DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Kirk Cameron To Women: Your Life Purpose Is To Please Your Husband

Somebody.....anybody...please tell me this is fake.


http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/04/30/k...e-your-husband/

During an interview with the Christian Post, former Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron got real sexist, real fast.



Cameron said in the interview:

‘Wives are to honor and respect and follow their husband’s lead, not to tell their husband how he ought to be a better husband. When each person gets their part right, regardless of how their spouse is treating them, there is hope for real change in their marriage.’

Cameron also said that husbands are meant “to love their wives and not to tell their wives that they need to submit to them.”

So, basically, wives are supposed to submit to their husbands — which is what following their lead would entail — but husbands are not supposed to tell their wives that they need to submit to them. Apparently, that’s Kirk Cameron’s job.

Cameron is currently on a crusade to save marriages across the United States, holding “Love Worth Fighting For” events in various churches.

Kirk is not the only Cameron who believes that wives in a marriage should be submissive. His sister, Candace Cameron Bure, said in 2014 in her book “Balancing It All: My Story of Juggling Priorities and Purpose” that she takes the submissive role in her marriage. Amidst pushback over her use of the term, Bure clarified later what she meant:

‘I used the word ‘submissive’ [to describe my role in the marriage] because it’s from the Bible but people who don’t understand that see that as offensive. My husband is not a dictator. We work together but I don’t want to dig my heels in and I have no aspirations to be the ruler of my family. We are two equal people but I love my husband and I want him to lead.’

There is no “correct” way to be a spouse, and if a woman — or anyone else — chooses to take a submissive role in their marriage, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However, the key word here is “chooses,” and things move into a bit more of a gray area when men are telling women that they should always be submissive. These types of comments stick with people, and, regardless of what Cameron’s or anyone else’s intent is in saying them, some husbands take things too far and relationships can easily become controlling and abusive when wives are told that they must submit.

Additionally, despite Cameron’s lectures being open to “everyone, no matter their faith, relationship status or sexual orientation,” by only speaking in terms of husband and wife, Cameron is being incredibly heteronormative and ignoring the fact that there are many different types of marriages besides the traditional pairing of man and woman.

While his comments about submission are certainly problematic, to say the least, Cameron did also make some reasonable points during his interview. He also talked about the importance of accepting responsibility and not placing unnecessary blame on one’s spouse.

‘What most people do is they try to blame their spouse and say, ‘Hey, I would be a great husband if it weren’t for my wife.’ ‘We would have a great marriage if it wasn’t for my husband.’ This talks to the importance of getting your own part right. There is only one person on the whole planet who you can change and it’s not your spouse.’

that'll get him into some trouble

Kirk Cameron gets his own thread on DT......NOW I've seen everything.

He's quoting the Bible for the most part ... and he's right. Except that it's being taken completely out of context or he's probably not explaining it right. (Good ol' media for you)

The jist of it is that BOTH spouses need to be submissive to each other. If both always try their best to be a servant to the other and help them out in life, then it becomes a mutually successful relationship. The problem usually is that both try to control each other to do things the way that they want to do them, and they either end up contentious or resentful towards each other. A big reason why most marriages end up in divorce these days.

I'm equal opportunity.

maybe.

but lets be real here: we've all seen it where the woman clearly wears the pants in the relationship.

and if that works for them, what's the problem?

because i know a religious couple where she is clearly the alpha. is Cameron saying that's wrong?

Your right..It's all about rights.. Her rights his rights their rights ..rights rights rights... everyone deserves rights.... problem is not everyone accepts responsibilities along with their rights..

With rights there's a responsibility, there's a commitment there's a give and take. Most want to take then give. No such thing as tough love when the law can make it easier to get a divorce then to make tough love...

But hey.. that's your right.

Biggest problem with most relationships is the opposite attracts crap. I tell my kids..do not fall for an opposite it does nothing but cause problems.

If you like to take walks and your other doesn't.. you will walk alone.. if you like to cuddle and your other doesn't...you will feel alone... if you like to clean and your other doesn't.. you will pick up after them..if you like to wake up early and start your day and your other doesn't.. you will miss out on the things you wanted to do early... if your likes are different from theirs...it becomes a lonely life...

Opposites early may seem interesting....hardly ever works out..

I wanted to go to church.. but they won't go with me... I wanted to go have a drink and dance..they wanted to stay home... I wanted to watch football..they went shopping...

Because it's not about "who wears the pants". It's about living in a symbiotic relationship. It doesn't matter if one person is an "alpha", if BOTH aren't willing to serve the other person's needs then it's going to be a problem waiting to happen. A person can still be an alpha yet still be submissive to their spouse. We don't know the dynamics of their relationship.

Like this? https://www.facebook.com/CopsCorner/phot...2849056/?type=3

yea. we agree.

but that's not what HE is saying. which is why i made the post.

he seems to think only the man can fill that role.

