<p>How sexist Pierre.</p>
<p>^^ Damn us women for not submitting to our husbands! What the hell do we think we are? EQUALS?!</p>
<p>I am an atheist. I don’t support gay marriage. I don’t think homosexuality is a choice for the majority of people. I dislike gay people. It makes me feel gross when I think about it.</p>
<p>If you’re against gay marriage, then don’t marry a gay person…simple as that.</p>
<p>^ I dislike you AntiRacist — but I’m still willing to allow you to get married.</p>
<p>But for the sake of the gene pool, please don’t go reproducing.</p>
<p>@Pierre, cmon man… you have a lot of intelligent posts on this board… but are you actually going to make the argument that the high divorce rate is partly becuase wives do not submit to their husbands enough? Even if that were true, are you implying that wives should always submit to their husbands and compromise the whole concept of gender equality? I don’t buy your argument and/or implication at all! In a marriage, neither the wife nor the husband should have any more authority than her/his significant other. Does that not defeat the purpose of marriage? I can’t believe I have to explain simple things like this… sometimes it gets frustrating.</p>
<p>@Antiracist: you admit that homosexuality is not a choice for most people. Thus, you admit that being gay is something that happens from birth. Yet, you say you dislike them. If you are aware enough to understang that first part, you should automatically realize your dislike for gays is extremeley unfounded and thus invalid. Thank you for playing.</p>
<p>Gay marriage? No. Equality? Yes.</p>
<p>I don’t think there should be any distinction between a union–granted by law–between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.</p>
<p>The fact that it’s called “gay marriage” denotes that there is a fundamental difference between the two. There is not. The only difference is the people getting married. And that’s different in every marriage.</p>
<p>I have yet to see an argument against “gay marriage” that is not derived from religion. Which means I automatically discount 99.9% of these arguments due to the subjective, fallible, unprovable nature of most religions.</p>
<p>There is no logical argument against allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.</p>
<p>But of course, we live in America. We always need some group to persecute…when one wins rights we just pick on another one.</p>
<p>Here’s a biblical interpretation from a website that explains what the verses mean:</p>
<p>21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.</p>
<p>What usually happens is that people jump right in on verse 22, “Wives submit to your husbands”. Any discussion of submission starts and stops with the wife submitting to her husband. But look just before the start of verse 22. What do you see? There is a little heading that was inserted by the publisher. The intent is to let you know that a new subject is coming. The subject is Husbands and Wives. Paul never wrote those words there. It is not a new subject in verse 22 and the heading only serves to cause huge problems in interpretation. Let’s take out this little helpful heading and read verse 21 in context with 22 to 33. Verse 21 is an instruction for all of us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. What Paul then does is give examples for people in various life situations on how to submit to one another. He says “wives, here is what submission to your husband means in your life. But then he immediately goes to the husbands and says, this is what submission to your wife looks like for you, “Love your wife in the same way Christ loves the church. Lay down your life for her”.</p>
<p>Yes wives are to submit to their husbands in the same way the church submits to Christ. What does that look like? It means following his lead and serving him out of love. It is not a blind obedience but a following that comes from a relationship of trust and mutual esteem. Husbands are to submit their desires to their wife by serving her to the point of death. Husbands are to “die to themselves” and do all they can to help their wives becomes the beautiful, precious bride, that Christ also has in mind for the church. For most men the idea of laying down their life for their wife will immediately go to fighting off an attacker or pushing her away from an oncoming bus while you take a grill to the chest. The chances of either of those opportunities happening are astronomically slim. What is far more likely is that husbands will be asked to die to themselves and submit to their wives by doing dishes, caring for the kids so she can have a day away, ironing her clothes, or making her lunch. It includes helping her achieve her dreams and become all that God made her to be. It means putting her first.</p>
<p>For wives, submission means putting him first. It means to honor and respect him. I have seen far too many cases of wives who never have an encouraging word for their husband. They never have an honoring or respectful thing to say about him or to him. In fact in our culture, ridiculing a husband has almost become a national sport. How hard is it to find something nice to say about the person you are married to? Every man marries a woman wanting her to think that he is the greatest guy in the world. When all he gets is berating and ridicule, the relationship is in deep trouble."</p>
<p>-<a href=“Provocative Bible Verses: Wives Submit to Your Husbands – Dan Lacich: Provocative Christian Living”>http://provocativechristian.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2009/10/12/provocative-bible-verses-wives-submit-to-your-husbands/</a></p>
<p>I’m sorry for starting such a controversial topic. These bible verses are often misinterpreted by christians (and non-christians who use it to blame christians for being sexist). I’ve seen so many husbands who insist on their wives “submitting” to them yet will never do all that they can to do what she wants and to meet her needs/goals/dreams as well.</p>
<p>Hopefully that explanation above will explain what Paul really meant when he wrote that passage. I was definitely not stating and DO NOT BELIEVE that husbands are superior to their wives. I am just for gender equality as anybody else!!</p>
