DescentBB

I wouldn’t judge gay people even if it were a choice…so there I’m better than you…nahh nahhh na na nah.

making this news is tantamount to me publishing an article about some idiot who hates me chain-killing me in Descent 3. Hypocrites exist... what a news flash!

Nobody cares about things that have nothing to do with them... or so they claim. Yet they care that things like this are news, not realizing that they are caring about something they don't care about 9_9

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:And as for wives be submissive to you husband. You CLEARLY do not understand the verse. And as with the seperation of church and state. You pick and choose the portion you wish, without look at all of the verse. And clearly your understanding of the word submission is lacking. It means to yield to. NOT to be a slave of. HUGE difference.

I have heard that entire passage many times, and I feel like I have a good understanding of it. Even if you take that word to mean "yield to," I find that absolutely unacceptable in the year 2013. If I ever wind up getting married, I want my wife and myself to be EQUALS in every sense of that word, including any important decisions that we need to make. The only thing I want "submissive" to me is a dog.

WOW it must be awful for you, i mean since everyday of your life you submit to something. seriously every time you get behind the wheel of a car you submit, every time you go to work you submit. every time you walk out the door of your house you are in submission to someone in some fashion. so I will state again you CLEARLY do not understand what submission is.
FYI the second part of that verse says Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church. I will "submit" to you that Loving someone unto your own death is MUCH tougher then yielding to someone in authority.

so please continue tell me how much you understand the verse. because you are proving that you do not.

And FYI hearing a passage and understanding a passage are not the same thing. Dont listen to the women's liber's that don't like the wording.

Burlyman wrote:making this news is tantamount to me publishing an article about some idiot who hates me chain-killing me in Descent 3. Hypocrites exist... what a news flash!

Nobody cares about things that have nothing to do with them... or so they claim. Yet they care that things like this are news, not realizing that they are caring about something they don't care about 9_9

you probably shouldn't drink and post FYI

Even the kind of submission TG is talking was probably a life or death decision when that was wrote, although pure form and function suggests a certain amount submission is inherent. Maybe TG don't know what you do with girls

I like women who are submissive…then take charge…yea baby!!!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:For the record I don't believe I've ever "insulted people". I always profile people, everywhere (I imagine everyone does this on some level). Has nothing to do with your "gaydar". I try not to make assumptions.

When you profile someone and then have an attack of revulsion, because that's the reaction most homophobes have when they discover and encounter a gay person, you can't hide it, so your reaction is most assuredly an insult.

CUDA wrote:And FYI hearing a passage and understanding a passage are not the same thing. Dont listen to the women's liber's that don't like the wording.

It's pretty clear what most Christians believe about the social status of women as compared to men.

http://www.bible.ca/marriage/submission ... ulture.htm

Then you have:

1 Corinthians 14:34

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Titus 2:5

to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Esther 1:20

Then when the king's edict is proclaimed throughout all his vast realm, all the women will respect their husbands, from the least to the greatest."

Ephesians 5:22

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Oh, you can say all this respecting is just about man respecting the Lord. But nowhere can I find that men should respect women as they do the Lord, the reverse case. It's pretty clear that the Bible, and males specifically, blame females for all man's woes and evil deeds. Geez, that sounds pretty maligning and degrading against women in general to me. You can't whitewash it CUDA. Genesis pretty much establishes women as inferior to men from the beginning. Do you believe that in our modern times that Biblical Patriarchy is not being practiced?

tunnelcat wrote:But nowhere can I find that men should respect women as they do the Lord, the reverse case. It's pretty clear that the Bible, and males specifically, blame females for all man's woes and evil deeds. Geez, that sounds pretty maligning and degrading against women in general to me. You can't whitewash it CUDA. Genesis pretty much establishes women as inferior to men from the beginning.

Wow TC, you made a big jump there....

First, on men respecting women:
You're right that you're not going to find passages telling men to "respect" women. You do have this, however:

Ephesians 5:25-30 wrote:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

Men are called to love their wives to the point of being willing to die for them. The Bible does not condone men "lording it over" women.

As for blaming women: Note that God first questions Adam, and he blames Eve, who in turn blames the serpent - so God places responsibility first upon man. Also notice that punishment is doled out to both Adam and Eve, so I don't see woman being singled out there, either.

