Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

[aneeshm]

A successful relationship is a partnership. The man should not make decisions and force the wife to follow.

I don't think Ben would disagree with that. But then again, I don't think his view of complementarity involves the man forcing the woman to follow his diktats, either.

From what I could (admittedly quickly) gather from here:

Let me define complementarianism again to you in another way. Complementarianism believes that men and women are equal in the sense that they bear God's image equally. But it is further believed that this male/female equality as image bearers is not incompatible with male/female distinctions in design and roles. Thus, male headship in family and church is not a contradiction to that fundamental equality. And by male headship, I simply mean that in the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman; the man, the husband, bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction. The model of that headship is, of course, the Lord Jesus Himself, the head of the Church who gave Himself for us. The antitheses of that kind of godly, spiritual male headship actually go in two directions. On the one hand, it would be a self-centered domination by the husband of the wife. On the other hand, it might be a self-centered passivity on the part of the husband refusing to take responsibility for those things that God has entrusted to him spiritually. Male domination, by male domination I mean the bold assertion of man's will over woman's will heedless of her spiritual equality, her best interests, and her values.

Now, I want to say very quickly that you will not understand complementarianism; in fact, you will completely misunderstand complementarianism if the distinction between male headship and male domination is not kept in mind. Our evangelical feminist friends do not believe that you can make a distinction between those. They say that if you believe in male headship, therefore you believe in male domination; and in all of their literature they will speak of the evils of male domination and equate it with male headship.

[Asher]

I don't think Ben would disagree with that.

He does. A partnership does not revolve around the man making decisions. Let's not fool ourselves.

A successful relationship gives both partners equal weighting. If you fight and cannot agree on something, you compromise.

A "partnership" where the man has a veto is not a partnership at all.

[aneeshm]

He does. A partnership does not revolve around the man making decisions. Let's not fool ourselves.

A successful relationship gives both partners equal weighting. If you fight and cannot agree on something, you compromise.

A "partnership" where the man has a veto is not a partnership at all.

If the veto is universal, this if of course true, it's not a partnership.

If it's decided by mutual consent, beforehand, who shall hold the veto in different areas of life, it is a pretty good model for a successful partnership, actually. The man having the veto with matters regarding the overarching structure of family life is not, in my opinion, contradictory to this conception of a partnership. Note that this doesn't mean he decides everything, or even most things (the whole exercise would be pointless in that case).

[Asher]

If the veto is universal, this if of course true, it's not a partnership.

If it's decided by mutual consent, beforehand, who shall hold the veto in different areas of life, it is a pretty good model for a successful partnership, actually. The man having the veto with matters regarding the overarching structure of family life is not, in my opinion, contradictory to this conception of a partnership. Note that this doesn't mean he decides everything, or even most things (the whole exercise would be pointless in that case).

Your ideas are every bit as backwards as Ben's.

Just because a woman voluntarily puts herself in a position, brainwashed by faith, to be a second-class member of a partnership doesn't preclude it from being sexist.

You and Ben should both just give up here. Justifying sexism by quoting the bible or harebrained pseudologic is a waste of cyberspace.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you married Ben? What the hell do you know about marriage and successful relationships?

No, I'm not. Never claimed to be an expert on marriage. I am simply going 'by the book', and presenting the Christian concept of headship.

The person who is best suited to make the final decision. Sometimes, it's the husband, and sometimes it's the wife. Your assumption that it has to be the male simple because he is the male shows just how little you really know about true relationships. Maybe after you have experienced one, you will really understand. Until then, your opinons lack any basis of reality.

Why are y'all so arrogant as to assume I've never been in one? Ideally I would never have to make a unilateral decision. I personally take that goal very seriously.

The fact that you think it HAS to be the male shows just what a sexist pig you really are.

Do you think that if my wife were more qualified to make a decision that I would not defer to her?

[Asher]

Do you think that if my wife were more qualified to make a decision that I would not defer to her?

If this were the logic behind who is making decisions in a relationship, you wouldn't need the sexist Christian concept of "headship".

