Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/21/07 03:36 AM, Musician wrote: you believe that the males role is to lead a relationship. and that a womans role is to submit to that leadership.

I believe that the natural order of a family entails a patriarch, the father and husband, to be the leader of the family.

The position of motherhood is equally important to fatherhood, and husband and wife are equal in importance. But they are partners, and the wife is the junior partner.

That's thinking of women as lesser beings.

Nope.

And you make up lies every time you want to give credibility to your otherwise baseless argument.

First you say that your grandpa and uncle were in weapons development in order to fortify your bullshit claim that missile defense doesn't work, which you got proved wrong in thus showing that your claim was a complete lie.

Now, in order to fortify an argument you KNOW you can't even address honestly, you pretend that patriarchal families are not natural and that your family is proof of it.

You do it a lot, in order to give the illusion of a point of reference, you just spew lies out of your ass so that you can deny facts and say what amounts to "I don't care about facts, because I've seen this...
". What a horrible, feckless and cowardly way to make a point.

Now, you're doing this appeal to emotion bullcrap, you can't argue a coherent point anymore so you have to throw out accusations of sexism and say that I think women are lesser beings even though I've specifically stated otherwise, and the thing I'm defending, a writing that Huckabee signed, specifically stated that man and woman are equal.

---

I'm not making an "emotional" case. Bipolar or female led relationships work just as well as those in which the male plays the leader. And bipolar or female led relationships have become more popular in the last couple of years, know why? because people are realizing that women are every bit as capable as men are. Sexist idiots like you are holding back progress.

And seriously, your a piece of shit for trying to call me a liar. My grandpa was a weapons scientist, my uncle is an engineer, and I do live in a family where both my mother and my father hold down jobs. You have no grounds to call me a liar. You claimed that the patriot missiles in the gulf war had a 70% to 40% impact rate. you were proven wrong. You claimed that the boston tea party was an "economic manuever". You were proven wrong. You in the past have tried to compare Adolf Hitler hitler officially declaring war on the united states, to Osama Bin Laden "declaring war" on the united states via a taped message (dear god the sheer stupidity of that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain).

---

At 12/21/07 03:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: But they are partners, and the wife is the junior partner.

That's thinking of women as lesser beings.

Nope.

You said something synonymous right there.

It's none of anyone's business how different families go about their business, so long as the kids are still being loved and they're not starving.

---

At 12/21/07 04:27 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 12/21/07 03:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: But they are partners, and the wife is the junior partner.

That's thinking of women as lesser beings.

Nope.

You said something synonymous right there.

Or basically you're saying women are equal but should be subservient. Which everyone else would view as calling women inferior.

---

At 12/21/07 04:13 AM, Musician wrote: I'm not making an "emotional" case.

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing.

Since you can't address the argument, since you didn't even try to acknowledge the point of view you don't like, you have to write it off as sexist. Therefore you say stupid shit like "you think women are lesser beings" because that is all you have.

Since you already got humiliated in the argument we had about missile defense, you need some sort of revenge. You know for a fact that my view point is normal and common, but you don't really have any desire to acknowledge the facts or see things in an objective light, you just want to pounce wherever you can so you can salvage your dignity with a petty revenge after getting conclusively proved wrong and discredited in a prior argument.

Bipolar or female led relationships work just as well as those in which the male plays the leader.

Prove it.

The funny thing is that divorce rates are on the rise. Those relationships you are talking about that formerly barely ever existed are apparently not working.

And bipolar or female led relationships have become more popular in the last couple of years, know why?

Yeah, and so has divorce.

Thus showing that relationships that are founded on unconventional, unnatural relationships are faulty.

because people are realizing that women are every bit as capable as men are. Sexist idiots like you are holding back progress.

Lol progress?

You mean... the progress that has led to more and more divorces, more and more children being fatherless, children growing up without a stable, normal, healthy family like that of traditional families in which the man is the leader?

And seriously, your a piece of shit for trying to call me a liar.