Finally, as for claiming that women are somehow inferior: Genesis 1:27 gives men and women equal status as "created in the image of God" - in contrast with the rest of creation.

The bottom line is that there's a distinction between equality as humans created in the image of God (identity) and inequality in roles played in our lives. Inequality in roles plays itself out in a whole lot of ways, not just gender roles. I'd say that the majority of the people out there miss the difference...

Thanks Snoopy, I didn't have time to correctly address that yet. you will not make a difference with TC. she is firmly rooted in her Misadnry and her disdain and lack of understanding for anything biblical.

Maybe both of you need to have a sex change and then try to live as a women for awhile. The perspective from my view is totally different from where both of you are coming from, especially from deeply Christian, and especially Muslim, men. Like the classic lyrics say; "Walk a mile in my shoes". It's not men that I disdain, I very happily married one. That's the typical male reaction when a women stands up to what a man wants, or refuses his leadership. Then it's then called misandry.

It's the expected roles that many men think that women should live by that sets my teeth on edge. My stepfather is the classic male who expects the proper role of the female to be followed, subservient, housebound and taking care of family. Since I never followed that particular role, I'm the weird stepchild he kind of dislikes. He's even plays favorites with my sister's 2 girl children. The one who happens to be tomboyish is not liked as much as the other more girlish one. He even admitted that to my sister's face one time. Nice way to treat a daughter and a grandchild who doesn't fit his stereotypical female role.

snoopy, love is different from respect. You can love a women in your heart, protect her in all cases and situations, but that still leaves social AND religious conformity, to force her to live under your rules. Respect includes taking someone's feelings, needs, thoughts, ideas, wishes and preferences into consideration, then putting them before yours. And if women are equal to men in the eyes of the Lord, why aren't women in roles of leadership and authority in the church?

Yea….but, I have to wonder if you would want to be male or female when that last lifeboat is leaving the sinking ship.

Just saying…

To use the current tumblr lingo, TC's basically telling you guys to check your privilege.

And just to follow up on a few things:

CUDA wrote:WOW it must be awful for you, i mean since everyday of your life you submit to something. seriously every time you get behind the wheel of a car you submit, every time you go to work you submit. every time you walk out the door of your house you are in submission to someone in some fashion. so I will state again you CLEARLY do not understand what submission is.
FYI the second part of that verse says Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church. I will "submit" to you that Loving someone unto your own death is MUCH tougher then yielding to someone in authority.

So did you glaze over the part where I said that I don't want someone else to be submissive TO ME? Obviously there are certain things out there that I have to submit to by default (though I think you're heavily stretching the definition of "submit" with most of those examples), but that says nothing about requiring other people to submit to me in turn. The last person on the planet I'd want acting that way would be my wife.

flip wrote:Even the kind of submission TG is talking was probably a life or death decision when that was wrote, although pure form and function suggests a certain amount submission is inherent. Maybe TG don't know what you do with girls

To quote the immortal Spike Spiegel, "I love a woman that can kick my ass."

so wierd that the non-Christians seem to grasp the meaning, and the Christians just know the words at times.......

and its amazing how the Non-Christains ALWAYS selectively look at a single verse to make a statement without ever concerning themselves with the context of the chapter OR and other verses to corroborate their position. you don't understand because you choose not to understand. your loss
if you are going to take a verse take the whole verse. which TG OBVIOUSLY chose not to do. therefore his argument and position on this issue is without merit. I could go on a single verse and justify almost any behavior I wish. a learned person would understand that and honestly research the Bible as a whole before selectively picking and choosing something to pick on it about. unfortunately that is not the case in the discussion

As I have said repeatedly, I know the whole passage, and the statement about husbands being called to love their wives doesn't magically erase the call to submission. It's a relic from the cultural environment in which Paul was writing his letter, and I don't view it as applying in the year 2013. I think that's enough of this silly tangent, don't you?

well it seems that the OP post subject might have been untrue

A New Jersey couple is reportedly disputing a story that made headlines nationwide about a gay waitress who was left a note criticizing her "lifestyle" instead of a tip, claiming their receipt shows they did leave a tip and didn't write the note.

Dayna Morales, an ex-Marine and server at Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater, said she received the offensive note on a November 13 receipt. "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I don't agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life,” the message read.

