關(guān)于婚姻的英語(yǔ)文章閱讀
關(guān)于婚姻的英語(yǔ)文章閱讀
愛(ài)情是一種理想，婚姻是一種現(xiàn)實(shí)，把兩者混淆在一起，得到的是迷惘和孤獨(dú)。下面是學(xué)習(xí)啦小編帶來(lái)的關(guān)于婚姻的英語(yǔ)文章閱讀，歡迎閱讀!
關(guān)于婚姻的英語(yǔ)文章閱讀篇一
做婚姻中的贏家
There is a powerful healing energy that emanates from loving.Lasting love can learn to senseit,send it and make it grow. We are energized by love if we put our energy into loving.
Bad energy springs from conflicts that arise when two egos collide. When I watch husbandsand wives argue with each other, I want to shout:"Grow up,stop fighting,start loving!"It isbettter to learn how to love than how to fight. Dont't try to win in your marriage, win for yourmarriage.
Marriage is designed primarily for giving rather than taking, It is meant to be a permanentunion of two unselfish people. As one husband told me,"The old saying was "Look out forNumber one",But we 've learned to "Look out for Number two."If you fight for yourself,only youcan win. When you fight for your marriage, you both win.
愛(ài)能釋放出一種強(qiáng)大到起治療康復(fù)作用的能量。持續(xù)長(zhǎng)久的愛(ài)能讓人學(xué)會(huì)去感知，釋放并加強(qiáng)增長(zhǎng)這種能量。如果我們付出能量給愛(ài)，我們就會(huì)體驗(yàn)到這種能量使我們充滿(mǎn)激情而活力四射。
相反的惡能也會(huì)從兩個(gè)自私自我的人的爭(zhēng)吵和矛盾沖突中迸發(fā)出來(lái)。每當(dāng)我看到夫妻彼此爭(zhēng)吵不休時(shí)僅不住想大吼：“成熟點(diǎn)吧，別再鬧了，開(kāi)始愛(ài)吧!”學(xué)會(huì)愛(ài)吧而不是學(xué)會(huì)怎樣去爭(zhēng)論和爭(zhēng)吵。千萬(wàn)別努力去爭(zhēng)取成為你婚姻中贏的一方。而要努力成為為你婚姻而努力的贏家。
婚姻原本是給予而不是索取，它意味著兩個(gè)沒(méi)有私心的人永久的聯(lián)合。有個(gè)做丈夫的曾對(duì)我說(shuō)：“俗話(huà)說(shuō)人都要先為自己著想，”但是我們學(xué)會(huì)了“為他人著想照顧愛(ài)人的利益”。如果你爭(zhēng)斗為了你自己，你只贏了愛(ài)人，而你斗爭(zhēng)為了你的婚姻，你倆才都是贏家。
關(guān)于婚姻的英語(yǔ)文章閱讀篇二
婚姻、愛(ài)情與自由
ou are asking, "Is it possible to be married and to be free?"
If you take marriage non-seriously, then you can be free. If you take it seriously, then freedomis impossible. Take marriage just as a game -- it is a game. Have a little sense of humor, that itis a role you are playing on the stage of life; but it is not something that belongs to existenceor has any reality -- it is a fiction.
But people are so stupid that they even start taking fiction for reality. I have seen peoplereading fiction with tears in their eyes, because in the fiction things are going so tragically. It isa very good device in the movies that they put the lights off, so everybody can enjoy themovie, laugh, cry, be sad, be happy.
If there was light it would be a little difficult -- what will others think? And they know perfectlywell that the screen is empty -- there is nobody; it is just a projected picture. But they forgetit completely.
And the same has happened with our lives. Many things which are simply to be takenhumorously, we take so seriously -- and from that seriousness begins our problem.
In the first place, why should you get married? You love someone, live with someone -- it ispart of your basic rights. You can live with someone, you can love someone.
Marriage is not something that happens in heaven, it happens here, through the crafty priests.But if you want to join the game with society and don't want to stand alone and aloof, youmake it clear to your wife or to your husband that this marriage is just a game:
"Never take it seriously. I will remain as independent as I was before marriage, and you willremain as independent as you were before marriage. Neither I am going to interfere in yourlife, nor are you going to interfere in my life; we will live as two friends together, sharing ourjoys, sharing our freedom -- but not becoming a burden on each other.
And any moment we feel that the spring has passed, the honeymoon is over, we will be sincereenough not to go on pretending, but to say to each other that we loved much -- and we willremain grateful to each other forever, and the days of love will haunt us in our memories, inour dreams, as golden -- but the spring is over.
Our paths have come to a point, where although it is sad, we have to part, because now, livingtogether is not a sign of love. If I love you, I will leave you the moment I see my love hasbecome a misery to you. If you love me, you will leave me the moment you see that your loveis creating an imprisonment for me."
Love is the highest value in life: It should not be reduced to stupid rituals. And love andfreedom go together -- you cannot choose one and leave the other. A man who knows freedomis full of love, and a man who knows love is always willing to give freedom.
If you cannot give freedom to the person you love, to whom can you give freedom? Givingfreedom is nothing but trusting. Freedom is an expression of love.
So whether you are married or not, remember, all marriages are fake -- just socialconveniences. Their purpose is not to imprison you and bind you to each other; their purposeis to help you to grow with each other. But growth needs freedom; and in the past, all thecultures have forgotten that without freedom, love dies.