Nope, because you ARE a liar.

It's pretty obvious given the fact that every time you know you can't validate something you say, you fabricate something out of the blue to try and lend credibility to it.

My grandpa was a weapons scientist

No he wasn't.

my uncle is an engineer

Nope.

But if they were, then they are wrong as hell, given the fact the things you say they told you are all completely wrong, as I proved.

and I do live in a family where both my mother and my father hold down jobs.

After you said:

You have no grounds to call me a liar.

You claimed that the patriot missiles in the gulf war had a 70% to 40% impact rate. you were proven wrong.

Let's recap what transpired in the thread.

1) Some of the inks you used actually validated that very claim that the success rate was 70% and 40% respectively.
2) The patriot missile system has since been upgraded, and its success rate in the gulf war was virtually 100%, as I proved.
3) The Patriot Missile is only one of many anti-missile systems the US has.
4) The other anti-missile systems that use kinetic kill devices have been very successful, including both land-based and sea-based interceptors.

Therefore, the entire basis of your argument... that anti-missile systems don't work was conclusively and meticulously disproved.

The only thing you could do to perpetuate the argument and attempt to salvage your pride after getting so brutally discredited, was to throw out conspiracies and keep latching on to a single event 17 years ago, of a problem in a single anti-missile system, that has since been fixed leading to resounding success more recently, and has been overshadowed by more recent developments in new systems that have been very successful as well.

All completely disproving your claim that you can't hit another missile with another missile. Disproving the claim of what your imaginary grandpa and uncle who are supposedly military experts said... that the missile system is impossible. It was shown to be possible, it was shown to be feasible, effective, and I had video evidence that disproved you from the beginning.

You kept latching on to the problem in the gulf War of just the earlier patriot system, over and over again. Because that's all you had.

And that's why you're arguing in this thread now. You lost in the other thread and need revenge and something to divert attention.

You claimed that the boston tea party was an "economic manuever".

Because it was.

You were proven wrong.

Nope.

You in the past have tried to compare Adolf Hitler hitler officially declaring war on the united states, to Osama Bin Laden "declaring war" on the united states via a taped message (dear god the sheer stupidity of that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain).

Funny, because in that thread you got proved wrong left and right.

---

So Musician, what you're saying is that you want kids to not have fathers or to have a fractured, broken family.

You're saying you think divorce is good and families are absolute. That's what you're saying.

No, no, no, don't elaborate on what you believe. You're saying that you don't favor the traditional family unit, therefore you WANT divorce, you WANT children to do drugs and sell their bodies and commit suicide at age 18 because you want a dysfunctional family unit.

Yep, there's no way around it because I'm doing what you're doing and appealing to emotion to demonize your position, it's just easy that way. No rationale or objective analysis needed when you're pulling a Musician.

You= Like kids to have horrible familiy lives and die early deaths due to STDs and drug abuse.

Me= Want kids to have functional, proper family from which to have a foundation for the rest of their lives.

There's no way around it... just like apparently simply respecting the traditional patriarchal family somehow automatically means I somehow think women are lesser beings even though I've already specifically stated otherwise.

it's easy to argue the way you do.

---

lets have a short recap

Me: "Bipolar and female led relationships are becoming more common"
You: "LOL THAT'S WHY THE DIVORCE RATE IS RISING"

who the hell do you think you're fooling? certainly not anyone in this thread. You know you're sexist, you just don't want to admit it.

---

Ive seen the results of single mothers and Bipolar relationships before, The bipolar relationships are slightly better than single mother families. But not much, the male children are told be kids from normal families that their dad is a wimp for being in the feminine role, and vice verse for the girls. Both ends get depressed and don't get along with people well.

---

cellardoor6/

you are wrong the relationship can go both ways similar to your mother. post your number lets talk

---

At 12/21/07 03:36 AM, Musician wrote: you believe that the males role is to lead a relationship. and that a womans role is to submit to that leadership.

That's thinking of women as lesser beings.

