🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <343D564C.343FFAB5@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:

> (edit)



> >So a lifelong commitment to
> >a faithful partner is an unethical choice?
>             -----------
>             I should say not.  A lifelong commitment to a faithful
>             EQUAL partner would be wonderful to most people, I would
>             imagine.  I have no aversion to such, myself.  :]
>             -----------
> >Sorry about the personal experience.
> >Almost points to the need to keep
> >ones eyes wide open before marriage,
> >and half closed thereafter.
>             ------------
>             There is never a need to close one's eyes if love
>             and respect are present, because all you'll see
>             is love and respect.  If one of the parties in a
>             marriage values being a human adult, part of that
>             respect would involve having the other partner
>             also value his or her equality.
>             --------------

The analogy relates to forgiveness of littletransgressions.<snip>

> >>                 ---------------
> >>                 PKers have stated one of their seven rules as
> >>                 female submission to men, with a male submission
> >>                 to god;  what more do I need?
> >>             ----------------------
> >
> >Not true.  You need to prove this one.
> >
> >Perhaps the PK web page listing the seven
> >promises might help.
> >
> > http://www2.promisekeepers.org/7p.htm
>
>             ------------
>             I'm have no need to go there for the quote;  I
>             heard it on TV, the radio, and read it in the
>             news;  isn't that enough?  The man submits to   YOU MADE THIS
> UP!  PROVE IT!
>             _god_; the woman ....to the man.  What is it
>             about that I'm wrong about?
>             ----------------------------------

You heard something I did not.

I've asked you to ante up and
provide the quote.

The pot's light.


> >> >I think if you ever intend to argue before a judge,
> >> >you'd best find one sympathetic to your
> >> >hearsay.  Last I checked, it's inadmissible.
> >>            ------------
> >>             What is "inadmissible" the fact that PK has, as
> >>             one of its tenets, female submission to men?
> >>             ---------------
> >
> >I deny it. You prove it.

I still deny it, and you still haven't proven it.

> ><snip>
> >> >Women married to Promise Keepers are>glad their husbands agree to
> >> 'submitting yourselves,>one to another."
> >
> >> >It's called "commitment."
> >>             --------
> >>             Ah, but is it EQUAL COMMITMENT....OR SEXISM?
> >>             ----------
> >I called it equal, posted evidence,
> >you called it sexism, posted none.
>
>                 ----------
>                 My only evidence is what I've heard....i.e.
>                 that men are told to submit to god...women
>                 are told to submit to their hubbies.....
>                 Do you refute that?

Yup.  Even gave you chapter and verse.

>                 That's sexism to me, and to most other thinking
>                 beings.
>                 -------------------------

Only if you think without listening.

> >All those you mention which correct the effects of past
> >discrimination.
> >
> >This news group is full of them.
>
>             -----------
>             I'm sorry;  I don't understand your answer.  How
>             is PK going to make sure women have equal opportunity
>             in the workplace?
>
>                 Lefty

That's your agenda.

When is NOW going to make sure
that married mothers and fathers no longer have
to pay more taxes than those who
only live together?

While equal opportunity is certainly important,
don't foist your agenda on groups who have
other important things to do.

--
Al Davis ***** A Displaced Cub Fan in DC ***** adavis@seas.gwu.edu
I like two teams:  The Cubs and whoever is playing the Mets
Vote Santo into the Hall of Fame!
Let's play two!