Sentences with phrase «of the marriage as»

Inclusion of social issues like the right of the unborn child and the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman

Nor are those who affirm the historic Christian view of marriage as between one man and one woman.

, and the preservation of marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman.

But what is the reason of principle that can be given by those who, while rejecting the idea that sexual - reproductive complementarity is an essential element of marriage, do not --- or do not yet --- wish to give up the idea of marriage as the sexually exclusive union of two, and not more than two, persons?

Could this use of marriage as a symbol of salvation have a reviving effect on our prayer lives?

But what is the reason for those who propose to ditch the conjugal understanding of marriage and replace it with a conception of marriage as sexual - romantic domestic partnership (what one opponent of the conjugal conception describes as your relationship «with your Number One Person»)?

No effort is made to teach the importance of marriage as the proper home for sexual intimacy.»

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said: «The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female.

One reason for this, I think, is that many Christians thought of marriage as an expression of divine healing, while celibacy was seen as merely settling for a fallen condition.

The parallel theme plays out in saying the act of sex is wicked outside of marriage and can only be made pure by the institution of marriage as defined and administered by the church.

What it does do is prevent the illusion that the legal regime in New York shares the same view of marriage as Christianity ’s

In human history, the actual living out of marriage as a lifelong union has been the exception rather than rule.

The alternate vision that marriage benefits are a right, and that the lifestyle choice under marriage is irrelevant compromises the inst - itution of marriage as I argued above, and puts us in a position where marriage benefits are arbitrary and may as well be abolished.

My one quarrel with the book is that Thatcher does not pay much attention to the influential Calvinist view of marriage as a «covenant.»

A couple of months ago, the magazine's managing editor, Jason Steorts, argued more overtly against the «traditionalist» understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman.

We have to be able to state that the primary purpose of marriage as a sacrament, and of its bodily union as an act, is the blessing of offspring within a ministry of consecrated love.

It is for these reasons that civilised states, in recognising the foundational place of the family, have made the public, life - long commitment of marriage as a civil institution.

Few of us would die in the breach for the formulation of the ends of marriage as set out so tersely in the 1917 Code.

Perhaps the deletion of marriage as a sacrament has also diverted Christians from seeing marriage as life in God.

Lawyers should encourage and participate in professional seminars that teach support of marriages as well as those that teach the mechanics of taking them apart.

Christians should not view those who advocate the redefinition of marriage as arch-enemies who are conspiring to take over the culture.

I'm talking about people who have a reverent awe of marriage as one of God's most cherished creations.

I have no problem with the state redefining marriage in order to achieve its goal; how the state defines marriage does not have an impact on our understanding of marriage as Christians.

They may not have much human understanding of marriage as each may have grown up with parents who have divorced or never married, and many of their friends and acquaintances will have that experience too.

Those of us who believe that human flourishing depends upon the recognition and honoring of marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman see this transformation of marriage into something radically different as a grave threat to human society and human happiness.

Indeed, it will lock in the distorted view of marriage as an institution primarily concerned with adult romantic desires, and make the rebuilding of the marriage culture much more difficult.

In other words, do an inventory of your marriage as a need - satisfying relationship.

To borrow a metaphor from Paul, a biography of a marriage as told by the wife.

We may not agree on the definition of marriage, but we increasingly agree that the dissolution of marriage as a bedrock social institution is a bad thing, and hits the most vulnerable among us hardest.

Same - sex marriage erodes the very purpose of marriage as a social institution and trivializes the intellectual, psychological, and biological distinctions between men and women.

Fighting what he sees as the vacuous definition of marriage as a purely private relationship of love, Blankenhorn urges readers to work toward resurrecting marriage as a public institution designed to uphold what he believes is the birthright of every child — to have a mother and a father.

Fox - Genovese's historical survey is even more general, organized vaguely to move from Genesis («male and female God created them»), to a literary analysis of 19th - century novels and the turn to romantic love, to the 20th - century denouement of marriage as a personal choice.

Feminists as a whole, she says, deride all forms of service or self - sacrifice and «consider any view of marriage as sacrament or covenant a self - serving deception» that oppresses women — a gross misrepresentation of many feminist theologians who affirm both marriage and altruism.

The cozy monstrosity is also, of course, the scheme of their marriage as a place of refuge from the impersonal, warlike society in which they carry on their ambitious professional lives, earning the salaries that buy conspicuous affluence.

In his wooing of Dinah, Adam had explicitly said that she need not think of marriage as an impediment to her career as a preacher, but now we find that she has after all ceased to preach.

Thus, one guideline to increasing sexual intimacy and pleasure is to improve the quality of the marriage as a whole.

This is the insight (perhaps often unconsciously known) that is behind the common Christian understanding of marriage as in some real sense sacramental.

Why do you consider the doctrine of marriage as a support although you are not allowed to receive the Eucharist?

You do not have a feeling of your marriage as being a serious loving relationship that thrives of the dependability of that love.

A few days after the encyclical was published, the Observer hailed the news of Pope Benedict's call for the speedier resolution of petitions for the annulment of marriages as a «dramatic break with the past».

Despite the above our politicians do not seem to feel they that they owe us any favours but are pushing ahead towards altering the whole basis of marriage as it has been known in England since the time of King St Ethelbert.

Indeed, those who think of marriage as only about love tend to argue against these duties, since they are regretted when feelings change.

However, to think of marriage as the only way transformation happens is very incomplete.

The blog goes on to say that in the Church's schools, the subject will be «rooted in the teachings of the Church», including «the importance of trust, loyalty, fidelity and the Christian understanding of marriage as the context for sexual relationships, as well as the understanding of abstinence and celibacy as positive life choices».

is the book we have all been waiting for: hopeful, inclusive, practical, theological, honest talk about the complex sacrament of marriage as both reality to be lived and metaphor to be embodied.

We can expect that it will succeed about as well with the issue of marriage as it has on the issue of abortion.

One would never guess, furthermore, from Wolterstorff's presentation that contemporary advocates of marriage as irreducibly procreative have also thought deeply about the reality of marriage past childbearing age, about infertility and contraception, and offered sophisticated responses that make laugh lines like Wolterstorff's seem entirely facile.

One consequence of this is that we now view and defend practices contrary to the essence of marriage as irrelevant to the nature of the relationship, and rather hold autonomous self - determination to be central to it.

Douglas Farrow's theses constitute a defense of marriage as an institution that orders persons to the common good, arising from the natural differences of male and female, the complementarity of which is crucial for the fulfillment of the individual's good.

God designed the one - flesh union of marriage as an embedded icon of the union between Christ and his church.