This is a pretty bullshit statement. I'd say it's akin to an individual declaring "If you prefer AK-47s to M16s you're automatically a communist-sympathizer!"

---

At 12/21/07 02:11 PM, Musician wrote: lets have a short recap

Me: "Bipolar and female led relationships are becoming more common"

You: "You believe traditional marriage is faulty or you're a sexist"

You: "LOL THAT'S WHY THE DIVORCE RATE IS RISING"

Me: "Traditional marriages are better and the natural family unit is more healthy for the preservation of families".

who the hell do you think you're fooling?

Who do you think you're fooling?

My views are incredibly traditional. I've not stated anything that is sexist or anything and you know it. You apparently need to find some way of pouncing on me for prior arguments, so you're completely ignoring the context of this issue and trying to paint me as some sexist when you know I'm not.

certainly not anyone in this thread. You know you're sexist, you just don't want to admit it.

I'm not sexist at all, and you know it. But you don't want to admit that what I stated is completely status quo and normal, because you're trying to get revenge somehow for things that aren't even related to this subject.

---

At 12/22/07 03:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You: "You believe traditional marriage is faulty or you're a sexist"

Bzzt, wrong. That's not what he's saying at all.

Me: "Traditional marriages are better and the natural family unit is more healthy for the preservation of families".

Proof? "Divorce rates are on the rise" is not proof, just in case you're wondering.

My views are incredibly traditional.

Which obviously means they're correct!

I'm not sexist at all, and you know it. But you don't want to admit that what I stated is completely status quo and normal, because you're trying to get revenge somehow for things that aren't even related to this subject.

You do realize that "status quo and normal" and "sexist" are not mutually exclusive, right?

---

At 12/22/07 05:19 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 12/22/07 03:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You: "You believe traditional marriage is faulty or you're a sexist"

Bzzt, wrong. That's not what he's saying at all.

Actually it is.

He's saying that my traditional view on marriage is sexist, thus appealing to emotion by demonizing a very common view.

Me: "Traditional marriages are better and the natural family unit is more healthy for the preservation of families".

Proof? "Divorce rates are on the rise" is not proof, just in case you're wondering.

Well, since the 50's the divorce rate has increased. It has decreased since the 70's, but is historically higher than usual.

And here's something interesting:

In 1970, 68 percent of adults lived as married couples. That percentage declined steadily to 56 percent today.

Now, do you believe that traditional marriages, with a patriarchal male and a traditional housewife, are more or less common today than they used to be?

Or do you believe the change in the view of marriage since the 50's has increased both the rate of couples who aren't married and the rate of marriages that end in divorce?

My views are incredibly traditional.

Which obviously means they're correct!

If they worked, and the newer, less conventional marriages tend not to work then I'd say so.

I'm not sexist at all, and you know it. But you don't want to admit that what I stated is completely status quo and normal, because you're trying to get revenge somehow for things that aren't even related to this subject.

You do realize that "status quo and normal" and "sexist" are not mutually exclusive, right?

You realize that what YOU think is correct and what is INCORRECT are not mutually exclusive, right?

---

I know another country that has a really low divorce rate

---

At 12/22/07 06:13 AM, tony4moroney wrote: I know another country that has a really low divorce rate

Interesting.

Fahad al-Yahya, a psychiatrist who counsels married couples, estimates at least 30 percent of Saudi first marriages end in divorce. The rate is comparable to the United States where, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 33 percent of first marriages are disrupted either by separation or divorce.

---

So than even in a submissive role, divorce rates in modern society (at least in saudi arabia) are still higher. If a role of submission was so great for females than why did the women's rights movement start? Why do they demand equality in marriage? Is the only reason divorce rates are higher today solely attributable to women gaining a role of more equality in marriage? Or is it because society has completely changed. Back in those days women didn't have rights and the divorced woman was ostracized. Should it be acceptable than for men to marry preteens as they once did seeing as how divorce rates were much more lower those days? Also I noticed that you previously sulked about Ravariel (I think it was him) pointing out that your views are unusual in modern society. It is quite unusual to possess or at least express that view, but no, I don't think it's 'wrong' it's just an opinion.