<p>Pierre, I do not believe in God so citing religious text does not make much sense for ME. However, it does explain where you are getting your views… from a christian text. Your post number 128 makes it seem like wives cause all the problems whereas husbands are saints. I’m a guy and I’ll tell you that is extremely untrue. Your argument is absurd. A lot of women may be unsupportive of their husbands due to a variety of legitimate (and sometimes illegitimate) reasons. Similarly, a lot of husbands are unsupportive of their wives’ desires. Women are not somehow more inclined to be critical of their spouse (if that’s what you are implying). Once again, your argument is absurd. The constant citing of religious text does no more than corroborate my realization that too many people derive their views from other people’s existing thoughts (found in religious text). Thus, the cycle, unfortunately, continues. This issue is too big to tackle in one post but I hope you see what I’m trying to say.</p>
<p>^I know you don’t believe in the Bible. I was just trying to explain what I believe because it kinda got misinterpreted that I was a sexist.</p>
<p>And that wasn’t my argument necessarily, it was just one interpretation of the biblical passes from a website I found when googling that verse haha, I haven’t really thought much about it since I’m nowhere near getting married :)</p>
<p>I definitely agree with you that husbands are not saints and that husbands are often very unsupportive of their wives’ desires and this is WRONG. The explanation above says that “What is far more likely is that husbands will be asked to die to themselves and submit to their wives by doing dishes, caring for the kids so she can have a day away, ironing her clothes, or making her lunch. It includes helping her achieve her dreams and become all that God made her to be. It means putting her first.”. It probably didn’t go into much detail about the submission part of the husband since the point of the article was just addressing the wives part.</p>
<p>Another thing to realize is the historical context of the passage. In the Roman empire, husbands had the legal right to kill their wives. Today, that is not the case.</p>
<p>AntiRacist made me laugh. Oh, the irony of her post and username.</p>
<p>Everyone is allowed to get married, including gay people. They just can’t marry their own sex.</p>
<p>Marriage is promoted through our government by incentives. Meaning, marriage is good for the country because when people get married, they buy a house, have kids, and hopefully promote good citizenship and contribute productively to society. So, when you get married you get some incentives, in various forms (taxes, privileges).</p>
<p>Marriage IS NOT A RIGHT. No one has a right to be married, and reserving marriage just for opposite sex couples is not inequality or discrimination.</p>
<p>If two men can get married, why can’t 1 man marry 3 women? Or 5 women all marry each other? </p>
<p>Homosexuality is just a sexual perversion, it should no way be promoted. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be tolerant, but tolerance doesn’t mean acceptance or approval. We can tolerate homosexuality (much like we tolerate a crying baby on an airplane), but we don’t have to accept it, or approve or the behavior.</p>
<p>You are free to have a relationship with whoever you want and have sex with whoever you want, it’s none of my business and I couldn’t careless. However, don’t come to me and say that homosexuality is somehow a socially redeeming trait and should be rewarded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This talking point isn’t relevant. Obviously, here we are talking about whether marriage between two people of the same sex should be allowed.</p>
<p>Also, this talking point could have been used back when interracial marriage was forbidden.</p>
<p>‘Everyone is allowed to get married, including black people. They just can’t marry white people.’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t homosexual couples be offered the same privileges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well, we are free to only legalize monogamous marriages. we don’t have to legalize all types of marriages. but, I think that there isn’t any good reason for disallowing those types of marriages either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i don’t agree with this.</p>
<p>@Bigeastbeast… I dont even understand how your post both sounded extremely homophobic and yet extremely unopinionated and supportive of gays at the same time… </p>
<p>And, you are correct that marriage is not a right… its an entity that people should have full choice whether to enter into or not. That means straight couples and gay couples.</p>
<p>“Marriage is promoted through our government by incentives. Meaning, marriage is good for the country because when people get married, they buy a house, have kids, and hopefully promote good citizenship and contribute productively to society. S”</p>
<p>People do those things whether or not they are married.</p>
<p>“Homosexuality is just a sexual perversion, it should no way be promoted”</p>
<p>I don’t agree.</p>
<p>Your religion is meaningless.</p>
<p>Homosexuality is a pure sexual function, it doesn’t deserve to be promoted and approved by the government.</p>
<p>People can have sex with who they wish, but don’t start crying because you aren’t rewarded for who you have sex with. Giving a BJ to another guy doesn’t qualify you to be recognized by the government via marriage. </p>
<p>The previous poster was correct about how str8 people also have sexual fetishes, however we as a society don’t reward (legally) people with fetishes with government incentives/institutions. Unless you have some documentation of a str8 person qualifying for a government program based on their spanking fetish, your point doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>^ How is this any different than heterosexuality? There are married couples who view heterosexuality as purely a sexual function (when you say purely sexual function, you mean like, purely for fun, right?) and they receive privileges from the government . . .</p>
<p>
There are plenty of people in this country who dislike “colored” people and feel “gross” about the idea of interracial marriage. They are free to feel gross about it, but does that mean interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry either? Hilarious username btw.
I’m curious, how is it any less socially redeeming than 2 hetero people marrying? Either way they’re going to buy a house, have or adopt children and raise them, hopefully promote good citizenship and contribute to society, etc…?</p>