Our spouse is our second Messiah

[soleil10]

Our spouse allows us to grow and expand our heart in so many ways.
Our spouse allows us, men to experience the feminine nature of God, our heavenly parent.
Our spouse brings balance in our life. It is easy to go astray being alone
Our spouse being from a different gender will create constant surprises for eternity, so we will not be bored
A Husband represents to his wife all the men in the world. A wife represents to her husband all the women in the world
Our spouse allows us to become a parent and experience the parental
heart of God with our children.
The most important is not how challenging our journey will be. The most important is to become victorious together.

My 2 cents

 

[Gatekeeper]

Marriage as we have come to know it, isn't biblical marriage at all. Biblical marriage (As I see it) is the merging of two souls in one (A child).

A child is the joining together and merging of two different people (Marriage).

I compare it to the marriage that takes place in Christ; whereby we become sons and daughters of God (New creations in Christ's image) and much like the incredible love we have for our own children, even more so the love God has for those born of Christ.

Both the Father and the Son surely play a role in raising us up in righteousness. Surely the Father and the Son would never leave us to fare on our own, which I find to be a very comforting thought.

My 2 penny's worth

GK

 

[wil]

So there have been umpteen billion second comings?

So everyone that gets married Christian or not, is now going to heaven as they have the bride/groom messiah that they believe in?

 

[Dogbrain]

Well, the sentiments expressed at the start of the thread are certainly pretty enough, I'll grant that. But the Messiah is the Anointed of the Lord, who sits at the Right Hand of God and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

My spouse is none of these things.

 

[shawn]

Well, this just looks like repackaged idolatry as now the spouse is put on the pedestal and is providing you with that which christ is supposed to fulfill.
Little children guard yourself from idols.
Christ is supposed to be your sufficiency, not your spouse.
I could find many verses in the NT which support this doctrine (if I could be arsed to bother), but none which support mr. moon's.
The church is the bride to Christ and as individual's you are ....allegorically, wedded to christ who completes you.

 

[path_of_one]

Our spouse allows us to grow and expand our heart in so many ways.
Our spouse allows us, men to experience the feminine nature of God, our heavenly parent.
Our spouse brings balance in our life. It is easy to go astray being alone
Our spouse being from a different gender will create constant surprises for eternity, so we will not be bored

None of this is required only of a spouse. Other humans in general provide all this for us as well. All humans allow us to grow and expand our heart. All humans allow us to feel the feminine and masculine natures of God. Humans, by the way, are not uniformly two gender categories and all humans have elements of both genders within them. So one can find both the masculine and the feminine natures of God in oneself, if one looks. Humans in general bring balance in one's life. One need not be married to not be alone- people can live in extended family groups, with friends, with roommates.

Don't get me started about all the assumptions about gender in this thread. Differences in gender does not directly equal surprise or substantial differences in personality or interest. I know many people who are bored with their spouses after only a few years, and yet find endless surprise and variety with their friends who are of the same gender. Conversely, I know gay people who are not bored with their spouse, and yet they are of the same gender.

A Husband represents to his wife all the men in the world. A wife represents to her husband all the women in the world

That is foolish. Sorry, but it is. My husband is very dissimilar to many of the men in the world, and I am very dissimilar to many of the women in the world. There are very few things (if any) that "all" men have in common, so how could one person represent all men?

Our spouse allows us to become a parent and experience the parental
heart of God with our children.

One can experience the nurturing, creative heart of God without being a parent. And one can parent children that are not one's biological children. A spouse is not necessary for any of this.

I have been married 11 years now and I adore my husband. However, it is not for some generalized doctrinal reason. I don't think my spouse completes me- I was already complete. I don't think my spouse is Christ- I already knew Christ. I don't think my spouse is all men- he is the one unique man I fell in love with. I don't think my spouse is necessary for me to be nurturing or parental- I was these things before I met him.

There need be no purpose in my spouse save one- to love and be loved. It's the same purpose that is at the heart of any relationship. It's very simple.

My 2 cents...

 

[soleil10]

So there have been umpteen billion second comings?
So everyone that gets married Christian or not, is now going to heaven as they have the bride/groom messiah that they believe in?

Wil, what I wrote is a figure of speech.
What I meant is; How much we should appreciate our spouse, our better half.
We need that person so very much

 

[soleil10]

None of this is required only of a spouse.

There is a degree of intimacy that can only be experienced with our spouse

Other humans in general provide all this for us as well. All humans allow us to grow and expand our heart. All humans allow us to feel the feminine and masculine natures of God.