---

At 12/22/07 06:50 AM, tony4moroney wrote: So than even in a submissive role, divorce rates in modern society (at least in saudi arabia) are still higher.

I wouldn't refer to Saudi Arabia as a modern society.

I think part of the reason they have such high divorce rates is because most of their marriages are arranged, and shit like that doesn't work.

---

At 12/22/07 07:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I think part of the reason they have such high divorce rates is because most of their marriages are arranged, and shit like that doesn't work.

Does the woman get to divorce, or is "divorce" a synonym for "dumped by husband"?

---

At 12/22/07 07:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I think part of the reason they have such high divorce rates is because most of their marriages are arranged, and shit like that doesn't work.

Can you be sure that it's the arranged aspect of it when it's been successful in India?

---

At 12/22/07 07:55 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 12/22/07 07:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I think part of the reason they have such high divorce rates is because most of their marriages are arranged, and shit like that doesn't work.

Can you be sure that it's the arranged aspect of it when it's been successful in India?

Things are different in different cultures. Divorce is probably more acceptable in Saudi Arabia than it is in India.

---

At 12/22/07 08:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Things are different in different cultures. Divorce is probably more acceptable in Saudi Arabia than it is in India.

But of course it's preposterous to realize that the perception of divorce has changed over time, and that the culture of our society has also changed over time.

---

At 12/22/07 08:09 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 12/22/07 08:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Things are different in different cultures. Divorce is probably more acceptable in Saudi Arabia than it is in India.

But of course it's preposterous to realize that the perception of divorce has changed over time, and that the culture of our society has also changed over time.

Um...

In the US, the change in the outlook of marriage seems to have been paralleled with the change in the success of marriage and the amount of couples who are married.

---

Okay, when he said the wife should submit to the husband, he was not saying that the woman is inferior or lower than the man. What he implied was mutual submission

I'll make a little analogy to make this more obvious:

Let's say you drop out of college and start a massive business. You earn millions of dollars and decide to hire a gardener. However one of your dreams is to go back to college and finish your degree.

Your professor, however, is quite poor, and must be a gardener to support himself. The professor is submissive to the rich man while he is gardening, taking his commands. But the rich man is submissive to the professor while they are at class. In other words, they are mutually submissive. They have a relationship of specialization where authority is based on the degree of expertise in their various specializations.

So when he says that the wife should be submissive, he means mutually submissive. So too should the husband be submissive to the wife - since they are in union.

---

At 12/22/07 08:47 AM, Al6200 wrote: Okay, when he said the wife should submit to the husband, he was not saying that the woman is inferior or lower than the man. What he implied was mutual submission

When a woman agrees to be a housewife, she gives up a lot.
First, she is not financially independant, and thus can't buy whatever she wants. She has no social life, while the husband gets to meet colleagues and hopefully befriend them. She gets super fat and starts watching Oprah and The View.

Anyways, if your society starts saying "ok this is how it should be" it ceases to be voluntary submission of a woman to the man because of the social pressure. That's what feminists fought for: so that women could have the choice.

Even today it's pretty weird to be a "house husband". A guy can't opt to be a house guy without some amount of shame/ ridicule ( you know this is true ).

Anyways, clearly men seem generally more apt at getting good jobs and being efficient high-level workers and women are better at raising and caring for kids, but let people pick for themselves and don't try to enforce some social habits onto people, especially when they'll do it by themselves anyways if they want.

---

At 12/22/07 09:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Anyways, clearly men seem generally more apt at getting good jobs and being efficient high-level workers and women are better at raising and caring for kids, but let people pick for themselves and don't try to enforce some social habits onto people, especially when they'll do it by themselves anyways if they want.

