Egalitarian Marriage

WolfGate · Jun 5, 2012

Tamara - I pretty much stated in my post that I wasn't trying to start the old debate but rather help others understand the viewpoint. Yet everything you wrote in response appears to be a rebuttal, which takes us down that road from the get go.

In all honesty, I think this entire thread likely violates the forum rules however, I am hopeful we can demostrate to the moderators that we're finding ways to avoid the old traps. But with this subject, that won't happen if we rebut each others points like we're in a courtroom debate.

JaneFW - the color of the kitchen is really not what I'm talking about here. Again, my intent is not to argue about your viewpoint, but rather to present mine in a fashion to help understanding. I don't say you have to agree with me. Hopefully you feel as I do, that despite some different views of things you and I have enough history now to recognize mutual respect.

Tamara224 · Jun 5, 2012

David Jerome said:
Both sexes still have certain generalities, as shown in the OP with the differences between them.

I don't think you actually read the article in the OP if this is your take-away from it.

It actually said that egalitarians differ on whether there are innate non-physical differences between men and women, on what those differences are and whether they're nature or nurture.

What part of my argument supports that?

I don't know, maybe I'm misreading you.

It just seems like you're saying that men and women are so different from one another that there's no way we can use the same skills/techniques of compromise and cooperation in an opposite-sex relationship as in a same-sex one.

But the truth is that you can take any two people of the SAME sex and say that they have different mentalities, cultures, etc, .....

So, either ALL roommate relationships should be hierarchical or we should each live alone.

I understand your point, I just disagreed with your suggested way of going about it.

You realize it was highly rhetorical, right?

My point is that there isn't any more difference between a man and a woman than there is between a man and another man. Personality, needs, mentality, physical needs, those are all going to be different from person to person, regardless of sex.

If a man and a man can live together and make daily decisions about their shared home and joint responsibilities without dubbing one of them the "head" then we should be able to do that between a man and a woman.

None of the differences that you listed are only true of opposite-sex relationships, they are true of same-sex relationships (non-sexual) too.

So why can't the same skills be used?

Tamara224 · Jun 5, 2012

WolfGate said:
Tamara - I pretty much stated in my post that I wasn't trying to start the old debate but rather help others understand the viewpoint. Yet everything you wrote in response appears to be a rebuttal, which takes us down that road from the get go.

In all honesty, I think this entire thread likely violates the forum rules however, I am hopeful we can demostrate to the moderators that we're finding ways to avoid the old traps. But with this subject, that won't happen if we rebut each others points like we're in a courtroom debate.

You are welcome to not come back to this thread if you feel that way.

I did refrain from debating you point by point on Scripture.

But if you want to show that we can do this respectfully, then you're going to need to not attempt to tell me how to conduct myself in online debates. I would prefer for you to use a style more like my own, too. But it's none of my durn business to go telling you how you're allowed to respond and how not.

I have my style and it works for me.

And if you don't like it, you're free to go talk to someone else.

But don't lecture at me about respect while disrespecting me in such a bald-faced manner.

Also, it's called fisking. It's an internet thing, not a courtroom thing.

Tamara224 · Jun 5, 2012

WolfGate said:
JaneFW - the color of the kitchen is really not what I'm talking about here. Again, my intent is not to argue about your viewpoint, but rather to present mine in a fashion to help understanding. I don't say you have to agree with me. Hopefully you feel as I do, that despite some different views of things you and I have enough history now to recognize mutual respect.

WolfGate, this thread is titled "Egalitarian Marriage" for a reason.

If you want to talk about your position and your opinion about complementarianism, maybe you could start your own thread.

But no one asked you to moderate or police my thread and try to tell us how we're allowed to respond to you.

For crying out loud.

Sailor_A · Jun 5, 2012

Pretty interesting article. I wish I had read something like this before.

Just to lighten the mood. This critical decision thing gets brought up a lot. You know that important decision that the husband and wife just can not agree upon. I asked my husband about it and he gave me just 5 words: rock, paper scissors, lizard, Spock.

David Jerome · Jun 5, 2012

Tamara224 said:
I don't think you actually read the article in the OP if this is your take-away from it.

True...I didn't. I just got that based on a quote from another poster.

My point is that there isn't any more difference between a man and a woman than there is between a man and another man. Personality, needs, mentality, physical needs, those are all going to be different from person to person, regardless of sex.

This isn't living in the real world. Of course there are differences. Not acknowledging this, in my opinion, can only make a marriage worse.

If a man and a man can live together and make daily decisions about their shared home and joint responsibilities without dubbing one of them the "head" then we should be able to do that between a man and a woman.

Agreed.

None of the differences that you listed are only true of opposite-sex relationships, they are true of same-sex relationships (non-sexual) too.

So why can't the same skills be used?

Exceptions don't negate a general rule. That's why.

WolfGate · Jun 5, 2012

Tamara - I see. Clearly the moderators were correct.

dallasapple · Jun 5, 2012

Sailor_A said:
Pretty interesting article. I wish I had read something like this before.

Just to lighten the mood. This critical decision thing gets brought up a lot. You know that important decision that the husband and wife just can not agree upon. I asked my husband about it and he gave me just 5 words: rock, paper scissors, lizard, Spock.