Yes brotherly love and sisterly love help us to grow. I think that congugal love is different and unique

Humans, by the way, are not uniformly two gender categories and all humans have elements of both genders within them. So one can find both the masculine and the feminine natures of God in oneself, if one looks.

I agree, some men are more effeminate and some are much more masculine. Still men are totally different than women in so many aspects.

Humans in general bring balance in one's life. One need not be married to not be alone- people can live in extended family groups, with friends, with roommates.

Friends and extended family help a lot in not feeling alone, but there is a specal intimacy with our spouse

Don't get me started about all the assumptions about gender in this thread. Differences in gender does not directly equal surprise or substantial differences in personality or interest. I know many people who are bored with their spouses after only a few years, and yet find endless surprise and variety with their friends who are of the same gender. Conversely, I know gay people who are not bored with their spouse, and yet they are of the same gender.

Let's not get started on that one.

That is foolish. Sorry, but it is. My husband is very dissimilar to many of the men in the world, and I am very dissimilar to many of the women in the world. There are very few things (if any) that "all" men have in common, so how could one person represent all men?

What I meant is that in term of intimacy, your husband represents all men unless you are married to more than one man.

One can experience the nurturing, creative heart of God without being a parent. And one can parent children that are not one's biological children. A spouse is not necessary for any of this.

Yes some couple may not be able to procreate and can adopt. Children are the fruit of our love between us and our spouse. Our children are part of both of us. The son is in the father and the father in the son. Same for the mother. That is an incredible experience that God also has with us.

I have been married 11 years now and I adore my husband. However, it is not for some generalized doctrinal reason. I don't think my spouse completes me- I was already complete. I don't think my spouse is Christ-

Yes we need to know how to live as a single before we marry. Did your spouse expand your horizon and better you in any way? I learn every day from my wife.

I already knew Christ. I don't think my spouse is all men- he is the one unique man I fell in love with. I don't think my spouse is necessary for me to be nurturing or parental- I was these things before I met him.There need be no purpose in my spouse save one- to love and be loved. It's the same purpose that is at the heart of any relationship. It's very simple.My 2 cents...

Thanks for sharing

 

[path_of_one]

There is a degree of intimacy that can only be experienced with our spouse

Is this proven by anything, or only assumed?

Yes brotherly love and sisterly love help us to grow. I think that congugal love is different and unique

Of course it is. But that's not what you were saying in your original post. As I understand it now, you were mostly being poetic and metaphoric, not literal, which changes the meaning.

Still men are totally different than women in so many aspects.

Can you explain exactly how, and separate out what is independent of cultural conditioning regarding gender (and therefore is diverse)?

Friends and extended family help a lot in not feeling alone, but there is a specal intimacy with our spouse

There are various types of special intimacies, one of which is a spousal-type relationship. Marriage itself is not what defines the intimacy of a spouse, but rather we marry (in the modern US) when we feel that level of intimacy. In most cultures through most of human history, marriage was not about intimacy at all, but rather about defining particular social and economic rights over another person and provisioning offspring. In fact, in many cultures men and women live in separate houses even when they are married. So all of these idealism regarding a particular way of marriage and relationship seems rather culturally bound to me.

What I meant is that in term of intimacy, your husband represents all men unless you are married to more than one man.

I still don't get it. Intimacy can be in friendships, familial relationships, etc. and not just spousal relationships. If you're referring to sex in a monogamous marriage like my own, then yes, I'm only sleeping with one person. But having sex with someone does not directly have to do with intimacy. One can have sex with someone and barely know them- that isn't very intimate. One can be very close friends with someone and never have sexual relations- and that is a rather intimate relationship. Intimacy and sex are different issues.

If you refer to sexual intimacy- yes, I am only with my husband. Though I would hardly say he represents all men to me. That's odd. I don't even think of it like that. If he was simply a representative of all men, then he'd be interchangeable with any other guy, and he isn't.

If you refer to intimacy in general- closeness of relationship, sharing feelings and thoughts, sharing work, etc.- then it's not like he's the only man in my life that I'm close to. That would also be (to me) wholly odd and dysfunctional. We ought to be close to our parents, siblings, friends, and so on.

Yes some couple may not be able to procreate and can adopt. Children are the fruit of our love between us and our spouse.