That's entirely it; it doesn't matter if Huckabee or Cellardoor6 is sexist, because the fact of the matter is, it's none of their fucking business. If Cellardoor finds a wife who wants to settle into a submissive role, that's her choice, but I would personally prefer a wife who wouldn't take any of that shit.

Whether this falls into your definition of sexism or not is a personal issue, and you can debate the semantics of the word all you like.

Why I wouldn't vote for Huckabee, as well as the creationist stuff, is that he thinks marital roles are the government's business. Which they're not.

People harking back to times long gone that they never lived during need to realise that the quality of life in the 1950s was just as bad as it is today and the idea of society's permanent decline at the hands of 'liberals' (probably) is a myth peddled by conservatives. Society will do fine without the government getting overly involved.

---

At 12/22/07 09:24 AM, Earfetish wrote: That's entirely it; it doesn't matter if Huckabee or Cellardoor6 is sexist, because the fact of the matter is, it's none of their fucking business.

Good, because I never said that women should be forced to do that.

In fact:

At 12/21/07 01:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It should be the female's choice whether to get married under that precondition in the first place though of course. If a woman doesn't want that relationship then that's fine, but usually people have already decided what kind of relationship they'll have before they are married.

---------

Whether this falls into your definition of sexism or not is a personal issue, and you can debate the semantics of the word all you like.

Good, because that is precisely what others were doing.

My belief is not sexist at all and the only person pushing semantics are those who are trying to turn a very common view into some sort of atrocity.

Why I wouldn't vote for Huckabee, as well as the creationist stuff, is that he thinks marital roles are the government's business. Which they're not.

Wow, way to misinterpret the topic.

This has nothing to do with government.

Huckabee signed something when he was a Baptist minister and it outlined a belief that they had, as Baptists. It wasn't even doctrine in their own faith, it was just a charter of sorts stating their beliefs of what a proper marriage is like.

People harking back to times long gone that they never lived during need to realise that the quality of life in the 1950s was just as bad as it is today and the idea of society's permanent decline at the hands of 'liberals' (probably) is a myth peddled by conservatives. Society will do fine without the government getting overly involved.

Funny, because liberals tend to want the government to get involved a lot more so than conservatives do.

And, once again, this topic has approximately JACKSHIT to do with government policies. Nobody is making any claim that the government should step in to make sure wives are subservient to their husbands. I don't know where in the hell you got that idea.

---

At 12/22/07 09:33 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Good, because I never said that women should be forced to do that.

In fact:

At 12/21/07 01:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It should be the female's choice whether to get married under that precondition in the first place though of course. If a woman doesn't want that relationship then that's fine, but usually people have already decided what kind of relationship they'll have before they are married.

Of course; I never said you think they should be forced into it. Obviously, you're going to choose a girl who wants that kind of role. And some might view that as sexist. The only thing you're saying I disagree with is that other kinds of relationships are flawed.

Good, because that is precisely what others were doing.

My belief is not sexist at all and the only person pushing semantics are those who are trying to turn a very common view into some sort of atrocity.

Indeed. However, you do seem to be saying, other kinds of relationships are flawed and the natural place of the wife is as a housewife, rather than 'this is my personal preference'. Which could be construed as sexist.

By people who want to debate semantics.

Huckabee signed something when he was a Baptist minister and it outlined a belief that they had, as Baptists. It wasn't even doctrine in their own faith, it was just a charter of sorts stating their beliefs of what a proper marriage is like.

Righty oh. I would assume this would translate to policy when he gets in power.

Funny, because liberals tend to want the government to get involved a lot more so than conservatives do.

Which is why I disagree with liberals a lot too. Conservatives should be considerably more conservative.

And, once again, this topic has approximately JACKSHIT to do with government policies. Nobody is making any claim that the government should step in to make sure wives are subservient to their husbands. I don't know where in the hell you got that idea.

Yes. But there is such a thing as family policy, tax breaks for whatever type of relationship you think society should have; it happens all the time, and it shouldn't. I would be quite sure that this would translate to policy, as happens all the time in the UK.