NBCNewYork.com reports that the couple, who asked to remain anonymous, contacted the station after the story went viral and produced a receipt that was apparently printed at the same time, on the same date, for the same amount, except with an $18 tip.

The couple also produced document they claimed was a Visa bill, which indicated their card was charged for the meal plus the tip, for a total of $111.55, the station reported.

The couple told NBCNewYork.com they believe their receipt was used for a hoax. The husband said he didn't vote for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie because the governor opposes same-sex marriage.

"Never would a message like that come from us," he said.

Morales announced last week she would donate thousands of dollars in gratuities from supporters to the Wounded Warrior Project. She told NBCNewYork.com on Monday she did not receive a tip and insisted the handwriting on the receipt was not her own.

The restaurant, which reportedly could not produce the original receipt nor explain why the family was charged for the tip amount, told the station it was aware of the couple's claims and that an internal investigation is ongoing.

"I just felt like people have a right to know that -- it's fine of people want to donate to her or to the Wounded Warriors, but they're doing it under a false pretense," the wife said.

I guess that would not be very tolerant of them now was it.
nothing like making something up to advance 2 agenda's huh

what two agendas are being 'advanced' here, CUDA?

tunnelcat wrote:Maybe both of you need to have a sex change and then try to live as a women for awhile. The perspective from my view is totally different from where both of you are coming from, especially from deeply Christian, and especially Muslim, men. Like the classic lyrics say; "Walk a mile in my shoes". It's not men that I disdain, I very happily married one. That's the typical male reaction when a women stands up to what a man wants, or refuses his leadership. Then it's then called misandry.

It's the expected roles that many men think that women should live by that sets my teeth on edge.

....

snoopy, love is different from respect. You can love a women in your heart, protect her in all cases and situations, but that still leaves social AND religious conformity, to force her to live under your rules. Respect includes taking someone's feelings, needs, thoughts, ideas, wishes and preferences into consideration, then putting them before yours. And if women are equal to men in the eyes of the Lord, why aren't women in roles of leadership and authority in the church?

TC, maybe you are right about walking a mile in women's shoes. I'm not going to disagree with you about the male chauvinistic tendencies of conservative Christians. I'm also telling you that using the Bible to excuse "lording it over" women is misapplication of what the Bible has to say... but mankind is pretty good at finding ways to try to sujugate others to their will.

Please don't equate Christian and Muslim treatment of women. The attitudes toward women (or more generally leadership) taught by the two are very different...

Why do different roles have to be a problem? Why does social and religious conformity have to be undesirable? I'll hazard a guess: because we've bought into the idea of subjugate or be subjugated (in the context of human relationships)... and I don't think it has to be that way. The concept of servant leadership is lost on our current culture. Also consider that we've bought into the idea that we can achieve true individual independence. I'd propose that every single person on this earth is subject to the rule of something... and that achieving freedom from one thing (such as social and religious conformity) only means subjugation to something else.

On love & respect I think you have your definitions off. To throw some Greek at it, the passage I referred to earlier refers to "agape" love which isn't at all the same thing as the romantic/sexual thing that you're probably thinking of... try looking it up. "Force" (subjugation) doesn't exist alongside "agape." The "agape" love that I'm referring to is very similar to what you're calling "respect" - and in some sense it means putting yourself into a position of being subject to the other entity's well-being. Don't lose track of the fact that the standard for the type of love & leadership men are to have is self-sacrifice unto death. The Christian model of leadership centers about responsibility & self-sacrifice, not dominance.

Spidey wrote:Yea….but, I have to wonder if you would want to be male or female when that last lifeboat is leaving the sinking ship.

Just saying…

Actually, I never bought into that whole women and children first thing. It's sexist and an outdated chivalrous concept. It denotes weakness. A life is a life, male or female. It takes both of the sexes make more children, so if either dies, what difference does it make? Both lives are equally important. In a ship sinking situation, I'd say "pregnant women and children first", then everyone else who can fit. Besides, women float better then men.

snoopy, of the 2 religions, Christianity and Islam, I would choose Christianity above all else. Islam is so repressive towards females, it's downright evil. If I was forced to live under Muslim rule, then I'd become a mass murderer... of Muslim males.

snoopy wrote:Why do different roles have to be a problem? Why does social and religious conformity have to be undesirable? I'll hazard a guess: because we've bought into the idea of subjugate or be subjugated (in the context of human relationships)... and I don't think it has to be that way. The concept of servant leadership is lost on our current culture. Also consider that we've bought into the idea that we can achieve true individual independence. I'd propose that every single person on this earth is subject to the rule of something... and that achieving freedom from one thing (such as social and religious conformity) only means subjugation to something else.