When the Bible talks about leading it generally means serving. The Bible is actually much tougher on the man in a relationship. He is called to love his wife as Christ loved his church. He gave himself up for the church. That is an unconditional love. He never tells the wife to love her husband. He tells her to submit to him as to the Lord. Not submit as to not having a voice. Submit as to having no other Gods but Jesus. Have no other men but your husband. The wife was created as a help mate thru life for the man. The two become one flesh in the sight of God.

It sounds more dominant than it actually is.

Kirk is right and you weenies have let your women speak out of turn!

Why do you think it is that the Good Lord gave us a back to our hands?

Yep, women.


Uh, no dear not on DawgTalkers again, just shutting down the computer so I can get to them dishes...

No, it won't. What he is saying isn't anything apart from what the Bible teaches.

And it makes sense in EVERY relationship...if everyone thought more of others than themselves, the world would be a tremendously better place!

I was crushed when I found out Mike Seaver was a bible thumper.

That is a great explanation.

That's a very good explanation.. many within the church don't understand what the Bible says about marriage so I'm certainly not going to give any credibility at all to a political website like this analyzing what somebody said in a Christian context.

Clearly their motivation is to make Cameron, and by default Christian's in general look stupid.. when they have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh geez making this a religious thread because it fits with ones agenda on marriage. Cameron said stupid stuff. Stop the apology tour please.

The whole thread is about his biblical based comments.. how is anybody "making" this a religious thread?


They are only stupid if you don't believe in the Bible.... Fortunately for America many have turned away from the Bible, which must be why marriage has become such a booming success over the last few decades.

Yea, the religion bad thang.

How's that working for ya these days?

The apology tour continues. Go on....

I'm fairly tired of the marriage issue being an all inclusive to all these religious debates here. People get married mostly because of their love for each other. Religion and spousal severance dominance only becomes an issue for an intolerant spouse who wants their spouse to do something they don't want to, or normally wouldn't do, whether it's religious driven or not.

Fair enough but this thread was started with an article about an openly Christian person commenting on Biblical marriage...


I understand... and my response to that is, Biblical principals work even if practiced by non-Bible believers. And Biblical marriage is often misquoted and misunderstood because of a few key words, like submissive and subservient... they are not used in a demeaning context in the Bible, though the media, like this article, usually make it sound that way...

Hell reference the article above, the Bible specifically says "Husband and wife" over and over again.. but they drop in the "hetero-normative" comment...

The larger issue is generally how far the "submissive" talk goes. The first church I was a part of took the position that a woman must be fully submissive to her husband, even sexually. Stating that by the marriage compact, if the husband wanted sex, the woman had to provide no matter what or she was insubordinate. I think that's a fairly rapey interpretation, but one that is convenient for the husband nonetheless.

I don't think all Christians abide by this interpretation, but the fact that any do is troublesome...

What Church was that?

The wife and I are looking to reaffirm our Marriage Vows.

Which is an unusually strict interpretation but by the Biblical standards, if the husband really has his wife's best interest at heart, which he should, he would respect her wishes if she said she was not "in the mood"..

That is why religion will fail you. True Christianity doesn't. The Bible tells men to not be harsh with their wife. Love her. Religion wants to suppress Christ doesn't.

That's an awful broad brush to paint "religion".. I've never, in my 40+ years of going to church, been to a church that wanted me to suppress my wife in a relationship.

I get that some churches get it wrong.. I get that you are following Christ and not a particular church, because a church is made of people and people are prone to getting things wrong.. and I'm fully prepared to walk out of a church that I feel is not representing the Christ that I know.. in fact, I've done it before.

You are right it is a broad brush. I will not call out any church or faith. I judge my church on is it Bible based! That is the word of God. I do not judge people. Christianity is a personal relationship. There are many people of all kinds of churches and faith's that have personal relationships with the Lord and who am I to judge. I am just saying that religion will fail people. Why? Not all churches and religions are Bible based. That is where people will twist and spin the words in the Bible to suppress others.

Can you clarify please. Are you saying that as long as the religion is Christianity and not anything else, then it's all good? You keep saying the bible.

No. What I am saying is your personal relationship with the Lord is what matters. Religion can be used as good and bad. The church you choose no matter the religion should be bible based, If it is not bible based it usually uses it's twist or spin on the word of God to suppress people. The Bible is the written word of God and it gives all who read it free will to accept or not. Most religions do not.

Many would suggest that bible based religion do a good job of suppressing people.

Religion does use the Bible to suppress people. They twist and spin the word to fit an agenda.

The Bible is freedom. It gives all that read/hear it free will.

The moment someone uses the Bible to hold another person down you should really question it. Jesus spent a life time serving others. All he did was feed, heal, and minister to people. No where did he suppress anyone. He washed the feet of his twelve disciples. Tell me when was the last time some one in authority over you humbled their selves and did some thing of servitude for you.

That's true about all the books.

God might not want a woman to be president, some religious conservatives say

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...s-say/#comments

Four years before Hillary Clinton became the first woman to mathematically capture a major U.S. political party’s presidential nomination, a staff member on Rick Santorum’s 2012 presidential campaign posed a question in an email that shocked many people: “Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?”

