Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chill out, I'll answer the question: I have no problem with people structuring their own relationships in any draconian fashion they'd like. But when you preach these ideals from a pulpit, it's no longer just about them. It's now institutionalized bs.
Okay this is going to be the third time I've reposted this tidbit from back on page 2, sticking strictly on what was presented in the OP and Mrs. Bure. She never did do that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thursday007
....
Playing devil's advocate for a moment: writing about it is one thing, even discussing it is one thing. Preaching about it and ramming down other people's throats as the only way a woman should live their life is another and so far I haven't seen the later, she has only discussed this lifestyle as it pertains to her own life, which you don't often see with people who have such staunch, hardcore views.
Ok. I would venture that if they want to feel smaller, the way to do that is BE smaller? Smaller is a word that refers to size. You may be using the word in a manner it does not mean in the same manner you equate equality with sameness. Hard to tell.
I wonder how many women have REALLY written it out to you this way. This is quite a stretch. BUT I would say that physical strength might make someone more capable of protecting themselves. Or someone else. But what does that have to do with decision making?
My point is that most women want to be seen as equal to men. I have no problem with that. Now, it's CONTRADICTORY to say that women want to be equal to men, but shown only when it's convenient i.e. domestic violence incidents, alimony, etc. "Feeling small" is just another case where women don't mind being considered "inferior" i.e- he must be able to protect me, he can "dominate" me in the bedroom, etc. Wouldn't feminism frown on this (I don't know) as it still suggests the woman to be a "weaker" being, so to speak? That's why I'm not mentioning mental equality (although I understand that's what's meant by "submission" in the case of Mrs. Bure). It just sounds hypocritical for people to view one form of "submission" over the other, especially since men and women are suppose to be equals.
The killer irony here is that you want to force your views on everyone else, which is exactly what you're complaining that they are doing.
You are missing the point. If it was just this church I would think they are just freaks. However, these men (not this church specifically, men with this view) are in politics and business and pushing their agenda. That is why it's a problem.
Your average Aussie gets married in a garden somewhere with a marriage celebrant and God isn't invited.
Back when I married, 1990, the local guy told us it was "unfashionable" to use religious vows or the word obey, though he did say he was happy to say it if we chose.
He whipped out a book of vows which were all about union and love and respect and it was easy to borrow bits to write our own.
What we chose was simple and lovely, shame the marriage itself was the exact opposite.
You are missing the point. If it was just this church I would think they are just freaks. However, these men (not this church specifically, men with this view) are in politics and business and pushing their agenda. That is why it's a problem.
Exactly-- the difference is indoctrination of harmful ideals onto the rest of us. They should rightfully be kept in check.
Your average Aussie gets married in a garden somewhere with a marriage celebrant and God isn't invited.
Back when I married, 1990, the local guy told us it was "unfashionable" to use religious vows or the word obey, though he did say he was happy to say it if we chose.
He whipped out a book of vows which were all about union and love and respect and it was easy to borrow bits to write our own.
What we chose was simple and lovely, shame the marriage itself was the exact opposite.
Chill out, I'll answer the question: I have no problem with people structuring their own relationships in any draconian fashion they'd like. But when you preach these ideals from a pulpit, it's no longer just about them. It's now institutionalized bs.
So if they structured their relationship the same way, let's say without any religious factors, would you still have a problem with it?
Exactly-- the difference is indoctrination of harmful ideals onto the rest of us. They should rightfully be kept in check.
Yep but they don't get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