As to conformity, why should we be expected to conform at all, especially sex roles? We're all individuals and it's a free country. We're not animals with hard coded brain wiring. We can now think and make choices. Women fought for it decades ago. I should be able to choose my life and destiny, even as a woman. I'm not a Christian, never have been, so why should I conform to their ideals and ways in the Bible? To me, religious conformity is very undesirable. I hated it as a kid. In my own relationship, there is no subjugation. Our roles are very different and more equal from that of our parents. Sure, it's not always possible to be perfectly equal, but there are no set rules we expect of each other. We respect each other and our freedoms, wants and expressions. Of course, due to age, a little subjugation has set in for me, because I'm the only one of the 2 of us who has any vision anymore. I now do things out of respect and love, plus a lot of necessity, but definitely no regret.

Just to interject, TunnelCat, I don't believe most of what you may refer to as "religious conformity" is a good thing either. As you say we can think for ourselves and make choices, and one would have to wonder what might motivate apparently or legitimately forfeiting this basic law/characteristic. It's impossible to speak for all of "Christendom", and I certainly don't speak for a very common/popular segment of it (Bible-believing Christian is a very small minority), but the reason we seek to conform to the Bible is that we believe that God knows us better than we know ourselves. What people think about themselves, and how people interact changes from place to place, culture to culture, and time to time. It is certain that not all social or person models (for lack of a better word) are equal, as so it only stands to reason (not to mention it's obvious) that some actions/choices/attitudes are better for ourselves and everyone else involved than others. I believe that the God of the Bible is our creator, and that he knows what is in our own best interest, and what is in the best interest of everyone we interact or have relationships with. I don't believe this without reason, but at some point it requires faith in God's character, and for me it has had to include acknowledging not only my own shortcomings (which can be a hard thing to even see, never-mind being willing to admit what you may see for what it is), but the shortcomings which all of humanity have in common, and how the same agree with what the Bible says about us. You might say that acknowledging God's claims about himself and the indisputable truth of our own existence (crude example: "nobody's perfect") is a two-part coin, as it were. You can't have one without the other, ultimately, and if you acknowledge one you are forced to acknowledge the other. This is what I have found.

Motivation is everything, when it comes to conformity. I have found (even in my own personal experience), that motivations for any kind of conformity which do not stem from humility (delicately, but certainly separate from cowardice or timidity) and truth always tend to bad ends. Put another way, as an example, a man that seeks God for his own profit does not actually seek God, but his own profit, and will only find one of the two, because it's the one he seeks, and will determine at every Y in the road to which goal he veers. It's worth mentioning that so long as he maintains the pretense of seeking God, at every Y he is required to further obscures the truth in order to uphold the otherwise ever-weakening pretense. Incidentally it also puts him at odds with anyone who stands in or for the truth which he must obscure. This is a major stumbling block for everyone, and as I see it this is the very reason that the Bible spends a lot of time dealing with how we can know the authenticity of our pursuits or desires.

Getting that deep in only two paragraphs is probably not a good idea. I hope that makes some sense.

You're right. That's deep and it's late. Later.

tunnelcat wrote:As to conformity, why should we be expected to conform at all...

In the grand philosophical scheme, because your only alternative is anarchy. I think you know that, though.

From here we go to the philosophical discussion over moral standards which has been had on the board before...

Bottom line: The Christian model of different roles for men & women (including leadership for men) isn't demeaning or domineering if it's properly followed, but unfortunately it ends up there because we're not perfect as human beings.

snoopy wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:As to conformity, why should we be expected to conform at all...

In the grand philosophical scheme, because your only alternative is anarchy. I think you know that, though.

From here we go to the philosophical discussion over moral standards which has been had on the board before...

Bottom line: The Christian model of different roles for men & women (including leadership for men) isn't demeaning or domineering if it's properly followed, but unfortunately it ends up there because we're not perfect as human beings.

