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

[Asher]

What, exactly, is offensive about that?

The fact that you and Ben are incapable of seeing what's offensive behind the notion that men should hold the veto in a relationship is precisely why most people know better than to argue with you based on the merits of your argument.

If the mind behind the argument is clouded and incompetent, there's nothing to be gained through discussion.

[Wezil]

If the mind behind the argument is clouded and incompetent, there's nothing to be gained through discussion.

Creepy. I made an almost identical comment to Plomp a couple days ago.

[aneeshm]

The fact that you and Ben are incapable of seeing what's offensive behind the notion that men should hold the veto in a relationship is precisely why most people know better than to argue with you based on the merits of your argument.

If I were saying that this is something which is applicable for all men and all women, everywhere, then yes, you would have good grounds for complaint. But that is not what I'm saying. Why do you have such a problem with actually applying the principle of "different strokes for different folks" as soon as these "folks" disagree with you?

I'm saying that if Ben finds a woman who is genuinely happy under the Bennite model of a relationship, I won't find that offensive. Specially in his case, as he isn't talking about a blanket veto or anything like that, which he made quite clear. It's a small, specific application of what he calls "teaching authority" to a marriage, even more specifically that authority as to how the couple relates to God and his Commandments, and the steering of that relationship in that direction within that domain.

In any other case, such as unwilling woman, dominant man, yes, it is offensive - but neither I nor Ben were talking about that anyway. And the idea that it is offensive and abhorrent in that case is something even the source I quoted way back in this thread, to show what I understood about the complementarity Ben was talking about, said explicitly, and it drew a clear distinction between these things.

[Asher]

Creepy. I made an almost identical comment to Plomp a couple days ago.

In a public forum? I didn't see it.

[Asher]

If I were saying that this is something which is applicable for all men and all women, everywhere, then yes, you would have good grounds for complaint. But that is not what I'm saying. Why do you have such a problem with actually applying the principle of "different strokes for different folks" as soon as these "folks" disagree with you?

Because the "different strokes for different folks" is actually what you are arguing against.

If you take the position that individuals are simply different, then their sex has no bearing on this argument. Some people are more dominant, others more submissive. No one is arguing that. We are contesting using gender to draw lines to that effect.

[Wezil]

In a public forum? I didn't see it.

No, I'm not accusing you of plagiarism.

It was in a PM which is what made it so strange to see to see it in your post.

[aneeshm]

Because the "different strokes for different folks" is actually what you are arguing against.

If you take the position that individuals are simply different, then their sex has no bearing on this argument. Some people are more dominant, others more submissive. No one is arguing that. We are contesting using gender to draw lines to that effect.

Then it appears that I have been massively misunderstood. Let me clarify.





Some people are more dominant, some more submissive - correct.

Submission and dominance have nothing to do with gender - statistically incorrect, individually correct (which is what matters in this discussion).

People should choose their own relationship structure - correct (except in philosophical thought experiments involving pathological edge cases which cannot happen in real life, of course - but this is a universal caveat).

There are people who would be happy in the Bennite structure - correct.

I have no problem with the Bennite structure, the same way that I have no problem with the Asherite or Arrianite or any other structure, as long as it is chosen with informed consent - correct.

Ben is not some monster for choosing the Bennite structure, he's just a guy who believes what he believes because that is how he is, as that is what floats his boat - correct.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. If Ben ever finds someone that will put up with his sexist crap and agrees to marry him.
2. He has to go to pre-cana prior.
3. In that class they preach about that these days there is no master of the house and that both partners are really equal despite what it says in "THE BOOK" And that's what makes a truly successful marriage.

Umm, the Good Book says that we are equal. My experience has been that the same program (RCIA) can be radically different according to the parish. If they said something like, "despite what it says in the Good Book", I'd go to a different class.

[Lorizael]

[q=Asher;5708351]If the mind behind the argument is clouded and incompetent, there's nothing to be gained through discussion.[/Q]

Creepy. I made an almost identical comment to Plomp a couple days ago.

[Ben Kenobi]

QFT x1000! The youth church my girlfriend goes to (and, I guess, I go to as well) is led by a female pastor (another strike!! )! She, btw, gives brilliant sermons, in case you were curious. I'm sure they'd love to be told in disagreements the man always has to be the final decisionmaker and the head. That would really sound Christian to them, which yes, is defined by love for everyone.

Why am I not surprised? No wonder people are so hostile. This is like preaching abstinence to a swinger party. Imran just knows if he says something else he isn't going to get laid.

[Felch]

Just to be clear, I've never heard any Catholic teaching about men being the heads of households. My parents are devout Catholics (they even teach the RCIA class at our parish). But my mother always handled the finances, and my dad just gets an allowance from her for his weekly expenses.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would contend that the relationship BK and aneeshm describe may or may not be sexist, but it most certainly is stupid. Defining roles based on poorly generalized sets of behavior is a recipe for disaster. Relationships require nuance and compromise.

Did you miss the part where I said I would avoid making a unilateral decision if at all possible? Yes, I agree that they require compromise. Other times, it requires just the opposite. I personally would rather be with a woman who I could trust to make good decisions, and I have zero issues with deferring to her if she has more experience in an area. That being said, I also make it clear my beliefs about headship. If that's not her bag, fine. But you seem to be assuming that all woman want what you are offering, and that's not the case!

[Imran Siddiqui]

She doesn't. But this is a full-time job, and if the man wants to do it, he'll have to face the same choice. The achievement of this particular objective requires an indivisible commitment on the part of one of these two individuals. Two people can't "juggle" it between them - the nature of the task precludes that.

Your insane. This idea that the "home" requires indivisible commitment on the part of one of the two in a relationship appears to be designed to keep women down. Why can't both share it?

Why am I not surprised? No wonder people are so hostile. This is like preaching abstinence to a swinger party. Imran just knows if he says something else he isn't going to get laid.

I don't feel the need to put my beliefs away simply because my partner would like it to be otherwise. Maybe that's something you'll do in order to curry favor, though . And, of course, I've never had these same beliefs on the role of men and women in relationships before... oh wait.

[Asher]

No, I'm not accusing you of plagiarism.

It was in a PM which is what made it so strange to see to see it in your post.

FWIW, Plomp is both my porn and stage name.

Confessional time.

Dan decided that the community would be overly upset if it was announced I took over the site. We took an inactive poster, Cybershy, renamed his account to Robert Plomp (snicker), and I took it over. It's all a facade.

It's why I don't get banned anymore, FWIW.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just to be clear, I've never heard any Catholic teaching about men being the heads of households. My parents are devout Catholics (they even teach the RCIA class at our parish). But my mother always handled the finances, and my dad just gets an allowance from her for his weekly expenses.

Even if I worked and she stayed at home I would probably do the same. I'm not sure what you mean by 'head of households'. If you mean, 'preach Ephesians 5', then yes I have heard it in Catholic parishes. My main objection to what Ming posted is the whole concept that scripture does not preach the equality of men and women. Ming's parish sounds quite a bit like mine at the university which I had a very difficult time in RCIA.