>>seems very indicative of...
If it does, it's because fundamental christian values still have roots in natural human behaviour.
>>that actually subjugate women.
I guess that's your view. I cannot draw to mind a single passage in the new testament where women are forbidden under penalty to leave the faith or their husbands, thus not being forced to follow christian values and principles.
I know Paul writes that neither the man nor the woman is allowed to leave the relationship, however he makes an exception for women stating; "but if she chooses to leave anyway...". He makes no such exception for men however, and it's rather clear to me that this is in respect to cases of abusive husbands.
>>You cannot, however, say that men and woman have equal rights if the woman is forced to be subordinate.
I don't believe I've said that anywhere.
>>And for the record, it's hilarious that you characterize others as not having thought through things.
No dude, look: That's how I characterized myself of not having done. You were the one telling me what I believed in, I stated you were wrong, writing; that's your preconcieved idea. Don't give me this shit, if you want me to believe you think things through, stop throwing hasty statements around.
In fact, when it comes to women I do nothing but look for one where I believe I wouldn't have to exercise some kind of fucking veto to have the relationship run smoothly.
However, seeing how this search has proved ultimately fruitless, I'd rather be safe than sorry and make sure the woman I get with is ok with subordinating herself already from the start, so we don't have to endure a hefty surplus of retarded spats over ultimately useless shit throughout our married life. Ok?
Can I retain that right without being percieved as a machiavellistic pig? I sure hope so