You see a bird on the wing in the sun, in the sky, and it looks so beautiful. Attracted by itsbeauty, you can catch the bird and put it in a golden cage.
Do you think it is the same bird? Superficially, yes, it is the same bird who was flying in the sky;but deep down it is not the same bird -- because where is its sky, where is its freedom?
This golden cage may be valuable to you; it is not valuable to the bird. For the bird, to be freein the sky is the only valuable thing in life. And the same is true about human beings.
關(guān)于婚姻的英語(yǔ)文章閱讀篇三
平等保護(hù)同性戀婚姻
“THE freedom to marry”, wrote Earl Warren, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court,“has long been recognised as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Warren wrotethat sentence in 1967, by way of explaining why he and his colleagues unanimously ruled that laws banning interracial marriages violated both theequal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment. Supporters of gay marriage would like to see that same court apply that same reasoning to their cause. On February 7th a federal court in California brought them one step closer.
“婚姻自由，長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)都乃自由之人追求幸福不可或缺之至高無(wú)上人權(quán)之一。”美國(guó)最高法院的首席大法官Earl Warren在1967年時(shí)和他的同僚們一致通過(guò)裁定，認(rèn)為禁止不同種族通婚的禁令違反了第十四修正案的平等保護(hù)條款和正當(dāng)程序條款，為了解釋這一裁定，他寫(xiě)下了上面這句話(huà)。同性戀婚姻的支持者們希望看到這同一法庭也將同一理由適用于他們的案件。而加州聯(lián)邦法庭在2月7日的判決讓他們離自己的目標(biāo)更近了一步。
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Proposition 8, a ballot initiative passed by California’s voters in November 2008 amending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage, was unconstitutional. That initiative passed fivemonths after California’s Supreme Court overturned an earlier ban on gaymarriage; during that time, California granted marriage licences to some 18,000 gay couples.
美國(guó)第九巡回上訴法院裁定8號(hào)提案違憲。8號(hào)提案最早在2008年11月在加州投票通過(guò)，修改憲法以禁止同性婚姻。而在8號(hào)提案通過(guò)的五個(gè)月之前，加州最高法院推翻了之前一項(xiàng)關(guān)于同性婚姻的禁令;在此期間內(nèi)(原：就在這五個(gè)月期間內(nèi))，加州為大約18,000對(duì)同性“夫妻”頒發(fā)了結(jié)婚證書(shū)。
The appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling in 2010 that Proposition 8 violated the fourteenth amendment, but did so on far narrower grounds, leaving unanswered the broad question of whether states could ever restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, and finding instead that California’s measure visited a unique harm upon gays and lesbians by stripping them of a right they once enjoyed. Under California law, gays retained the rights to adopt children,file taxes jointly and share bank accounts. Proposition 8 simply denied them the “official, cherished status” of marriage,leading the court to conclude that its sole purpose was “to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California”.
雖然巡回上訴法院支持初級(jí)法院在2010年做出的關(guān)于8號(hào)提案違反第十四修正案的裁定，但它基于的理由卻極為狹隘，它回避了一個(gè)更廣泛的懸而未決的問(wèn)題——美國(guó)各州是否會(huì)將婚姻僅限定于異性夫妻之間;相反地，卻只針對(duì)“由于加州的做法剝奪了一項(xiàng)同性戀者們?cè)?jīng)享有的權(quán)利，反而對(duì)他們?cè)斐闪颂囟▊?rdquo;這一點(diǎn)做文章。加州的法律規(guī)定，同性戀(伴侶)享有領(lǐng)養(yǎng)孩子，共同納稅以及共享銀行賬戶(hù)的權(quán)利。8號(hào)提案只是否決了他們婚姻的“合法的，崇高的地位”，這使法庭斷定8號(hào)提案唯一的目的就是要“降低加州同性戀者的地位并剝奪他們的尊嚴(yán)”。
The case now seems certain to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, though other states are simply pushing ahead with allowing gay marriage: on February 8th Washington’s state legislature voted to allow it, though the decision could yet require approval at a referendum. Marriage, far beyond such mundane matters aspensions and bank accounts, is of course a hugely emotive subject. As the Ninth Circuit noted in handing down its judgment, “Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called ‘How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire’, it would not have conveyed the same meaning.”
盡管其他州都在推動(dòng)允許同性婚姻的進(jìn)程——2月8日，華盛頓州眾議院投票通過(guò)允許同性婚姻的提案，當(dāng)然決議的最終批準(zhǔn)還需公民投票表決——但現(xiàn)在看來(lái)，此案(8號(hào)提案違憲一案)一定會(huì)上訴至美國(guó)最高法院。婚姻，是與情感高度相關(guān)之事，遠(yuǎn)不同于養(yǎng)老金，銀行賬戶(hù)等一般俗務(wù)。就像第九巡回上訴法院在宣布其裁決時(shí)所指出的那樣：“如果瑪麗蓮夢(mèng)露的電影叫《如何與百萬(wàn)富翁簽訂一紙家庭伴侶關(guān)系》(而不叫《如何嫁個(gè)百萬(wàn)富翁》)，意思就大相徑庭了。”
看了“關(guān)于婚姻的英語(yǔ)文章閱讀”的人還看了：