So what about people who have no kids? What is their fruit? Sorry- but I think the purpose of marriage is much broader than to have children. And I don't think that married people without kids love each other any less than married people with kids. In fact, among my friends and acquaintances, we have mostly seen divorce and marital problems increase after they have kids. It is a big stress on marriage. Not to say it isn't worth it- but seeing it through rose-colored glasses isn't very realistic or helpful.

Yes we need to know how to live as a single before we marry. Did your spouse expand your horizon and better you in any way? I learn every day from my wife.

Every person I have ever met has expanded my horizons and afforded me an opportunity to progress in spiritual development. My spouse, as one of my closest relationships, has certainly afforded this as well. But my point is that there is no uniqueness in the capacity of a spouse to expand our horizons. Lots of people (and events) in our lives do this.

People marry for all kinds of reasons and opinions abound about the morality of these reasons. Marriages can be hot or cold, supportive or abusive... There is no "marriage is a fix-all." Marriage is just like any other relationship in that it is dependent on what two people bring to the table. It can be wonderful but only if one makes it wonderful. And that is not very different from any other relationship or life in general (single or married). If I examine my life, this is true for jobs, friends, family. If I am open to learning, life will teach me- no matter if I am married or not. If I am closed, no spouse can force me to open to this learning process.

There's a great saying I love: "A good marriage is not two people gazing into each other's eyes, but rather looking outward toward the same direction." Our destination (if we have one) is not in the other person, but rather this other person is someone we can walk with toward that destination. Or we can walk the path alone. Everyone is different.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

POO, you said,

"But having sex with someone does not directly have to do with intimacy. One can have sex with someone and barely know them- that isn't very intimate. One can be very close friends with someone and never have sexual relations- and that is a rather intimate relationship. Intimacy and sex are different issues."

--> I agree. We can have

physical intimacy
emotional intimacy
intellectual intimacy
spiritual intimacy

with another person. The assumption is that we can/should have all of these things with our spouse. Unfortunately, this is impossible in many of the marriages I see around me.

The big mistaken assumption you are referring to is that physical intimacy automatically leads to the other three. A lesser-known fallacy is that emotional intimacy automatically leads to intellectual intimacy. There is no reason to make these assumptions. These assumptions set up a lot of marriages for failure.

 

[path_of_one]

The big mistaken assumption you are referring to is that physical intimacy automatically leads to the other three. A lesser-known fallacy is that emotional intimacy automatically leads to intellectual intimacy. There is no reason to make these assumptions. These assumptions set up a lot of marriages for failure.

Yep, I agree. Assuming any kind of intimacy leads to the others is setting oneself up for disappointment.

I think one of the big problems leading to divorce is that people expect their spouse to fulfill all types of intimacy and be everything they need. This is ridiculous because even the best relationships aren't sufficient by themselves for each person's growth and development, support and various needs. People were meant to have many relationships of various kinds.

I am skeptical about marriage as an institution. But I am still romantic and I do think some people pair-bond for spiritual reasons. Pair-bonding (to me) is preferable as a term to marriage, as the former denotes relationship whereas the latter denotes social institution. In my own case, I do feel that I am paired with my husband because we are complementary energetically and psychically (for lack of a better term, to denote the psyche and state of awareness as opposed to the intellect). However, this means nada in terms of other types of intimacy or ease of living together, life plans, etc. All that has to be negotiated like any marriage.

I would never say the reasons I am married to my spouse should be universal to all people. Everyone is different.

But what seems to be pretty clear is that putting a lot of expectations on one's spouse- making them into one's Messiah would certainly qualify (!)- is often a path toward marital stress and eventually divorce. I'd imagine few people are prepared to be Christ for their spouse. Tough role to fill.

 

[Saltmeister]

I agree, some men are more effeminate and some are much more masculine. Still men are totally different than women in so many aspects.

A man is always masculine. If you're a "man" who isn't "masculine" then it's because you're not really a "man" at all. You're a transgender man. You're really a woman trapped in a man's body.

I think of masculinity in neurological terms. It has to do with the structure of our brain and how thoughts propagate through our brain and how the brain processes ideas.

Men have more local connections in their brain which means that they are more focused in their thinking and think more "inside the box." Women have more global connections which means they are better at seeing the big picture and of being divergent in their thinking and thinking "outside the box." That applies to both emotional and logical thinking.

It often appears that women are more emotional, but I don't think men are really less emotional. I believe men are just as emotional as women. People simply notice more of the "emotional phenomenon" in women because in any conversation or discussion where "logic" is important, women are more able to "mix" or "integrate" emotions and logic, whereas men are only able to focus on one of them at a time.

