The bible does not teach mutual submission

If someone broke into my home, who should face the attackers? Well, it depends on who is more well equipped. If the woman is a black-belt martial artist who served in the army, and I am so scared of my skin and so frail I can"t hurt a fly, it makes more sense that she be the one to spy out there and confront them. At the very least she may keep them occupied long enough for me to get the kids out. This doesn"t mean I wouldn"t want to take up a broomstick and help her beat them down, but I sure would have to follow her lead if she is the more experienced one. If your wife is a certified accountant and you are terrible at math, then who is the best person to handle the finances? It doesn"t mean you won"t get input, because it"s a partnership and your opinion counts, but in marriage, both partners need to learn how to best utilize their strengths for the benefit of the family, as opposed to an illiterate guy who can"t even add demanding that he control the money just because he is the man. This is how many families have found themselves in financial ruin. I believe the man should utilize his strengths, and the woman should utilize hers, cause we all have different gifts and talents. As long as there is no secrecy, but transparency, it will work out. My opponent charged that I attacked his character. Well, gender discrimination is gender discrimination, and I will call a spade a spade no matter who gets offended. If he says the Bible teaches that men have rights that women don"t, or men have authority that women don"t, he is saying the word God discriminates against women. That"s all there is too it. Him being offended, and my argument appealing to your emotions, doesn"t make my argument any less factual. Surely the arguments against slavery appealed to emotions, bringing up some of the horrors of TransAtlantic slavery; did that make them not true? Surely these arguments painted the white colonial slave masters in a negative light, and attacked their character, but did that make the arguments false? No in both cases. So simply claiming that I have attacked his character to get the sympathy of the voters in no way impinges on my arguments. Pro says, "First, being made equal by God does NOT mean man and woman are to be interchangeable in every circumstance. To make my point, men have different heights; does this mean that they were not equal considering only the tallest can play professional basketball?" This illustration supports my point. Height is an important factor in the ability of a person to play professional basketball well, so instead of discriminating against people based on their gender, the NBA simply chooses persons according to their ability. Since a woman has just as much ability to lead, and make important decisions in family, religion, or business, as a man, she should not be discriminated against. If the woman is definitely weaker physically than the man, which is usually but not always the case, and if she isn"t skilled at fighting, then the man should be the one to face the intruders in Pro"s previous illustration. The NBA treats both men and women as equals because both are allowed to play professional basketball, so Pro"s argument is again very weak. If a woman sees her man in a fight, is she wrong for aiding him? No. She has the RIGHT to fight for the man she loves. However, because she may not have the physical ability to fight the attacker, she may decide to use a weapon. Pro is confusing right, with ability. Both parents have an equal right and even duty to protect their children, but when their abilities are different then you"ll get different persons taking different roles in different families. Pro aked, "What about women for that matter, are they not created equal because not a single women on the planet can make the starting roster for the LA Lakers?" Well here are teams they do make the starting rosters for http://www.google.com... There are a dozen women"s basketball teams in the NBA. http://www.google.com... Yes, a woman can play basketball too. Pro claims that "Equality has nothing to do with an individuals " God given authority or responsibilities," and yet the husband"s rule over the wife only came about because of sin. (Gen 3:16) This clearly implies he did not rule over her before. He says that in Genesis 3, "God clearly discriminates between what men are cursed with and what women are cursed with." Really? In Genesis 3:17-18 the cursing of the ground applied not just to Adam, but to all men and women. "When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort US in the labor and painful toil of OUR hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." (Gen 5:28-29) The "us" and "our" here suffering from the curse on the ground no doubt included women, at least it included Lamech"s wife. The curse of death, applied to the man in Genesis 3:19 applied to the whole human race according to Romans 5:12-15 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. This includes women, so God did not discriminate, he applied the same curse to both. Now as for the woman"s pain of pregnancy increasing, this is simply something that cannot happen to the man because men cannot biologically get pregnant and therefore is not a case of discrimination. Pro claims "the Genesis scripture clearly shows the instruction by God for wives to submit to their husbands and this has been the structure of marriage ever since the fall." This is flatly false on more than one count. First of all, these were curses, not instructions. God was not instructing all men to rule over their wives anymore than he was instructing men to toil up thorny ground in the sun. If Pro believes these are commands for us to follow, then every Christian must find a piece of land and toil it in the sun till he returns to the dust. No cool office work for us. God commands us to do hard farmer"s work! What"s wrong with working easy? Shouldn"t we be seeking God to get any curses on our lived lifted? Pro"s idea of marriage is life under a curse! Secondly, he does not show any Scripture outside of Genesis 3 which supports his point that this is what God DESIRES marriage to be like since the fall. The Apostles were missionaries. Did they toil in the sun the plow up a ground of thorns? Pro says "Why is this the case? Is this unfair or sexist of God? Look at the event that was the catalyst for the adjustment God made in marriage. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then led Adam to follow the deception. So God instructs wives to filter unbiblical ideas threw their husbands. This is for the protection of both the husband and the wife. If a family is under attack, then the husband is to take the front lines to shield his wife and children." Notice he doesn"t give a single verse of Scripture for any of these other claims. Is Pro trying to say that women are easier to deceive than men? Is this his reason for saying women should filter their false ideas through their husbands? Well, Adam was not decided (1 Tim 2:14), which means he sinned willingly, with his eyes wide open. Now which is worse? Someone who was tricked into doing wrong, or someone knew it was wrong but did it anyway? Which one of them would you pick to lead you if you had to choose? If Eve"s example shows women shouldn"t lead because they are easy to deceive, then Adam"s example shows men shouldn"t lead because they do what is wrong even without being deceived, just because they want to. What rational is this for ethics? What kind of God would build the beautiful union that is marriage on such ridiculous foundations? I don"t think my opponent fully understands what he is saying about God in all of this! Pro do you believe ANY men at all in the church should submit to ANY women in the church? If so, which, and how? Since he says he didn"t have time to finish his rebuttal, I"ll wait until he does so to post my further reply.