. i mean outside marriage, unless in a stable commited relationship.conversely, one night stands or flings demean the individual.

why does everyone have such a problem with giving everyone, without exception( church leaders, priests, muslims alike) the respect they deserve?

Also, as regards the spanish inquistion etc, well yea, of course thats horrific and completely contrary to what the catholic church stands for but as they say whoever hasn't ever sinned, let them cast the first stone!

Priests never profess to be the perfect human beings, they recognise their faults and in a lot of cases stand up and admit what they've wrong.sometimes not though-but aren't we ALL human at the end of the day?

incidentally, if anyone else cares, the word catholic also means "all-embracing, open armed, universally-friendly"-or something to that effect.Interesting, i thought.but anyway, who cares?!

[MargeB]

RevShirls, the people that blew up part of my town in the recent bombings were normal, regular, well-educated, balanced individuals until religion of a certain form took hold of their minds and was used to get them to do something for religious ends.

Headless: what is the difference between humans and 'animals', fundamentally.