God’s will or not, in 2016, it’s all that much closer to coming to fruition.

Clinton is poised to be nominated for president by the Democratic Party next week. And so religious hard-liners of all faiths — the most conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews — are debating: Does the Bible prohibit a female president?

Acts of Faith newsletter
Conversations about faith and values.
Sign up
They point out passages in Scripture: Eve’s origin as subordinate to Adam; the Old Testament leader Deborah’s implication that it was shameful that she had to step up to lead the Israelites when male leaders faltered; the New Testament verses that say “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.”

“The Old Testament is very clear that Yahweh desires men to lead,” said Owen Strachan, who heads the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The purpose of Strachan’s organization — to insist on separate roles for men and women in modern life — is itself an unpopular view, he acknowledges upfront. “I do stand for a culturally despised position.”

But he believes the Bible has laid out spheres for men and for women that should last for all time. “A good number of evangelicals would probably prefer to see men lead in the political arena, and I would be one of them,” Strachan said. “Many evangelicals would say that men need to be the ones who step up and take responsibility, not simply for the home and the church, but also for the community.”

[Call yourself a Christian? Start talking about Jesus Christ.]

That being said, he doesn’t know a verse in the Bible that says a woman is barred from becoming president, even if she isn’t called upon by Scripture to assume the role like a man might be. He thinks it’s all right, as long as she is not abandoning her biblically mandated role in the home. “If her children are raised, she has freedom to enter any number of vocations,” he said.

CONTENT FROM DELL AND INTEL®
Greening the planet and the bottom line
Read about how progressive companies are embracing sustainability to lessen their environmental impact.
Muslims also have a historical and present-day tradition of believing in distinct, separate roles for men and women. But Imam Suhaib Webb, an authority whom many young Muslims consult for advice on applying the Koran to modern dilemmas, said most U.S. Muslims won’t think twice about Clinton’s gender.

“There’s a considerable minority who will have, perhaps, concerns,” Webb said. But for the majority, their worry over a long list of other issues — immigration policy, U.S. affairs in the Middle East, Black Lives Matter, the no-fly list and much more — puts them firmly in Clinton’s camp. Webb said Muslims are more inclined to care about gender norms in their own religious communities than in the secular sphere.

[How should parents and teachers talk to Muslim kids about Donald Trump?]

Orthodox Jews also approve far more readily of female leadership in politics than in religion. “For some people, it may be easier to vote for a woman president than it would be to get a woman president of a synagogue,” said Sharon Weiss-Greenberg, the president of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance.

She pointed out that Israel, where ultraorthodox newspapers have refused to even print female newsmakers’ photographs for the sake of modesty, elected one of the world’s first female heads of state, Golda Meir. “People would vote for a woman president even if they are hesitant to publish her image,” Weiss-Greenberg said.

[The times ultraorthodox papers edited Kim Kardashian and Angela Merkel out of photographs]

The same is true in the Muslim world — women have led Pakistan, Bangladesh and Turkey. To go back to the Koran, the Queen of Sheba was honored for her leadership role, Webb noted.

But for certain evangelical Christians, those examples from the rest of the world don’t match up with God’s typical plan. As Strachan put it, “Many of us would say, understanding creational order, men are called to lead.”

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said he recalls this discussion happening in 2008, when Sarah Palin was running for vice president. Ultimately, he said, a candidate’s policies matter more than gender for almost all evangelical voters. Opposed to Barack Obama’s stances on abortion and other issues, and in agreement with John McCain’s and Palin’s viewpoints, evangelicals mostly decided to vote for Palin. But a certain very conservative segment did discuss her gender first.


This time, evangelicals are starting out disinclined to vote for Clinton because of policy, not persona. Mohler said he hasn’t heard much talk about gender yet — and he expects he soon will. “I think in general terms, there is a good reason why men tend to lead in these positions. I think embedded in creation is a natural tendency,” he said.

Mohler did note that he admires Queen Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher and a few others — rare women who he thinks came along at a few right moments in past centuries.

"Some say".. "Many believe".. "They believe".. that whole article reads like one of your posts.. I can't think of a single Christian who would NOT vote for a woman as long as it wasn't a lying POS like Hillary. The article even says as much.. about 10 paragraphs after it tries to make Christians look like they are living in the 14th century..

Some democrats believe the government should take over the oil industry... some Democrats believe that Guam could tip over...

and some believe that the Earth started off with 2 people 6,000 years ago, drowned everybody, and then had incest sex to repopulate the planet.

but hey, we all have our beliefs.

So...the hateful, denigrating ,misogynistic lyrics of rap music is acceptable to you but K CAMERON,s remarks are so horrible to you that you start a board topic [sniff..sniff]watta complete hypocrite and phony you are

i really hope you don't listen to rock music with a post like that.

Not true. I don't mind a woman president, just as long as it isn't that woman.

you literally said in different threads you aren't religious.

which is it?