We assume you've never been in a relationship for the following reasons:
1) You are incomprehensibly stupid
2) You are devoid of any positive personality traits
3) You have no sense of humour
4) You are as far as you can get from charming as possible
5) You are an obvious sexist, which most women do not like
6) You are insanely religious, which most women find creepy
7) You have zero comprehension skills, and probably would not understand what any woman says to you just like you can never understand what people say to you on here
8) You're living in Canada wishing you lived in Texas
9) You are not what any reasonable person would consider attractive in any way

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks again Aneeshm.

I should just sit back. You're doing a better job of explaining things than I am.

[Asher]

Thanks again Aneeshm.

I should just sit back. You're doing a better job of explaining things than I am.

Yes, you have a kindred spirit in Aneeshm who has previous expressed racist sentiments of his own..mostly relating to caste structure in India. Given what I know about him, we can safely assume he's just as sexist as you are.

You have a lot in common.

[Ming]

No, I'm not. Never claimed to be an expert on marriage. I am simply going 'by the book', and presenting the Christian concept of headship.

A book written when women were treated as property and had very few rights.

Why are y'all so arrogant as to assume I've never been in one? Ideally I would never have to make a unilateral decision. I personally take that goal very seriously.

Not arrogant, just reading what you post and knowing you have no clue about a real relationship or you wouldn't be posting the crap that you do.

Do you think that if my wife were more qualified to make a decision that I would not defer to her?

You are the one saying that "SOMEONE" has to make the decision, and that the male is that someone.
Even above, you claim that you hope to never have to make a unlaterial decision... but that statement means that you think you have that right, even if you aren't the most qualified person to make the choice. So yes, I think that if you and a future wife had a disagreement, you would feel it was your right to make the ultimate decision based on everything you have posted. And simply because you are a sexist pig who thinks a woman should do what she is told.

[Ben Kenobi]

If this were the logic behind who is making decisions in a relationship, you wouldn't need the sexist Christian concept of "headship".

I'm obviously presenting things poorly, but Aneeshm's got it all down. I'm not assuming I would even make the majority of the decisions, only that if we couldn't reach a mutually acceptable decision, that I would make the final decision.

We assume you've never been in a relationship for the following reasons:
1) You are incomprehensibly stupid
2) You are devoid of any positive personality traits
3) You have no sense of humour
4) You are as far as you can get from charming as possible
5) You are an obvious sexist, which most women do not like
6) You are insanely religious, which most women find creepy
7) You have zero comprehension skills, and probably would not understand what any woman says to you just like you can never understand what people say to you on here
8) You're living in Canada wishing you lived in Texas
9) You are not what any reasonable person would consider attractive in any way

That last one just cuts to the heart Asher. OMG, a gay guy finds me unattractive!

[Ming]

I'm obviously presenting things poorly, but Aneeshm's got it all down. I'm not assuming I would even make the majority of the decisions, only that if we couldn't reach a mutually acceptable decision, that I would make the final decision.

And why is that... simply because you are male? Yep... a sexist pig! Thanks for proving it to all of us yet again.

[Asher]

I speak for the entire world.

[Ben Kenobi]

A book written when women were treated as property and had very few rights.

A book that asserts that a husband must be willing to die for his wife.

Not arrogant, just reading what you post and knowing you have no clue about a real relationship or you wouldn't be posting the crap that you do.

Really? I honestly think we are talking past each other and there is little difference in our understanding of things.

You are the one saying that "SOMEONE" has to make the decision, and that the male is that someone.
Even above, you claim that you hope to never have to make a unlaterial decision... but that statement means that you think you have that right, even if you aren't the most qualified person to make the choice.

Ming, if I felt she were more qualified to make a particular decision, I would willingly defer to her, without question. If we were both qualified and nothing could get resolved, then yes I would make a decision.

So yes, I think that if you and a future wife had a disagreement, you would feel it was your right to make the ultimate decision based on everything you have posted. And simply because you are a sexist pig who thinks a woman should do what she is told.

I doubt I'd be airing a disagreement like that here on poly.

[Ben Kenobi]

And why is that... simply because you are male? Yep... a sexist pig! Thanks for proving it to all of us yet again.

That's how it works for Christians. Men have the responsibility to look after their family and support them. It's a privilege and a responsibility all at the same time.

[Ming]

If we were both qualified and nothing could get resolved, then yes I would make a decision.

What a pig... just keep digging the hole deeper.
Wait until you have to deal with a real person that you love... then you will see what following the book gets you.