If a man chooses to argue by logic, his arguments remain logical. If he chooses to argue by emotions, his arguments remain emotional. A woman doesn't really choose either. She multi-tasks. They are part of the same reality.

A man's thinking is irrational to a woman because of his inability to be flexible with his thinking. The woman's inherent philosophy, wired into her brain is that sometimes you have to be emotional and sometimes you have to be logical, depending on which one is more "reasonable." The level of rationality of any thought or idea depends on which is more suitable to the situation at hand. The woman's thinking is fluid and flexible. A man's thinking is irrational to a woman because he isn't able, as readily, to think outside the box.

A woman's thinking is irrational to a man because she doesn't seem to think "inside the box." A woman often frustrates a man because she "flip-flops" between different layers of logical and emotional thinking when he just wants to focus on one dimension. A man's inherent philosophy, wired into his brain is that there is a "thought system" for everything in life. To understand anything you have to follow this "thought system." The level of rationality of any thought or idea depends on how well it conforms to this "thought system." The man's inherent philosophy is that the world has structure and we have to think in structural terms, not in fluid terms. A woman's thinking is irrational to a man because she isn't as good at thinking inside the box.

A man is like a narrowband radio receiver while a woman is like a broadband radio receiver.

That, at least, is my theory/thinking on masculinity and femininity.

In that sense, our global communications system is becoming more feminine and less masculine (more broadband).

With society becoming more "postmodern" and people accepting and understanding foreign cultures, we are thinking more and more outside the box. Society is becoming more "feminine."

 

[path_of_one]

Salty- your post is very interesting, but isn't it a bit culture-bound? That is, gender is the cultural construction of sex. Sex in humans is more than dichotomous, encompassing a continuum of possibilities in terms of hormones and their effects as well as various "abnormalities" that occur with a rather startling frequency (including hermaphroditism), even leaving out those that experience being transgendered (the mechanism of which has not yet been discovered). So, we start off with more categories than two...

Then culture gets ahold of the issue and determines the roles, stereotypes, and status of these genders. Masculinity and feminity are constructed. For example, in some cultures such as in the mainstream US, men are expected to demonstrate less emotion and it is only acceptable for women to be demonstrative in friendships (holding hands, hugging, etc.). Yet in other cultures, these things are part of being a normal man. Most of gender is constructed and therefore not "real" at all. Even in a single culture, constructions of gender change substantially over time.

When you say a man who isn't masculine must be transgendered, it ignores the variety inherent in what "masculine" means. You defined a particular way of thinking about masculinity, but I have no doubt that psychological and social evidence would demonstrate a continuum for your defining attributes rather than two dichotomous categories.

Defining masculine vs. feminine vs. transgender ignores the evidence that gender is constructed, and that our inherent attributes as they pertain to our 23rd chromosomes are generally along a continuum... as well as the missing "androgenous" category.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"...putting a lot of expectations on one's spouse- making them into one's Messiah would certainly qualify (!)- is often a path toward marital stress and eventually divorce."

--> Well said. The more neediness a person has (the more they make the partner into a Messiah, a savior, or someone who will save them from their own unfulfilled emotional needs), the more they guarantee the failure of the relationship.

 

[17th Angel]

I find it interesting how in the bible you have to love god above your wife lol... "god" has nothing on my wife...

And I feel sorry for any man that loves a god above his own wife.

 

[Saltmeister]

Salty- your post is very interesting but isn't it a bit culture-bound?

Do you mean my post was culture-bound, or that the notion of gender in mainstream society is mostly culture-bound? I based my theory on what I've read about the structure of our brain so I kept as much culture out of that as I could.

That is, gender is the cultural construction of sex. Sex in humans is more than dichotomous, encompassing a continuum of possibilities in terms of hormones and their effects as well as various "abnormalities" that occur with a rather startling frequency (including hermaphroditism), even leaving out those that experience being transgendered (the mechanism of which has not yet been discovered). So, we start off with more categories than two...

My definition of sex and gender is this. Gender refers to the intrinsic personality of a person, and therefore their thought patterns: ie. masculine/feminine/transgender (abnormal). Sex refers to the types of sexual organs they have: ie. male or female. Gender is personal and emotional; sex is physical.

When I say that gender is personal and emotional, I mean that it has to do with how you think. A fourth type (which is another abnormality) might be homosexuality. I'm effectively including sexual orientation in my concept of "gender."