+1

That's kind of putting the cart before the horse, though, isn't it? If you're establishing a model for interpersonal interactions that you know will be severely flawed from the get-go, shouldn't that model be changed to something that's actually workable in reality?

snoopy wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:As to conformity, why should we be expected to conform at all...

In the grand philosophical scheme, because your only alternative is anarchy. I think you know that, though.

From here we go to the philosophical discussion over moral standards which has been had on the board before...

Bottom line: The Christian model of different roles for men & women (including leadership for men) isn't demeaning or domineering if it's properly followed, but unfortunately it ends up there because we're not perfect as human beings.

I agree that anarchy is the end result of non-conformity. But how does that mesh with our nation's ideals of personal freedom? I'm referring to Christians and Republicans in general, who seem to be the ones most vocal about that very ideal most of the time. It seems counterproductive to want conformity in certain aspects, and then turn around and want absolute freedom from any government intervention in our lives. People in governments write and enforce our laws biased on social constructs and morals, in which we are then expected to follow and conform to. Many of these laws are very plastic and open to interpretation or change. How do you balance absolute personal freedom and conformity to a set of social morals and laws that tend to originate from one group in this country, mainly Christianity? How do we handle things when people not from that religion refuse to conform to those laws and demand change?

Top Gun wrote:That's kind of putting the cart before the horse, though, isn't it? If you're establishing a model for interpersonal interactions that you know will be severely flawed from the get-go, shouldn't that model be changed to something that's actually workable in reality?

so your suggestion is to work towards the lowest common denominator instead of expecting people to strive for a higher goal?

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:That's kind of putting the cart before the horse, though, isn't it? If you're establishing a model for interpersonal interactions that you know will be severely flawed from the get-go, shouldn't that model be changed to something that's actually workable in reality?

so your suggestion is to work towards the lowest common denominator instead of expecting people to strive for a higher goal?

No, my suggestion is to work towards something that's achievable within the human condition, but still favorable. If you're going to say that having the husband in the dominant role is an "ideal," but having the two parties be equal works far better, why wouldn't you go that route? I don't see anything that makes one better than the other...in fact, I see a lot that makes the former problematic.

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:That's kind of putting the cart before the horse, though, isn't it? If you're establishing a model for interpersonal interactions that you know will be severely flawed from the get-go, shouldn't that model be changed to something that's actually workable in reality?

so your suggestion is to work towards the lowest common denominator instead of expecting people to strive for a higher goal?

No, my suggestion is to work towards something that's achievable within the human condition, but still favorable. If you're going to say that having the husband in the dominant role is an "ideal," but having the two parties be equal works far better, why wouldn't you go that route? I don't see anything that makes one better than the other...in fact, I see a lot that makes the former problematic.

It is achievable within the human condition. but it takes effort. effort that too many people refuse to put out.

Again it's your lack of understanding the roles that brings you to that conclusion. Marriage is submission to each other. that's why over 50% of them fail, because both side refuse to submit to the other. it's called humbling yourself. it's called putting the others needs before your own. it's called sacrifice. it is not and never has been about "dominance". it's only your want to believe that, that brings you to this conclusion.

I've been Married for 32 years. never once have I ever required my wife to "submit" or be "subservient" to me. never once have I had to assert dominance over her, it has never been required or even considered. there have been times that she has said I'll trust your judgment on things when we didn't agree, but it's either your lack of understanding, or your disdain for the wording that hinders your comprehension of the matter.

just an observation: you all have turned from the biblical wording, which sort of reflects ancient mores and marital roles, to a functional modern marriage, which is quite different.

callmeslick wrote:just an observation: you all have turned from the biblical wording, which sort of reflects ancient mores and marital roles, to a functional modern marriage, which is quite different.

HOW SO?

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:just an observation: you all have turned from the biblical wording, which sort of reflects ancient mores and marital roles, to a functional modern marriage, which is quite different.

HOW SO?

which part do you wish me to elaborate upon?.......and don't ruin your Thanksgiving pondering my comment. It was just an observation.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:just an observation: you all have turned from the biblical wording, which sort of reflects ancient mores and marital roles, to a functional modern marriage, which is quite different.

