The bible does not teach mutual submission

Con said: "As it was in the case of Abraham and Sarah, God told Abraham to listen to his wife because in that situation she was right. (Gen 21:8-14) This shows that in marriage, it"s the party who is in the wrong that should give in to the other when having differences of opinion, and who is right must be decided upon by evidence, by the Word of God, by having that spiritual insight, not by trumping authority as though the man had more say than the woman." But I ask my opponent; what if both parties believe their position is what God wants them to do? What if they cannot agree and are unwilling to give in? Con seems to be fantasizing about some marriage utopia where the wrong party sees the truth of the other party"s position and then decides to submit to that truth. In reality all marriages have moments where there is complete disagreement. And when that happens scripture instructs the wife to submit (yield her will or strong contrary belief) to her husband. Con says" "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21) This obviously does teach mutual submission, even though I would distinguish this from simultaneous submission, but even that may be embraced in this teaching. For if this verse teaches women to submit to men, then it also teaches men to submit to women. How can you distinguish submission from simultaneous submission? Please explain that paradox. Additionally which verse does the bible say "then it also teaches men to submit to women"? How do you overcome the absolute fact that the bible never instructions men to submit to women? If cons position is biblical, then I would expect the bible to be clear and instruct men to submit to their wives just as wives are to submit to them. But it doesn"t. Consider all the instances where submission is instructed: "Jesus is subject to the authority of his parents (Luke 2:51) "demons are subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17: clearly the meaning "act in love, be considerate" cannot fit here!) "citizens are to be subject to government authorities (Rom. 13:1, 5; Tit. 3:1, 1 Pet. 2:13) "the universe is subject to Christ (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22) "unseen spiritual powers are subject to Christ (1 Pet. 3:22) "Christ is subject to God the Father (1 Cor. 15:28) "church members are to be subject to church leaders (1 Cor. 16:15-16 [cf. 1 Clement 42:4]; 1 Pet. 5:5) "wives are to be subject to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:5; compare Eph. 5:22, 24) "the church is subject to Christ (Eph. 5:24) "servants are to be subject to their masters (Tit. 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18) "Christians are subject to God (Heb. 12:9; Jas. 4:7) Here is the point: None of these relationships are ever reversed. Husbands are never told to be subject (hypotasso) to wives, nor the government to citizens, nor masters to servants, nor the disciples to demons. Clearly parents are never told to be subject to their children! In fact, the term hypotasso is used outside the NT to describe the submission and obedience of soldiers in an army to those of superior rank (see, for example, Josephus, War 2.566, 578; 5.309; compare the adverb in 1 Clement 37:2). The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon even defines hypotasso [passive] to mean "be obedient" (p. 1897). Bottom line: there is no hard evidence to show that any first-century Greek speaker would have understood submission the way my opponent is suggesting, for the term always implies a relationship of submission to an authority. Lastly regarding this specific argument, does my opponent believe that Jesus is submitted to him? Con Said "Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt 20:25-27) If each person is supposed to serve the other, that again implied men must serve women just as women must serve men. Also, while a man maybe serving a woman in one aspect, she may simultaneously be serving him in another. These verses show we must mutually submit to each other." Con seems to be misunderstanding the definition of submission. It does not mean "to serve". Mutual service can occur separate from the biblical one directional submission. Notice how my opponent is changing the biblical definition of submission to mean things like "serving", "considerateness", "thoughtfulness", and an attitude of love toward one another". Con said" Women may hold offices in the church to which men have to submit, just as men hold offices to which women have to submit. Deborah was a prophetess and a judge in Israel. (Judge 4:4-5) Women may edify the church by their prophetic teaching (Acts 2:15-18; 1 Cor 14:2-5), and so forth." Deborah was a judge of the land, a political position, not a church leadership position. There is a difference. I agree that women are leaders in in church however their authority is over other women. 1 Timothy 2:12 says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. Women are instructed to teach other women (Titus 2:3). Regarding the female prophets, women could clearly prophesy but this example does not involve submission, because to prophesy means "to declare what God says", therefore it is not issue that would ever put men in a position where they would need to submit. Bottom line, con has yet to provide the clear instruction of the scripture for men to submit to their wife, but rather tries to cherry pick examples that appear to support his argument that there is no difference between men and women and are interchangeable at a moment"s notice in every regard. To take my opponents argument to the next step, since there is no difference between men and women then a child having two dads or 2 moms is the exact same as a child that has mother and a father. Con said "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." Con appears to be imaging a false utopia of a marriage where each partner"s strengths are recognized and are somehow able to see the truth in the right partners argument all the time and therefore submit to each other when the other partner is wrong. I love his optimism, but this is not reality. 50% of marriages end in divorce. People disagree passionately to the point where they can"t stand the sight of one another. What he doesn"t seem to understand, is that submission requires disagreement, and in that event one party must submit to the other party. In his example of accounting and suggestion that the better partner should be the accountant for the family, but what if both are equally good at doing the books or have different ways they prefer the accounting done? What if they both have phd"s in accounting but want their idea of how the family budget should look is completely different? What if the wife does not want to give 10% until their student loans are paid off but the husband feels strongly that they should in order to be faithful to the bible as he perceives it? What do they do now? Both believe they are 100% correct, biblical and wise in their family budget structure. My opponent"s argument of mutual submission if defined correctly by the biblical definition, to get under and in the order of god, would mean both wife and husband would have to yield to the other, and do both budget strategies, but considering that is impossible it logically follows that my opponents argument is false.