You landed your self a GREAT one!

Dallas

LinkH · Jun 5, 2012

dallasapple said:
Exactly..

I have been in groups before or even with just one other person that we came to an agreement many times when we origianlly had not agreed we did not appoint a "head".. ..compromise is one of those ways..

God has already appointed who is the head in a marriage.

That being said, the head in a marriage is to love his wife sacrificially.

dallasapple · Jun 5, 2012

Also I agree the thread is about MISCONCEPTIONS of egalitarian..Debating over and "understandign " one speicific persons view of complimentarian is a bit off topic.

Discussign egalitarian here to my knowledge isnt against the rules..and in this case its discussing it in a manner thats to break down or rebutt common misbeleifs about that by many complimentarians..But thats nto the saem thing as a full blown "discussion " on submission..

Dallas

dallasapple · Jun 5, 2012

God has already appointed who is the head in a marriage.

I dont take the head to mean the same thing some do ..and MANY others(men and women) do not either and thats the discussion ...Not only that there is the WHOLE rest of the Bible..LOL!!!that woudl ALL apply to marriage...never says 'except if its your husband or wife"..its a WHOLE view ..not a line here and there that makes one person by virtue of gender over the other..

anywya this is about EGALITARIAN..not man leader and head of wife..

Dallas

Tamara224 · Jun 5, 2012

WolfGate said:
Tamara - I see. Clearly the moderators were correct.

You know what, WolfGate? I'm not going to let this pass.

I started a thread very clearly entitled "Egalitarian Marriage" the topic of which is EGALITARIAN MARRIAGE with a link to a post about Egalitarian marriage.

Your entire post was a summary rebuttal of the egalitarian position couched in terms of your opinion on why complementarianism is "more Scriptural". Knowing that we're not supposed to debate woman-only submission vs. mutual submission in this forum - you went ahead and posted a rebuttal of the egalitarian position.

It's disingenuous to claim I'm the one being disrespectful. Respectful would be you respecting that others in this forum have egalitarian marriages and believe that Scripture teaches such and just not told us why you think we're wrong.

Respectful would have been choosing to let this thread go on without you having to offer a counter-position.

Athene · Jun 5, 2012

I have spent a ridiculous amount of time today reading blogs and it's all your fault Tamara!

LinkH · Jun 5, 2012

Tamara224 said:
Knowing that we're not supposed to debate woman-only submission vs. mutual submission in this forum - .

Could you refrain from bringing up banned topics?

Athene · Jun 5, 2012

dallasapple said:
Also I agree the thread is about MISCONCEPTIONS of egalitarian..Debating over and "understandign " one speicific persons view of complimentarian is a bit off topic.

Discussign egalitarian here to my knowledge isnt against the rules..and in this case its discussing it in a manner thats to break down or rebutt common misbeleifs about that by many complimentarians..But thats nto the saem thing as a full blown "discussion " on submission..

Dallas

so in that case we should probably ignore attempts to turn this in to a comp vs egal debate.

Athene · Jun 5, 2012

LinkH said:
Could you refrain from bringing up banned topics?

ah, but egalitarianism is not banned

dallasapple · Jun 5, 2012

Tamara224 said:
You know what, WolfGate? I'm not going to let this pass.

I started a thread very clearly entitled "Egalitarian Marriage" the topic of which is EGALITARIAN MARRIAGE with a link to a post about Egalitarian marriage.

Your entire post was a summary rebuttal of the egalitarian position couched in terms of your opinion on why complementarianism is "more Scriptural". Knowing that we're not supposed to debate woman-only submission vs. mutual submission in this forum - you went ahead and posted a rebuttal of the egalitarian position.

It's disingenuous to claim I'm the one being disrespectful. Respectful would be you respecting that others in this forum have egalitarian marriages and believe that Scripture teaches such and just not told us why you think we're wrong.

Respectful would have been choosing to let this thread go on without you having to offer a counter-position.

I agree..and also this blogger isnt even ATTEMPTING to say "complimentarianism" is wrong..she answering to common reasons (wife submit to me the man) CLAIM egalitarian is wrong.. DISPELLING ..she clearly states to each his own and whoever is happy good for them sort of thing..shes NOT "dogging" on others who have chosen to to pick out of the Bible that the man is the womans head and authority..

Dallas

LinkH · Jun 5, 2012

I know. Only certain topics about marriage that are clearly and directly taught in scripture are banned on this forum.

Instructions repeated in scripture for wives are off-topic for discussion. Instructions for husbands are not.

Athene · Jun 5, 2012

''Egalitarians don’t take the Bible seriously''

that's one I've encountered a few times. I think this N.T. Wright quote is appropriate

First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. If we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition, as opposed to Catholic or rationalist ones.’

David Jerome · Jun 5, 2012

LinkH said:
I know, only certain topics about marriage that are clearly and directly taught in scripture are banned on this forum.

Ouch...

Egalitarian Marriage

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Grammatically incorrect

Regular Member

Grammatically incorrect

Grammatically incorrect

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Grammatically incorrect

Well-Known Member

Similar threads