YOUR Church has put a DRESS CODE in place!

[Lavender]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

Yes.  What I said is that dresses pertain to a woman and pants to a man.  If one accepts the notion that a kilt is a skirt, you can argue a skirt can be unisex, but I don't really think that is the case.  The kilt is not like your typical skirt, anymore than culottes are just a pair of shorts.  I was addressing another smoke screen argument. 

So is that, yes both dresses and skirts are acceptable for women to wear? (Just trying to clarify it and not misinterpret).

[hmbld]

28 minutes ago, Butero said:

I am saying that pants pertain to a man and dresses to a woman.  The kilt is not even called a skirt by those that wear them.  They are offended if you say they are wearing a skirt.  Then there is another matter.  I am saying pants pertain to a man and dresses to a woman.  Concerned Women For America obviously see a skirt as pertaining to a woman, and most would give a guy an effeminate appearance which is sin, but one could claim they are unisex and still hold to pants as pertaining to a man and dresses to a woman.  Just saying...

Yes, you are saying that.  Where did you come to learn this must be this way.  Is it a matter of culture?  As a kilt is known to be a 16th century invention, and pretty much a skirt by another name, wouldn't this be a sin to wear one?  Basically, just being offended by someone calling it a skirt, does not make it something other than a skirt.  I do not want dresses to be acceptable for men to wear, but for a woman to wear women's pants is a sin?  no.  

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

 

To MG, there are ways a woman can wear a dress and be completely decent in a situation like that.  For one thing, in a case that extreme, they could wear leggings and a dress over them.  Some women actually wear them alone.  Problem solved, and the woman still looks feminine.  In addition to that, there is no reason for a woman who did work in a job where she had to wear pants to wear them anytime while off work. 

Butero, I live in Houston; it's hot down here so wearing both is not an option.  It would also be ugly and unfashionable unless one is a four year old girl. As for wearing leggings to work, they are not permitted; along with tank tops, tube tops, shorts and the like.  I would point out that leggings are VERY tight and body conscious and most are semi transparent. I consider them indecent worn alone. You're a guy so I'll give you a pass on that one. 

[hmbld]

8 minutes ago, Butero said:

Technically, culottes are short pants, but they are clearly not shorts that men wear.  The kilt was not a skirt like women wear.  But again, you can use that to claim skirts are unisex, but that has no bearing on pants or dresses.  Why would you have a problem with men wearing a dress?  Where does the Bible say that is a sin?  I saw a mother and son wearing matching pants and a shirt a few months back.  Why is that ok but it would be wrong for them to wear matching sun dresses?  Is that a cultural thing or something?  Where did you learn this must be this way? 

Culture.  I believe a tunic centuries ago could be a simple dress?  A sun dress is worn by women, not men.  Point is, your making statements about what is a sin or not, while not accounting for culture.  Pants are acceptable for women to wear.  

[hmbld]

Just now, Butero said:

There must be trend setters.  How do you think things changed for women?  They started out wearing men's jeans, so why not encourage brave men to be trend setters?  There is a separate issue here and that is the fact jeans are not feminine, anymore than a sun dress is masculine, so it is sin. 

So in the 16th century, when kilts were invented, it would have been a sin.  Is it still a sin to wear a kilt?  

[hmbld]

Just now, Butero said:

I am willing to concede skirts as possibly unisex just to take that off the table.

I don't care about the topic of kilts.  Just wondering how you can make the decision that it is a sin for a woman to wear pants.  

[hmbld]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

The same way Concerned Women For America knew it was wrong for Jessie to wear a "dream skirt." 

Maybe its late, but I'm not sure that is even an answer.  You are persistent, without giving any solid reasoning how you can determine pants are a sin.  

[hmbld]

Just now, Butero said:

1  Pants pertain to a man.

2  Pants are masculine.

3  Dresses pertain to a woman.

4  Dresses are feminine.

I agree dresses are feminine.  I disagree pants are masculine.  How do we determine this?

[MorningGlory]

29 minutes ago, Butero said:

I actually know a lady in Ohio who goes to a conservative church, and that is how she dresses all the time. 

She wears LEGGINGS to church?  Butero, are you sure?  Those things are skin tight; they are not modest attire at all.

[MorningGlory]

5 minutes ago, Butero said:

I was never suggesting they be worn without a dress. 

Okay, that's a relief; I misunderstood then.  Now, let me tell you what all women already know; grown women don't wear dresses with leggings, at least not out in public.  Or...if they do, I've never seen one.