US Becoming Weirder and Very Anachronistic

[rah]

I'd want to see the questionaire and how this particular question was folded in. Questionaires can be quite leading.

Besides, If you asked 100 typical married US males who was in charge in their household, I would expect a high percentage to say they were.

If you asked their 100 wives the exact same question, I would expect a similar high percentage to say they were.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Originally posted by The Templar
I interpret your quoting the Bible in earnest as the sure sign of a sucker.

Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

Am I the only one to think this post is highly ironic ?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Dissident
I just get tired of people ripping on the south.

I have lived down there, and I have no complaints. The crime rates are so much better than they are where I live now.

The violence in my city is staggering.

Of course, the low crime rates in Canada are explained by the fact that our two criminals froze to death while breaking into each other's igloo.

[Elok]

Originally posted by JohnT
"If you've ever tried to sell anything door to door you know that. If you do sell door to door you have to sell to the person that brings home the bacon or you wont sell."
This pattern of behaviour is also consistent with marriages where both spouses believe the other also has the right to express an opinion. I did door-to-door selling* back when I was in college, and I'll agree: the sales were always easier (like I'd get 1 for 10 instead of 1-30) when both spouses were at home. However, it was always the woman that you sold to and her attentions were paramount: if she expressed no interest in the first minute or two, you never had a sale. Now I had a few call their husbands beforehand, but they usually relented: "Well, if you think we need them, and it will make you happy..."
"The person who makes the money makes the decisions... The wife (usually the one who doesn't make the money) can't make the final decision."
Well, in my marriage this isn't even true. Laura controls the household accounts, and manages them very well (I bet your checkbook doesn't get balanced daily! ), and while she doesn't "earn" a dime being a stay-at-home mother, she spends about 95% of all the money in the house w/o any input from me. The woman is a Godsend, no if, ands, or buts about it.
*Pots and pans and various kitchen items for some warehousing firm based in Florida. I made maybe $2,000 that summer.

You may be interested to hear that we aren't all married to your wife, JohnT. Situations vary from place to place and couple to couple. I'm not married but even I know that.
And we're talking about a survey of people's ideals. The actual state of reality does not apply to idealism. That's why it's called idealism. It's what you think SHOULD happen. E.G. I think we all, myself included, SHOULD get a job.

[JohnT]

You know, I don't think a single goddamned one of you read what I was saying. Let me quote from my very first post in this stupid thread:

"Frankly, I'm of the opinion that 'most any family organization can raise successful and happy children regardless of its structure - hetero, homo, patriarchial, matriarchial, extended, whatever. As long as there is love and joy in the family, that's all that is necessary."

In other words, NO FREAKIN' SHIITE, ELOK!!!!!

Hell, while we're at it let's figure out what was said here:

Kidicious, telling us how ALL marriages work:

"The person who makes the money makes the decisions.... The wife (usually the one who doesn't make the money) can't make the final decision."

Me, in an easy rebuttal:

"Well, in my marriage this isn't even true. Laura controls the household accounts, and manages them very well (I bet your checkbook doesn't get balanced daily! ), and while she doesn't "earn" a dime being a stay-at-home mother, she spends about 95% of all the money in the house w/o any input from me. The woman is a Godsend, no if, ands, or buts about it."

So, we have Kidicious telling us how ALL marriages are, I rebut with the simple example of my household, and then you jump on ME(?) for... what, exactly?

You may be interested to hear that we aren't all married to your wife, JohnT. Situations vary from place to place and couple to couple.

Tell it to Kidicious, dammit! And read the damn posts before replying - it helps you look less like an ass.

[Elok]

I did read all your posts, big man. My specific error was in quoting the most recent when I was more responding to your initial, "none of you dumbasses have ever been married the wife humors the husband I know what it's all about" rant. That is my specific beef. Apologies for any confusion. Let's swear some more. **** **** **** ****! Yay. Now calm down. It's no difficult, or even particularly infrequent, accomplishment to get me worked up and irritated, but I dislike it all the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

Am I the only one to think this post is highly ironic ?

How else should one respond to an accusation of taking scripture in earnest, except by taking scripture in earnest?

Why adhere to Paul's directives about one institution then, marriage, but not to another, slavery?

Shi:



"knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free."

This doesn't help your argument. I adhere to Paul's teachings on both slavery and to marriage. Paul hates slavery, and tries to destroy the institution from the inside, 'earthly' masters and all. Paul also says the man should be the head of the house.

Now, I gave you an out by suggesting that the meaning of head will vary from family to family. I suggest you take this suggestion rather than groping for further passages.

[Shi Huangdi]

I am not looking for an out.

"Paul hates slavery, and tries to destroy the institution from the inside, 'earthly' masters and all. Paul also says the man should be the head of the house."

Mmmmhmmm. But the passages also passages I pointed out to you are still there, and they among otheres have been used in the past by some to argue that slavery is biblicaly OK.

But I will admit to you, Paul is actually progressive on slavery for his time. Now, you say what he wants to accomplish with his the destruction of slavery. But he was also pretty progressive on marriage for the time also, what with his requirements on the husband. How do you know he didn't want to destroy male dominance from within, until we can truly see the practice of "no man or woman" preached in Galatians?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You wouldn't let us go when we tried to leave before. Now we like it here.

So, we finally won you over -- now get rid of those silly Confederate flags.