Sentences with phrase «mean by marriage»

It is obviously no longer enough to support and encourage the institution of marriage without raising some questions about what we mean by marriage.

Q: «What exactly is meant by marriage enrichment?»

What exactly is meant by marriage enrichment?

Not exact matches

I've been married 20 years and I'm just beginning to realize what those who have been married 30 years and more mean by that the real honeymoon begins after 35 years of marriage.

If they are all adults... by that I mean 21 or older, and are consensual... for all parties free of coercion and trhreats... If the «marriage and home and children» are happy and well cared for... why should we care...???

It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to «receive» the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.

As every cause must have its antithesis, the movement has been greatly energized by radical feminist hostility to the family as an oppressive institution, and, more recently, by homosexual agitations to relativize the meaning of marriage and family by the formal recognition of same - sex unions.

Real ideas (by which I think he also meant realistic) contained at their core the notion that the universe is natural, objectively «out there», knowable but distinct, and informing views on sexuality, sex, marriage, death, etc..

1 Timothy 4:1 - 3 — But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

NOPE... cause they are not committed to it.no one seems to know what marriage means anymore... its sad that even religious - especially christains are duped by the secular world..

If marriage is to make me holy, and if what I really mean by that is the hard parts of marriage make me holy, then I'm actually completely justified in staying in the hard parts, without any hope of or desire to change.

Husbands and wives are to see more clearly what God meant marriage to be, by looking at a picture of Christ's relationship with the church.

Though the Church can, for example, abolish certain existing prohibiting impediments to marriage, of purely ecclesiastical law, if it considers this advisable in the changed situation of today, it by no means follows that it would be equally possible for the Church to revalidate and sanction any invalid marriage whatever, if the Church were only rather more liberal and understanding.

By all means, defend marriage, invoke the weight of tradition, make all the arguments you can invent with all the passion, compassion, and cunning you can muster.

Building on the Catholic emphasis on the importance of free marital consent, Luther and Calvin developed further the covenantal understanding of marital commitment, elevated the status of women, emphasized the freedom of young adults to choose their partners, helped make marriage more compassionate and established marriage as a civic institution regulated by secular law yet also blessed and given meaning by the church.

By the time of her wedding, she came to realize that there is no such thing as an entirely original wedding ceremony: «marriage means stepping into an ancient institution marked by hundreds of temporal particulars,» so your wedding's dearth of originality is no shortcominBy the time of her wedding, she came to realize that there is no such thing as an entirely original wedding ceremony: «marriage means stepping into an ancient institution marked by hundreds of temporal particulars,» so your wedding's dearth of originality is no shortcominby hundreds of temporal particulars,» so your wedding's dearth of originality is no shortcoming.

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

Yet, we as Christians must remember that though it is an important piece to the puzzle of a flourishing marriage, it is by no means the most important factor.

The widespread practice of petting by persons who have no intention of marriage to each other is a consequence of the common acceptance of sexual relations as a means of satisfaction quite apart from family considerations.

The written law was but the last of a series of futile efforts to bring Israel to God's marriage bed by means of intermediaries.

This is especially true in marriages in which the spouses have used the children as a primary way of relating or as a means of avoiding intimacy (by always having the children between them as a buffer).

NO people have ever voted for gay marriage it had to be a act of the courts or governmental leaders overriding the will of the people They have made progress by violence, lies and deceit then turn around and call us bigots and mean what a laugh.

This is by no means an attempt to diminish them or put forth that Christian marriages are categorically better.

I want it to have the same rights as modern, egalitarian, civil hetero marriage, which is by no means as «traditional» as you think it is.

If you're going to pull out the «adultery» card, don't bother; if gay marriage were legal everywhere, it would mean that gays would be able to avoid adultery if they chose, by marrying their partners.

Officially, that is, judged by the meaning of the lyrics alone, it is a song that celebrates the happiness of the marriage - bound couple:

By no means are we contending that Catholics have been untouched by the corrosive atmosphere of our present culture, but the Church has not stopped teaching the ideal of marriage that is the bedrock of what we find beautiful in family lifBy no means are we contending that Catholics have been untouched by the corrosive atmosphere of our present culture, but the Church has not stopped teaching the ideal of marriage that is the bedrock of what we find beautiful in family lifby the corrosive atmosphere of our present culture, but the Church has not stopped teaching the ideal of marriage that is the bedrock of what we find beautiful in family life.

yes, civil union does describe it, but the warmth of the word marriage is understood by all — meaning a union of two people in love that want to spend their whole life together and that each person means the world to the other.