Then culture gets ahold of the issue and determines the roles, stereotypes, and status of these genders. Masculinity and feminity are constructed. For example, in some cultures such as in the mainstream US, men are expected to demonstrate less emotion and it is only acceptable for women to be demonstrative in friendships (holding hands, hugging, etc.). Yet in other cultures, these things are part of being a normal man. Most of gender is constructed and therefore not "real" at all. Even in a single culture, constructions of gender change substantially over time.

Reading this, I think "gender" can be made to mean a lot of different things. I've got my own use for the word.

From the paragraph above, you're depicting "gender" as nothing more than a social construct, that people have simply created and fabricated "gender differences" for political purposes, that gender is a fiction. As much as ideas about gender may influence the way we treat other people and how we behave around them, I would agree. Where gender is a fiction, where gender is more about "perceived gender differences" than "actual gender differences," I would agree that you have a social construct there.

But I don't believe that all of it is a fiction and social construct. I think there are "real differences" somewhere. That is why I prefer to think in terms of brain structure.

My concept of masculinity and femininity is that it is the social and behavioural phenomenon that emerges from a person who has a particular brain structure. Masculinity refers to thought patterns that come from a brain with more local connections. Femininity refers to thought patterns that come from a brain with more global connections.

When you say a man who isn't masculine must be transgendered, it ignores the variety inherent in what "masculine" means. You defined a particular way of thinking about masculinity, but I have no doubt that psychological and social evidence would demonstrate a continuum for your defining attributes rather than two dichotomous categories.

I don't really think of transgender and homosexuality as separate "genders" but as "deviant genders." Masculinity and femininity are like "source genders" or the gender equivalent of primary colours on the colour wheel. All other "genders" derive from masculinity and femininity.

A transgender man is a feminine personality with male body parts. A transgender woman is a masculine personality with female body parts. A homosexual man is a person with male body parts, but is attracted to other masculine personalities (not necessarily men). A homosexual woman is a person with female body parts, but is attracted to other feminine personalities (not necessarily women).

Hey if gender is no more than a cultural construct, then what are transgender people? They do exist, right? To expand on what I said in the previous paragraph, the transgender man, for example, is a "woman trapped in a man's body" who is attracted to men. You may mistake a transgender man for a homosexual man because of "her" attraction to men, but this is where we'd have to understand that what distinguishes the transgender man from the homosexual man is that the transgender man is really a woman! The homosexual man is actually masculine. He is really a man, unlike the transgender guy.

But . . . it could also get a little more complicated. What if your transgender man was homosexual? Well, then, without closer inspection, you might mistake "her" for an ordinary heterosexual. But "she" is really a lesbian.

Gender is important for distinguishing homosexuals from people who simply appear to be attracted to the same gender but are really transgender.

 

[soleil10]

Is this proven by anything, or only assumed?

Birth, marriage and physical death are the 3 most important events in our life. When, we consume our marriage, it is not simply a physical union but the union of 2 spiritual beings. Love creates life and life creates lineage (descendants).
The union we have with our spouse is profound and eternal.
Inviting God to be the center of our union is crucial in our journey. He wants to live with us.

There's a great saying I love: "A good marriage is not two people gazing into each other's eyes, but rather looking outward toward the same direction." Our destination (if we have one) is not in the other person, but rather this other person is someone we can walk with toward that destination. Or we can walk the path alone. Everyone is different.

Eternal commitment to each other and common purpose are very important for success.
It is crucial for a husband and wife to come to an agreement on what their 3 most important goals or priorities are as a couple and as a family.
If you ask a husband and his wife what is the most important to each one of them, you may find out that their are working in different directions and are building a castle on the sand.
The whole education system is to prepare children to have a job. Our focus should be first on how to create ideal families.

 

[wil]

I find it interesting how in the bible you have to love god above your wife lol... "god" has nothing on my wife...

And I feel sorry for any man that loves a god above his own wife.

Vince Lombardi, one of the winningest coaches in football told his team you take things in this order....G!d first, You second, Family third, career (school/football) last.

As if you aren't spirtually comfortable and centered you'll have issues in other places.

If you don't take care of yourself, you won't be able to take care of anyone else.

If you don't have a family life that is amicable, on an even keel, than you won't have your head in the game as you'll be worried/concerned/thinking about one of the other three that is out of wack...and since he wanted his team to be 100% on football when playing and 100% on school work when they were doing it, he wanted the other three taken care of.

