A defense of marriage

Post Reply New Topic

Try telling that to my anxiety

But what of those of us defending marriage against religious ideas that we think make it more difficult than it needs to be? We are going to react.

A traditional marriage can work for some couples if the wife somehow doesn’t find the misogyny distasteful and the husband is decent.

I can’t approve of children (especially daughters) being raised with such regressive attitudes. It would be (and was for me) damaging and abusive.

We should be raising strong women who believe they can be whoever they want to be.

I’ve just seen too many problems in ultra conservative households (especially women feeling like they have to stay with an abusive spouse) to be okay with it.

If my child is gay, I also don’t want him growing up with the belief that he’s bad for being who he is. I grew up with that belief (not for being gay), and it’s extremely unpleasant.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 17 May 2019, 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Good point!

Why can’t we just say that a marriage should be based on mutual respect and love without adding complex theological constructs into the mix?

Well, I still have theological motivations for things and I expect that will be something I bring into my marriage should I get married.

I'm British though, so I can't relate to the rigid gender norms Americans have experienced. Even though I've joined a church group, we're still very British about it and the area I'm from has naturally strong women. It's just our culture. I don't feel like it's patriarchal in a bad way at all. I get along really well with the men folk.

I've been dumped recently and one of the things my Mum said to me to cheer me up was that she sees how men treat me at church and she can see they really respect me, so this chap who dumped me, his opinion of me is nothing. Mum logic, but my point was, I'm religious, but I'm not looked down on by men. Sometimes they seem to look up to me.

So I'm not saying all religion is bad, I'm saying that there's certain little things that irk me, like men can't do housework so well... that is not true. I think they're just not expected to do they don't try. I don't think that's even a religious idea.

One of the reasons I want a man who has lived on his own for a bit is so he knows how to do things. I'm not going to be someone's maid. I don't know why that's a big thing for me. I think it's something my Mum emphasised. She told me to find someone who knows how a washing machine works. And she's a very conservative Christian.

But, yeah, my point was that if one mentions religion then there will be a debate.

I don’t have a problem with most religious discussions.

When conservatism is pushed this far, though, it’s a little hard to swallow and leaves a nasty aftertaste.

What misogyny?


You cannot logically project what you grew up with onto everyone else who does follow traditional models.

Although I would say that "traditional" models don't necessarily reflect the Biblical model in the purest sense. There's nothing inherently wrong with making your husband the head of the household and family. The Biblical model calls for husbands to love their wives. Is it misogyny for a husband to love his wife?


Disagree. We should be raising strong women to know they have minds of their own. I don't want weak women who merely "believe." Someone who believes "they can be whoever they want to be" is just indulging in delusional wishful thinking. I want to see women who don't ask "Who will let me?" but rather "Who will stop me?" Women who will take positive action in reshaping the world for the better. And yes, women who WANT to submit to a husband, run a household, and educate her own children her own way are probably the top candidates for world-changing achievement. Even the stay-at-home mom has enormous potential for achievement and value. IMO, these women rule the world far more than any CEO or government leader.

To say "believe" is to suggest that the world has no more to offer than fairy tales and unicorns, that there is no more to be gained beyond dreams and wishes. Hopes and dreams don't keep me warm at night. I want MONEY. I want to see more women who feel the same and act on it.


I actually think this is a good point. Theologically I'm an evangelical Christian. Ethically I practice rational self-interest. I dislike #metoo on the basis of a victim mentality. I'd rather see women go with #mefirst. It's irrational to feel compelled to stay with someone who harms you. I think that men and women enter into relationships based 100% on feelings of love without assessing whether the relationship really is mutually beneficial. Women should look at partners and ask themselves "What do I get out of marrying him?" For many, being with an object of desire for the long term is enough. I have no objections to that. But often it's purely religious grounds (it usually never REALLY is, but diff discussion) and altruistic motivations, FEELINGS of love that are momentary and have no lasting, rational basis. So love in terms of pure, fickle EMOTION is just not enough. Is there something tangible one earns from making lifelong vows? Is there a REASON to be with someone? What about you? What do you bring to the relationship? Do you actually deserve good things from your partner? If you don't deserve good things, you have no right to demand good things.

That's not an excuse to mistreat someone. Earning/deserving good things is a matter of value. Do you consider yourself valuable? Then you should ACT like a valuable person. And by acting like you are valuable, you can reasonably expect certain things. If your prospective partner does not reward you accordingly, if your partner does not meet your expectations, then leave him. It's immoral to sleep with someone you don't love. No matter what you feel for your partner, you should never, EVER enable or reward bad behavior. And I don't care if you're a man or a woman--this applies equally to both.

All it takes is that someone values you. It's as simple as that. I'm with my wife because I get selfish pleasure in being with her. And because I ALWAYS want to be with her, it's worth a lot to me to be nice to her and treat her well.

Abuse is the opposite of value. An abusive person hates himself and is incapable of treating anyone well for the sake of his own benefit. People like that are parasitic, self-destructive, delusional, and irrational. Avoid negative people.

Where religion comes into play is that too often religion is used as a force of guilt. Negativity. I think that Christianity was intended as affirming for those who know Christ. I think the message is freedom, not bondage. Biblical marriage is actually liberating. I think it's sad that religion is too often used as a weapon.

Misogyny occurs when women aren’t treated as equals. Being told that one must submit in a marriage solely based on gender is misogyny. I would feel the same no matter what I have experienced in my life which I’d rather not discuss any further at this point.