I don't mean to excuse a lack of critical thinking, not at all, there's a good place for it — in creativity, in writing, in social justice, in community, in marriages, in parenting, all of it — but in all of those arenas, I hope I'm marred by dust and sweat and blood, I hope I dare greatly.

I just mean that maybe Christians can compromise by acknowledging that laws evolve and change and to accept that gays want the same rights as married people and to be respectful of that and maybe gays can compromise by not insisting to use the word «marriage» but instead use the word «union» or some other word or phrase to describe their relationship.

By all means, if you're opposed to gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

The meaning which is discoverable in the everydayness of marriage and family life should be sought by a couple throughout their experience.

What do I mean by this, for years, Christians have been made to belief in their religion tolerant to fight Abortion, Gay Marriage that Republican do publicly proclaims.

This project needs to be reality - based, which means we're going to have to figure out how to buttress the culture of marriage in a society transformed by the sexual revolution.

If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same - sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision.

It is a measure of how far things have moved since the 1980s that in DV, published in that decade, it was not necessary to spell out, after the word «marriage», the fact that by this word is meant the union of a man and a woman, and not two people of the same sex.

The older teleological view measured morality against man's rational - animal nature; in the sexual realm, this meant evaluating sex acts by reference to the common good of marriage, which integrated spousal union and the bearing and rearing of children.

We by no means have a perfect marriage... But we are both trying to work with each other in our myriad of differences.

This effort to come up with a Christian «case» for gay marriage just underlines that Christians and other theists can't agree on what their god «really» has meant and that this religion is just more baseless nonsense created completely by human beings.

«We believe that personal independence and equal human rights can never be forfeited, except for crime; that marriage should be an equal and permanent partnership, and so recognized by law; that until it is so recognized, married partners should provide against the radical injustice of present laws, by every means in their power...»

Only the newlywed would suppose that marriage isn't without its fights, and anyone who's made it past their honeymoon (and sometimes not even) knows that occasional disagreements are inevitable, but by no means a reason to hide or panic or feel ashamed.

I am concerned here not with patching up personalities by means of sex, but with what should determine policy, both within and outside of marriage.

Among the ridiculous claims Brown forwards is that «the Church» — by which he means the «sinister» forces of Opus Dei and the Vatican — is bent on destroying the «Sangreal documents» by any means, including violence, because they allegedly reveal the secret truths about Jesus» marriage to Mary Magdalene and disclose the grail's true identity.

And the right of states to control, by their own political processes, what marriage means under their own laws is still intact too.

And it means that faithful Catholics who believe in colorblind equality before the law, the dignity and value of every human life at all stages and in all conditions, marriage rightly understood, and an ethic of love that recognizes the truths built into us by the Creator and confirmed by reason will be considered... well, deplorable.

For example, such things as life adjustment counseling; community social action; marriage and family life education and counseling; social, religious, and therapeutic group experiences; and the after - care of patients by means of a supporting, redemptive fellowship contribute to positive mental health.

We have seen in particular how these laws are used by the government in an attempt to compel citizens to sacrifice their deepest convictions on marriage and what it means to be male and female, people who serve everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, but who can not promote messages, engage in expression, or participate in events that contradict their beliefs or their organization's guiding values.

Any contemporary attempt to redefine the meaning of marriage — whether by socially liberal politicians or misguided clerics — strikes a similarly ridiculous and pathetic pose.

The Roman Catholic Church condemns it because it holds that procreation is the only legitimate purpose of sexual intercourse, and continence within marriage the only legitimate mode of family limitation.11 Most Roman Catholics and some Protestants, though probably a decreasing number, hold that family limitation by an artificial means is «against nature,» and hence against the divine will.

There are fundamental differences between the two regarding the nature and purpose of marriage, which in a secular society means, inevitably, that the state's understanding of marriage is going to prevail, and be enforced by coercive measures.