Condoning women voting against their husband is exactly a reason why feminism is stupid.
What's the point of voting if households neutralize their votes.
Oh yeah, feminism..
#feministshavenobrains
Feminism
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
- Status
Condoning women voting against their husband is exactly a reason why feminism is stupid.
What's the point of voting if households neutralize their votes.
Oh yeah, feminism..
#feministshavenobrains
Christ's Word
New member
I like it, could you expand on this a little?
The Bible does not establish anything like a rule by vote. Far from it.
niphtrique
New member
If feminism had been around in 40 AD, they had not rewritten the Gospel in the way they did. Christians are considered to be children of God and born of God (John 1:12-13). Men cannot give birth, as you all may know.
It is written that Jesus was with God in the beginning (John 1:2). There is no mentioning of Jesus in the Tanakh but Adam was there in the beginning. Adam is referred to as Son of God (Luke 3:38), Jesus as firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15) so Adam may have been born and Jesus may have seen himself as a reincarnation of Adam as Jesus said that before Abraham was born, he was (John 8:58). No Father is ever mentioned in the Tanakh. Only Eve is named Mother of All the Living (Gen. 3:20).
This female imagery of God may have survived because the New Testament is mostly written in Greek. In Greek it is possible for a male god to give birth. The goddess Athena was born from the head of the male god Zeus. The editor of the text may therefore have been confortable with retaining this phrase while changing the gender of God. The original story probably was not in Greek, so this is significant, and it may be evidence of God being a woman.
It is written that Jesus was with God in the beginning (John 1:2). There is no mentioning of Jesus in the Tanakh but Adam was there in the beginning. Adam is referred to as Son of God (Luke 3:38), Jesus as firstborn over all creation (Col. 1:15) so Adam may have been born and Jesus may have seen himself as a reincarnation of Adam as Jesus said that before Abraham was born, he was (John 8:58). No Father is ever mentioned in the Tanakh. Only Eve is named Mother of All the Living (Gen. 3:20).
This female imagery of God may have survived because the New Testament is mostly written in Greek. In Greek it is possible for a male god to give birth. The goddess Athena was born from the head of the male god Zeus. The editor of the text may therefore have been confortable with retaining this phrase while changing the gender of God. The original story probably was not in Greek, so this is significant, and it may be evidence of God being a woman.
Quincy
New member
In theory, it's the act of someone making their spouse do something they don't want to do that irks people. It makes people think of domestic violence. If spouses vote differently, one democratic and one republican, for example, then the votes cancel each other out. So, I agree with the premise of your view but I disagree with anyone who thinks it should be the man alone who makes the decision for who both vote for.
Uh huh. My Christian husband voted for Mondale and almost had a meltdown because I voted for Reagan. I voted for the RIGHT candidate ... which is why your claim is so stupid.
Are you really a Catholic? Seriously?
What if a husband votes pro abortion. You would have the wife sin and do the same?
Good for you. :up:
Sitamun
New member
I remember a conversation with my aunt a few years ago. Okay several years ago. She told me that there were times when she made sure to vote just to cancel out her husbands vote. I remember thinking, "How in the world can you love and be married to someone whose political leanings and ideals can be so opposed to your own?" It made no sense to me. Then several years later, I fell in love with a republican. Through that experience I learned that such an experience is very much possible, however it can only work if neither are particularly political. Sadly, that was not the case in my relationship. He began to act more and more conservative just to pick fights with me. Like I said, heated discussion and debate is one thing, but it became constant fighting. On subjects he didn't particularly care about, just because he loved my passion on social issues. I couldn't take the constant disagreement and fighting anymore. That being said, I can see how such a relationship can work. Mutual respect for each others opinions and ideas, especially if you don't agree.
Every single successful marriage I have seen has been when the husband and wife are partners. It is when one places themselves over the other is when problems arise. Now, this is just the marriages I have seen and experienced in my group of friends and family. I am not saying a marriage where one spouse is "above" the other can't work, just that I've never personally seen one.
Every single successful marriage I have seen has been when the husband and wife are partners. It is when one places themselves over the other is when problems arise. Now, this is just the marriages I have seen and experienced in my group of friends and family. I am not saying a marriage where one spouse is "above" the other can't work, just that I've never personally seen one.
Sitamun
New member
Life isn't always that simple.
My mother, a lutheran, married my father, a catholic.
My brother, an atheist, married a christian
My aunt, a lutheran, my uncle, a catholic
My cousin, a catholic, married an atheist
Me, an agnostic pagan, married a muslim.
It can work, it's funny that my husband and I are more politically aligned than the previous relationship I mentioned in a previous post. Going on stereotypes alone, you'd think otherwise.
Balerion the Black
New member
And the Bible is not the law of the land, nor does it rule me.
And I figure that any woman I end up marrying is likely to end up voting the same way as me most of the time, but how she votes is not for me to say. She doesn't even have to tell me how she voted if she doesn't want to.
The Bible only speaks of men living in autocracies.
So it's okay for your wife to neutralize your vote, and make it completely pointless that anyone voted in your household at all.
So you are not fine with the husband neutralizing his wife's vote, eh? I mean if this is really an issue, the solution is quite simple: the person who has an issue with his/her spouse not voting as they do should simply not vote.
See how easy that was ...
In the event of a world war, men will be the first ones to fight. In the event of the house being invaded, the men will be the first one's to take action. Men have to take accountability for a myriad of things- how should the woman dictate who may or may not lead them into such scenarios?
Women know that the man is the leader, which is why in the event of a woman losing her job, the man will typically take care of her, but if the man loses his job, she'll typically leave him for someone else.
Women know these things, and therefore should know that usurping the husband's vote is immoral.
No.
Sitamun
New member
What type of women do you know? Or perhaps you are just generalizing again?
He will say whatever he pops in his head as a way to marginalize and using women as scapegoats.
Right, because feminism is such a selfless approach to the interests of mankind...
- Status