Tsahraf ChahsidMimetes wrote:
Batman wrote:
unimportant specifics unrelated to my article.
 I am sorry that it seemed that way. It did not occur to me that you thought they were unimportant or unrelated, since if you did I expected that you would not mention it, or edit it out of the Declaration and maybe start a thread some where else about them. It was because I thought they were not as important as the rest of the declaration that I gave only a brief explanation of why I excepted them. But since you still want me to sign to those two points, how would they be unimportant?
Batman wrote:
I'm not talking about husbands, I'm talking about single guys.
 Me too, I was talking about men in general, single or married, since it was the subject of the Declaration. I was using fathers as an example, because their responsibilities are obviously based on their relation to their family. I think that in the same way men have responsibilities because of their relation to women, simply because they are men. However I do believe they have strengths because they are men, I do not want you to think I do not agree with that.
Should I start a different thread about different sisterhoods? It does not seem to fit here.
The issues you're picking on are not pertinent to the declaration...i.e., you're missing the point of what I wrote.
Exactly, they do have specific strengths because they are men, and that is what I'm saying they should USE in order to be strong, Godly men in their relationships with females.
If you want to start a thread about the sister thing, go ahead. I'm not sure if I'll get involved, though.