And even if it doesn't translate to policy, whatever social pressure he would bring about with his presidency, for people to go back to the 'traditional nuclear family', I would disagree with too.

Hey look at this:

Huckabee opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions. In an interview with GQ Magazine, Huckabee said, "There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived." So he is interested in what happens in people's family lives.

---

"Indeed. However, you do seem to be saying, other kinds of relationships are flawed and the natural place of the wife is as a housewife, rather than 'this is my personal preference'. Which could be construed as sexist."

That isn't 'construed' as sexist. That is sexist. Patriarchy is a 'sexist' view.

---

At 12/22/07 09:54 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

"Indeed. However, you do seem to be saying, other kinds of relationships are flawed and the natural place of the wife is as a housewife, rather than 'this is my personal preference'. Which could be construed as sexist."

That isn't 'construed' as sexist. That is sexist. Patriarchy is a 'sexist' view.

Of course it is, but I'm trying to be diplomatic. You can have kids who are just as happy and well-adjusted from any household you can think of, so long as they get loved.

---

At 12/22/07 09:46 AM, Earfetish wrote: Of course; I never said you think they should be forced into it.

You used me and Huckabee in the same sentence to pretty much suggest just that.

You said:
That's entirely it; it doesn't matter if Huckabee or Cellardoor6 is sexist, because the fact of the matter is, it's none of their fucking business.

And then you said about Huckabee:

Why I wouldn't vote for Huckabee, as well as the creationist stuff, is that he thinks marital roles are the government's business. Which they're not.

-----

It seems you're under the impression that this is a policy issue, when it's not at all.

Indeed. However, you do seem to be saying, other kinds of relationships are flawed and the natural place of the wife is as a housewife

I believe that a natural family with the husband as the bread bringer and the woman as a mother and home-keeper is proper healthier for raising children. I believe marriage is basically all about kids, to perpetuate the family and to create a good foundation for future adults.

If other marriages emphasize the wellbeing of their children, then yes they are flawed if they are highly unconventional in that both parents work while the kids are young, the father isn't the working role model, or the mother is domineering and so forth.

The reason I say this is because through my observation, marriages that tend to fail are those where the family unit isn't conventionally organized. If the parents are pursuing two different careers, the marriage isn't as cohesive, and things tend to break apart. This bodes ill for the children because the trauma of divorce fucks children up really bad, and I've seen it.

Righty oh. I would assume this would translate to policy when he gets in power.

No.

Not only would a President never do that, but he/she couldn't because the ordinances of marriage are held by the individuals states and not the federal government.

And, once again, this topic has approximately JACKSHIT to do with government policies. Nobody is making any claim that the government should step in to make sure wives are subservient to their husbands. I don't know where in the hell you got that idea.

Yes. But there is such a thing as family policy, tax breaks for whatever type of relationship you think society should have; it happens all the time, and it shouldn't.

The family tax breaks for married couples aren't discriminatory. There is no possible way the government could discriminate based on whether the husband or the wife were the dominant partner.

The purpose of tax breaks for family are the children... it's to encourage and facilitate good households, to support the family by simply relieving them of some of their tax burden. There is not method through which the government could intervene and say "obey your husband or no tax breaks".

I would be quite sure that this would translate to policy, as happens all the time in the UK.

Things are a whole hell of a lot different here than they are in the UK.

But even then, your government couldn't do anything like that either.

Hey look at this:

Huckabee opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions.

Yep, because in the case of abortion its protecting a life, and in same-sex marriage its retaining what the definition of marriage is.

I personally don't agree with withholding civil unions from gays, though.

In an interview with GQ Magazine, Huckabee said, "There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived." So he is interested in what happens in people's family lives.

Yeah, and what he was talking about was gay marriage, which is not something he is trying to do away with, but something he is preventing by trying to maintain the current policies in our country. States have the ordinances of marriage, basically every state defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as the head of a family unit.

He's making no reference whatsoever to saying that a wife has to be subservient to her husband as a matter of policy.