HOW SO?

which part do you wish me to elaborate upon?.......and don't ruin your Thanksgiving pondering my comment. It was just an observation.

the "turned from the Biblical wording" would be where I would start

ok, for a while you centered around the whole 'submit' business. But, a closer look at the most recent posts from TC and yourself, while tossing the wording in, really deal with the concept of a modern marriage. I think that when the Old Testament was written, a far more male-dominant society was taken for granted. Thus, the concept of a woman 'submitting' to the man was just normal marital relationship practice. The modern scenario you describe as successful, and the comments you make on why marriages fail are spot-on, but I think they might seem foreign to a member of Hebrew society 2500 years ago. Likewise, TC points out various accomodations within her marriage, and views of marriage which reflect a similar modern framework. Just my observation, not in any way an editorial commentary. I find this whole thread interesting to read.

Top Gun wrote:That's kind of putting the cart before the horse, though, isn't it? If you're establishing a model for interpersonal interactions that you know will be severely flawed from the get-go, shouldn't that model be changed to something that's actually workable in reality?

I guess you would have to define workable. Is having a nail through your skull workable because it only makes you twitch sometimes, or is the ideal really to always point the air gun in the right direction? I mean if the model is only "flawed" because what you're applying it to is flawed...

On the other hand you might argue that people should strive to use a model which leads to the best possible outcome without asking us to change in order for the model to work (this has been done in all kinds of little ways, and you might say it is the basis for a lot of liberal thought). The problem you run into there, ultimately, is even if this could be done (it won't), we are still accountable to our creator in the end. The Bible says what does it profit a man (or say "humanity") if he gains the whole world yet loses his own soul?

callmeslick wrote:ok, for a while you centered around the whole 'submit' business. But, a closer look at the most recent posts from TC and yourself, while tossing the wording in, really deal with the concept of a modern marriage. I think that when the Old Testament was written, a far more male-dominant society was taken for granted. Thus, the concept of a woman 'submitting' to the man was just normal marital relationship practice. The modern scenario you describe as successful, and the comments you make on why marriages fail are spot-on, but I think they might seem foreign to a member of Hebrew society 2500 years ago. Likewise, TC points out various accomodations within her marriage, and views of marriage which reflect a similar modern framework. Just my observation, not in any way an editorial commentary. I find this whole thread interesting to read.

I think there is a certain amount of truth to what you are saying, up and until the new testament, which is where that verse is. then it started changing because of the new teachings. but I will also submit that our perception of what life was like back then is somewhat clouded today by Islam and how they perverted the concept of a wife's submission.

What’s ironic is, you can’t be equals without submitting to each other. I mean at some point a decision must be made, and if you both want different things…well…something has to give.

But I admit it shouldn’t always be the woman how has to give in, it should be the one who knows best, or is best suited to make that decision.


Actually if you decide beforehand who is in charge of what…it prevents a lot of arguments…

Spidey wrote:What’s ironic is, you can’t be equals without submitting to each other. I mean at some point a decision must be made, and if you both want different things…well…something has to give.

But I admit it shouldn’t always be the woman how has to give in, it should be the one who knows best, or is best suited to make that decision.


Actually if you decide beforehand who is in charge of what…it prevents a lot of arguments…

agreed totally

and I can tell you there were Many time in 32 years that the Wife and I didn't agree. It was usually when it came to raising the kids. I usually capitulated.

I do remember her telling me I was Right and she was wrong in regards to the Kids. ONCE

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:What’s ironic is, you can’t be equals without submitting to each other. I mean at some point a decision must be made, and if you both want different things…well…something has to give.

But I admit it shouldn’t always be the woman how has to give in, it should be the one who knows best, or is best suited to make that decision.


Actually if you decide beforehand who is in charge of what…it prevents a lot of arguments…

agreed totally

and I can tell you there were Many time in 32 years that the Wife and I didn't agree. It was usually when it came to raising the kids. I usually capitulated.

I do remember her telling me I was Right and she was wrong in regards to the Kids. ONCE

The Two Words that will save your marriage is "YES DEAR". So who's submitting now?

Yeah, but you're forgetting Heretic that "Yes Dear" is not gender specific. Either the husband, or the wife, can say it to acquiesce to the other. I say it to my husband when I acquiesce, which I've done many a time.

CUDA wrote:and I can tell you there were Many time in 32 years that the Wife and I didn't agree. It was usually when it came to raising the kids. I usually capitulated.

I do remember her telling me I was Right and she was wrong in regards to the Kids. ONCE

You're either a pushover, or a very nice husband to your wife CUDA.