NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... o it could lead to depression which then leads to self hate and self hate causes great problems with do unto others that you wish them to do unto you. In the Catholic Church marriage is seen as a divinely appointed institution, as an institution takes power away from the individual one is led to question the reasoning behind the process to anything other than actual love, conditioning or the old clich of madness. In the Christian church marriage is seen as a mutual covenant of self sacrifice for one another and as a vow to remain with one another as well as to help one another to the best of each others ability. Such is the importance of the vow that in orthodox churches it is viewed as a sacrament and it is only in most Pentecostal churches where it is not viewed thusly. Divorce is always a controversial issue, it raises many points and some rather obscure reasoning.
For example if a person dies then are you still married? If there is life after death then wouldnt it be obvious that they still exist in a tangible form? If the other person still exists and you need them to agree to a divorce how can you if they are no longer physically reachable? After vowing your love can you take it back? There are many strict Jewish laws on divorce, under what circumstances (wether someone was unfaithful) and remarriage (in the event of death and no offspring).
The official documentation for a Jewish divorce is called a Get. These ethical laws are based on remaining faithful to the dead as well as the covenant with god to procreate as well as to continue bloodlines. According to the 79 th law of the Mitzvot A widow whose husband died childless must not be remarried but to her husbands deceased brother This insures that the bloodline of the family is continued but is it morally right? As the marriage to has accepted the woman into the family and she is now her new husbands sister-in-law and therefore any sexual act can be seen as moral incest.
That is if incest is defined as the sexual act performed with a relative therefore although not a blood relation the sister in law is still morally and for the sake of this argument ethically a sin. Much like the set up for marriage the divorce proceedings have been set up to try and prevent tension within the community. If the man defames the wife he cannot divorce her, this prevents a public outcry between two individuals forcing others in the community to take sides. As well as this there is a law That one who has divorced his wife shall not remarry her, if after the divorce she had been married to another man (Deuteronomy 24: 1), this prevents out would tension between the two males as they both have a right to love her but one had already divorced, the new husband is allowed to let his love grow for his new wife.
In the Christian churches teach that divorce should be frowned upon but have a light handed approach and therefore accept it as fact that people will eventually divorce at least some of the time in its acceptance of secular reality. Furthermore the church can grant an annulment, which means that the marriage was meaningless in the first place. It may do this if one or both of the partners is ignorant, incapable or unwilling to be responsible for duties needed in married life as well as to have a family. And this therefore declares that the sacramental bond did not exist in the first place, although the Orthodox Church will only permit two remarriages. Due to the church's leniency in its views many Catholics have divorces more readily and is thus seen as taking away from the sanctity of marriage.
As a part of the vows taken during the wedding the partners vow to remain together until death, so accordingly the marriage is nul and void when one partner dies. What would have been a major problem during periods such as the Middle Ages was that it was not always a certainty that someone was dead when they were buried. The expression saved by the bell is supposed to have come from when a bell was tied to the deceased wrist and kept above ground with a string attaching it, if the bell rung they would dig the person out. This raises an ethical issue about knowing if the person is dead or not and wether or not the partner can remarry, for example if a person is declared dead and then there partner remarries and then it is discovered they were not dead (they might be comatose) the who would be with whom. Following this train of thought one is forced to ponder the substance of death, if a person is physically dead and then comes back what then, has the marriage been cancelled or just put on hold. It is a Jewish persons right and responsibility to live as long as they can but they dont have to have treatment, therefore it could be assumed that although the person is physically alive it is not that person but a bunch of hospital equipment.
We can keep a body alive without the brain, we can chop bits out and make them work independently so therefore is a parson ever physically dead? If we were to assume you were to remain married to a person even if they were mentally dead as far as observational records show. Now we shall ponder what would happen if that person was an organ donor, if lets say a husbands heart was put in a different person, it is logical to say that a bit of the wives husband is not dead and therefore she is married to a part of that person. This possible tangent of thought could open up a whole new range of ethical debate.
As we learn more about science and quantum physics we learn that even energy (which has been speculated to be what the soul is) is made of physical substance, therefore a soul is tangible in a small was and a partner would still exist in the spouses life, therefore is it possible to say that someone ever dies, if it is that would go against the idea of an afterlife as you would be a completely different makeup and person (and both Christianity and Judaism do not believe in reincarnation to that extent), whilst to say that someone cannot die would go against the idea of an afterlife as they never died in the first place therefore a paradox is created. But the point of pondering this is that if your partner is still alive in a sense are you still married to them? In conclusion it is arguable that the ethics that are the driving force behind marriage and divorce ensure a continuation of species, the betterment and sustainability of a community both with procreation and social status. It leaves points open to ponder as new technology allows for reason to be expanded to an intangible level we are forced to recognise and study death to find out when a marriage is nullified (as without any physical means both of the spouses cant agree to a divorce). We are forced to question the relationships between each other and our own point of view. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves a question that I purposefully left out for the sake of not writing a book; is there any reason for these rituals, or are we just fulfilling a human need for ceremony?
Free research essays on topics related to: sexual act, first place, sister in law, divorce, partner
Research essay sample on Sister In Law Sexual Act