It works the same with your spouse, if you haven't taken care of yourself and your relationship with all that is....than you are doing him/her a disservice.

Now if you are not of the Love your lord thy G!d with all your mind, all your strength and all your heart....and if you don't believe that all your gifts come from G!d, than it is quite easy to see why you'd have an alternative opinion.

 

[path_of_one]

Do you mean my post was culture-bound, or that the notion of gender in mainstream society is mostly culture-bound? I based my theory on what I've read about the structure of our brain so I kept as much culture out of that as I could.

I mean that the way the structure of the brain was described is largely how gender is constructed in modern Western culture. It doesn't speak to the actual cross-cultural and cross-temporal variety found through the ethnographic and historical evidence. Much of psychological theory is actually quite culture-bound to modern post-industrial Western cultures, primarily because their research programs have tended to narrowly focus on white middle class populations. It is one of the primary critiques that anthropology, and to a lesser extent sociology, has of psychology.

My definition of sex and gender is this. Gender refers to the intrinsic personality of a person, and therefore their thought patterns: ie. masculine/feminine/transgender (abnormal). Sex refers to the types of sexual organs they have: ie. male or female. Gender is personal and emotional; sex is physical.

We're talking past one another because those definitions are entirely different from standard ones in anthropology, which is my profession. Generally speaking, in my discipline, sex refers to all physical/genetic effects related to the 23rd chromosome pair and gender refers to the cultural construction of those effects. Personality is not directly related to gender, and it is itself culturally influenced. It is a separate issue that has been of some interest to me in my own research.

If one refers to communication, information processing, and so on- there are differences based on sex (i.e., in spatial processing, linguistic capacity, etc.- however, these are always along a continuum and not in dichotomous categories). These differences in cognition would not be considered personality differences or gender differences by an anthropologist. Anything that is biologically, physically, etc. based is a sex difference. The cultural construction of these differences, what we call gender, assigns values, roles, etc. and conditions individuals in particular ways. Just as it can profoundly impact one's personality, it can also profoundly impact the way one experiences sex differences-- even to the extent that it trains people to act against their innate natures. People are exceptionally malleable in gender and sexual orientation.

Gender and sexual orientation are two different things. Gender has to do with how one views the self relative to the cultural construction of sex. Some cultures offer more than two genders, and this model is quite different than a two-gender system. Sexual orientation has to do with repetitive trends in attraction and behavior. The two are independent, which is why a transgendered person can retain a constant sexual orientation (for example, being born as a heterosexual male but feeling as if they are a homosexual female).

Homosexuality is not "deviant." Neither is transgenderedness or androgyny. We find these in relatively constant baseline patterns cross-culturally, indicating a consistent biological diversity inherent to the human species. All the evidence I have reviewed in the literature indicates that human sexuality and gender is inherently quite plastic, and thus largely constructed by culture. The baseline patterns are along continuum and not two clear sex categories (with the rest deviant).

Rather, charts of average human hormone levels indicate that there is a bell curve around two mixes that roughly correspond to what we construct as masculine and feminine, but with considerable variety along that bell curve and a sizeable but fewer number of people directly between the two bell curves- basically androgynous. Furthermore, the evidence clearly indicates that while most of the population is heterosexual, a sizeable 5-10% are homosexual and bisexual, and there are also people who are asexual and have no sexual desire for anyone.

The literature largely demonstrates that trying to combine sexual orientation and gender into one thing is not only inaccurate considering the data, but is also scientifically not useful. We generally want to be able to more clearly and accurately describe the human condition- and having the combination of at least four sexual orientation categories with at least three gender categories provides a much better system for study than some befuddled combination of them.

From the paragraph above, you're depicting "gender" as nothing more than a social construct, that people have simply created and fabricated "gender differences" for political purposes, that gender is a fiction.

Sexual differences are based in biology. Gender differences are based in culture. Gender is not fictional- social constructs are real to social animals such as ourselves. But by distinguishing between the two, one can more accurately understand what is universal and what is culture-specific.

At any rate, that's my position, largely stemming from anthropology and cognitive science, with a more limited influence from women's studies.

 

[Marsh]

I find it interesting how in the bible you have to love god above your wife lol... "god" has nothing on my wife...

And I feel sorry for any man that loves a god above his own wife.

I'm sure that God is very happy that you love your wife, seeing as how your wife is one of his children and all. In fact, one of the most concrete ways that a man can show love for God is by loving his wife, isn't it?