Should the 19th Amendment Be Repealed?

[civilwarbuff]

Since the usual trope is “ she should keep her legs closed” I’m just turning things around. A man is fertile 24/7/365. A woman a couple days a month. Clearly men should be more responsible with their deposits.

Absolutely agree. However, since it is the woman who conceives and gives birth you would think they would go the extra mile to not get pregnant unintentionally especially with modern birth control methods......I know were the roles reversed I most certainly would.

 

[BCP1928]

Absolutely agree. However, since it is the woman who conceives and gives birth you would think they would go the extra mile to not get pregnant unintentionally especially with modern birth control methods......I know were the roles reversed I most certainly would.

Did you ever read Lysistrata?

 

[Zaha Torte]

If you mean the "eye for an eye", than this moral law ceased in every civilized society and is being interpreted only figuratively. Never literally. The OT application was literal, though.

The concept of "eye for an eye" is an eternal and universal one - that a punishment should not outweigh the crime - and it applied to all regardless of status or station.

The courts determined exactly what the punishment was to be and the Prophets often relayed the Lord's message that the people should be merciful to one another.

This was meant to teach Israel that there was no Mercy by the Law alone - but only through a Mediator or Judge can Mercy be extended.

The Law of Moses pointed to the Lord Jesus Christ - like the brazen serpent that was lifted up - and He fulfilled it through His Atoning Sacrifice.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because it exacerbates our tendencies.

Why is that bad?

 

[Zaha Torte]

I have no interest in why a god in which I don't believe might consider a man to be the 'head of the woman'. It only has relevance to your views, so why you're asking me I have no idea. You are entitled to your views on the relationship of men and women in a marriage and I'm sure you'll have some ideas on why you think it should be the case. Presumably because 'it is written'.

Because it leads to the best outcomes for families and countries overall.

There is no reason to continue a conversation where you feel no need to answer my questions.

 

[Zaha Torte]

And actually you haven't. I asked you about people that God says are abominable and whether in your opinion they should be allowed to vote. And I also asked you if women who have been selected by the president for senior positions in the administration should, in your opinion, be removed from those positions. Or are you suggesting that they can hold those positions but not actually vote for the man who put them there.

I think they'd need to know.

I answered all of those questions.

 

[Zaha Torte]

That serves my point. Our personal hermeneutic determines what is for us moral, ceremonial and social. Sounds like the role of women would be social and not universal. But then we have not agreed on how to classify your categories, which, by the way, are not found in scripture..

You are free to ask about it at your local synagogue or peruse the internet. I did not come up with this one my own.

 

[Zaha Torte]

and what happens if a man either A is not a provider B is abusive or just leaves the woman women need to have some abilities to provide for themselves does not mean that it is not an ideal situation for the man to be the head of household but sometimes that is just not the case.

Sounds like she should have relied more heavily on the men in her life to help her not make such bad decisions in regard to the man she decides to marry.

If she had allowed her father to be her Head before he helped find her a husband - it is far less likely for those negative outcomes.

It is feminism and all this "liberation" that has led to more failed marriages, broken families and miserable women.

 

[Zaha Torte]

This country was NOT founded on the Bible and as I have said I do not believe you would want that if you read history as when a government based on relgion has consistantly failed BADLY in this fallen world.

I am talking about ideals that are universal in their effects and have everything to do in the natural worlds.

These ideals don't work because they are "religious" but because they just work.

 

[Bradskii]

Why is that bad?

If you tend to get violent do you think it's a good idea to be more violent?

 

[Bradskii]

Because it leads to the best outcomes for families and countries overall.

The only countries that take that position to be universally acceptable within their societies aren't the type of place where you'd generally like to live. But if it works in your relationship then who am I to argue. If you can persuade someone else that it's a good way to live then go for it. But don't think that you can generalise it to everyone and then use it as a political argument

There is no reason to continue a conversation where you feel no need to answer my questions.

You have two of mine outstanding. You've made no attempt to answer them. Whereas I have explained that your question has no meaning for me. You might as well ask me why Shiva prefers X over Y. How on earth can I tell what someone wants when that someone doesn't exist.

 

[Bradskii]

I answered all of those questions.

You most certainly haven't.

 

[Bradskii]

The concept of "eye for an eye" is an eternal and universal one - that a punishment should not outweigh the crime...

No, it suggested that the punishment should equate to the crime.

 

[Zaha Torte]

If you tend to get violent do you think it's a good idea to be more violent?

Why are you claiming that men have a tendency to get violent?

 

[Zaha Torte]

The only countries that take that position to be universally acceptable within their societies aren't the type of place where you'd generally like to live. But if it works in your relationship then who am I to argue. If you can persuade someone else that it's a good way to live then go for it. But don't think that you can generalise it to everyone and then use it as a political argument

You have two of mine outstanding. You've made no attempt to answer them. Whereas I have explained that your question has no meaning for me. You might as well ask me why Shiva prefers X over Y. How on earth can I tell what someone wants when that someone doesn't exist.

I would not have minded living in the US before women's suffrage.

 

[Zaha Torte]

You most certainly haven't.

I said that women should not hold such positions and shared the Word of God that Men are the Head of the Woman.

How does that not answer your questions?

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, it suggested that the punishment should equate to the crime.

Not at all.

A victim of a crime was not required to pursue legal damages, and it was a Judge - not the victim - who determined what if any punishment was to be had - and it could not outweigh the crime itself.

All while the Prophets claimed that the Lord wanted His people to be merciful to one another.

You are free to take one verse and build a little fort around it - but that usually doesn't end well.

 

[Bradskii]

Why are you claiming that men have a tendency to get violent?

Extra testosterone exacerbates innate tendencies. Women also have testosterone, but a lot less than men. It's why, on average, you'll see men being violent rather than women. Please don't post a link to women being violent.

 

[Bradskii]

I would not have minded living in the US before women's suffrage.

Your call entirely. Don't expect too many others to agree with you. You can't extrapolate your personal opinions to formulate your ideal society.

 

[Bradskii]

I said that women should not hold such positions and shared the Word of God that Men are the Head of the Woman.

How does that not answer your questions?

That's a generalisation that may or may not apply to the two specific questions I asked. See below.

I asked you about people that God says are abominable and whether in your opinion they should be allowed to vote. And I also asked you if women who have been selected by the president for senior positions in the administration should, in your opinion, be removed from those positions. Or are you suggesting that they can hold those positions but not actually vote for the man who put them there.