I fail to see how the Bible and its questionable morality is relevant for our day.

Stoning people (even nasty people but especially victims of rape), for instance, isn’t a nice thing to do. I wouldn’t want to worship a God who encouraged such a practice. Such a God wouldn’t be worthy of me.

One can use all of the apologetics one wants to, but if you really stop and look at the Bible from a critical stance (and not from one of blind faith), the immorality, misogyny, homophobia, and God-approved genocide is not something anyone should want to aspire to.

What about the many relationships where men aren’t treated as equals?

We are discussing traditional marriage roles as they’re described in the Bible.

That’s not to say that marriage is always good for men, but in this specific context, women have less power.

Sorry, I couldn't care less what the bible says, I am going to give the respect that is entitled to another person regardless. I don't need a book to tell me how I should behave. If someone doesn't have respect for the sanctity of marriage, I don't see how that reflects on the institution, doesn't that say more about the person? The sanctity of your marriage depends on how you and your husband treat it. Your marriage isn't under attack, unless one or both of you make it so.

From what I’ve seen in most marriages women have more power.

I don’t support traditional bible marriage, it made me uncomfortable when what’s her name from full house got married and was all talking about being submissive and such.
Though if they want to be submissive wife that’s fine. Mean I’m submissive and would prefer a female lead relationship, most men seem to not like their wife having more power over them.

I think it should be individual choice that shouldn’t be condemned but not one that’s forced on those who don’t want it.

The same. If the couple is comfortable that way, why not. If the relationship is abusive, it's wrong.

To be fair, the men in cultures where it's frowned upon to get divorced can feel like they have to stay with abusive wives too. Especially if she's an emotionally abusive borderline personality disorder type.

His headness in this means nothing.

Other men don't sympathise, they just say, "Oh, women are just crazy. It's nothing." He has to be pretty brave to walk away.

Point is, both partners in a marriage need to respect each other. I really don't think that a man being given a role as head means women don't deserve equal respect. They maybe don't have an equal role assigned to them, but it doesn't mean they should get less love and respect or have absolutely no input.

Again as Angelrho said the husband is meant to be a kind head like Jesus was with his disciples.

At work we need the managing director to sign off travel forms. It's a formality. We make all the arrangements. He never says no because we've always researched why we need to go, where the budget is coming from etc.

Are we lesser humans because we don't sign it off?

Oh, don't feel like I'm targeting you twilightprinces by quoting you, I'm just quiet engaged with your responses.

My brain plays devil's advocate all of the time. I can't help but think, "Ah, but what about this.. "

Aw pet, that's why we can't be together... well, mostly because of the vast Atlantic Ocean... but someone as strong willed as me needs someone as equally strong willed and I would feel taken advantage of if I had to make all the decisions.

Which brings me to what irked me in the original Post on this thread.

I feel like wives who just make their husband make all the decisions are not playing along properly. It's unfair to not put input into the decisions and to make him have everything on his shoulders. Forgive me OP if I have misinterperreted what you meant, but I've heard people say that the being submissive means they make no input at all and I don't agree with that.

That's how you make a man burn out. He needs a partner not an lead weight.

And I worry that maybe this lovely man I liked doesn't want that responsibility on top of everything else he's got going on. Like I would leave him hanging and make him sort my whole life out as well as my own... it probably isn't because he knows I've got my life together, but I do wonder if the more religious men I meet feel like they can't live up to the responsibility that I wouldn't actually foist on them anyway.

I feel like I'd be a good wife. Not too pushy and not too controlling, but not a total wet blanket, pushover, drip either.

My old roommate was a pushover. She used to drive me insane. She'd never make a decision on anything.

Hmmm...ok, so where in the Bible does it say women MUST submit?


Ok, I respect that. I'll agree to stop asking about it if you stop bringing it up. Is that fair?


What questionable morality?


Who got stoned for being a rape victim?


When did that even happen? I'm looking through my Bible right now and I can't find a single law that recommends rape victims be executed. And I can't find a single instance in the Bible where it actually happened, either. Are you working from an accurate translation? I use the HCSB personally, and I'm debating whether to switch to CSB or ESV. Can't find it there. Can't find it in any USCCB-approved English translation, either. I don't mind using interlinear texts, but I'd rather know where to look before I go there. Those make my eyes cross.


A critical stance, or a Critical™ stance? I have no problem taking a critical view of the Bible. It think it's important. But that also means leaving behind anti-supernatural bias, which I've noticed the Critical™ camp has difficulty with. It's just a bunch of so-called scholars who've gone verse by verse and said, "nope, didn't happen" without applying any actual THOUGHT to what they were doing. Archeology has often proved them wrong, so I can't take that view seriously. But any time somebody says to me "God said this" or "Jesus told me that," I be like "Orly???" I want evidence, same as I do from Critics™. It's ridiculous how easy it is to debunk all of it.

For one example, take anything deemed to be physically impossible, or anything that would be unimaginably catastrophic if it were to actually happen. The assumption is that such events HAD to be due to strictly physical phenomena. Since God is omnipotent, He can make anything happen as it suits Him.

And don't EVEN get me started on hard empiricism.


What immorality?


What misogyny?


What [censored--we can't discuss that here]?


What God-approved genocide? Who is saying anyone should want to aspire to genocide?