Resolved: I am God's gift to women

"If a man and a woman shall become one, the woman's hardly getting a gift, is she? It's more "here's a husband, assume his identity and obey him for the rest of your life," which is like saying "Here's the gift of slavery. Aren't I generous?" as slavery is no true gift." I must say I really like the above passage. I intend to refer to it again towards the end of this post. With some modifications, that is. But first things first.... My opponent said the following: "Also, you state that you are God's gift to women, but clearly only one woman can become your wife, making you a gift to "a woman" not "women". Or a gift to about 10 at the maximum. But hardly all women." --> Just very briefly, in response to that, I will refer to my definition of "women". I clearly stipulated in there that it is to include "both plural and singular". "Ephisians 5:22-23 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." --> Yes, quite true. It also confers some responsibility on the man, just like that conferred on Christ as the head of the church. "Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." --> Yes, quite true. "Let us make man in our own image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over ALL the earth, and over everything that creeps or moves" (Genesis 1:26). --> Yes, quite true. "The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:20-22)." --> I take issue with this one. This passage refers to Adam, the first man ever created. I cannot see how my opponent wishes to expand that so as to apply to all men. Clearly at the time when I was born, women actually existed. No one took any ribs out of me. I submit that this passage does not apply to the resolution in question. Here are some more passages for your consideration. These are about the duties that husbands owe to their wives. Man's duty to love wife and give himself up for her: Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, To forgive wife: Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them. To love wife as much as one's own body: Epshesians 5 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; To understand wife and to respect her as someone weaker, to honour her: 1 Peter 3:7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. To PROVIDE for the wife (support her!): 1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Mutual duty to fulfill each other: 1 Corinthians 7:3) The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. *********************** And now the most important verse: 1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. I will repeat this one again: ...and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. And once more: THE HUSBAND DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER HIS OWN BODY, BUT THE WIFE DOES. ******** My opponent has claimed that women are slaves to men. I now challenge my opponent to show me a master/slave situation (of course not in the Bible as that would be circular) where the master has an obligation to love, cherish and respect the slave. A master/slave situation where the master has no authority over his body but the slave does. I will now repeat that very first passage in this argument; the one originally posted by my opponent. "If a man and a woman shall become one, the woman's hardly getting a gift, is she? It's more "here's a husband, assume his identity and obey him for the rest of your life," which is like saying "Here's the gift of slavery. Aren't I generous?" as slavery is no true gift." In light of what my opponent has said in her argument, along with the passages I have posted today, the above passage (while still very nice) does not do the situation justice. I now propose to rephrase it: "Here's a husband. I have made him in my own image. He's just like God. He was created to rule the earth. I have instructed him to love you (as much as he does himself), respect you, honor you, cherish you, provide for you. From now on his body is no longer his. From now on YOU have the authority over this godlike creature's body. He has to provide for you. He will guide you. Here's my gift. Your own little god. But this is a conditional gift. He'll guide you but you have to follow his guidance. You have to love him back. You have to be faithful to him." Does my opponent still maintain that this is no gift? That this is slavery? A woman's own "little god" to love her, cherish her, provide for her, guide her, sacrifice himself for her. Yes, the gift is conditional. If I were to give my opponent a puppy for free but on the condition that she love him and look after him that would also be a gift. Also conditional. Over to you