Arguments Against Women's Right to Vote.

Post Reply New Topic

Oh ... really?

Leviticus 20:13 clearly states: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Have you ever actually read the Bible?  Do you even own one?  Why are you misrepresenting what it says?

Leviticus 20:13 doesn't judge homosexuality (same sex attraction) which isn't considered a sin in Christianity which means it's possible to be a "homosexual" Christian. It only condemns the act of men lying with men which is considered a sin regardless of "orientation". One study found that 10% of men in the US slept with another man but only 2% identify as homosexual which means most of those men are "straight" (either they were just experimenting or did it in prison because women weren't available).

Gay people would count as independent singles just like heterosexual singles would. In fact, protected classes would have more an advantage since family votes would be concentrated into a single vote. Single parent homes and divorcees would also be better represented. Gays would actually have a political incentive NOT to get married since it would mean their vote would count more. Gays who ARE married...well, again there would be a strong possibility that as with married couple you’d expect solidarity.

With multigenerational homes it would come down to the head of the household. If you have two successive generations dependent on a matriarch, or if you have elderly dependents of a daughter who had dependents of her own, i.e. children or a disabled adult son or daughter, then she’s already making decisions on their behalf. It makes sense for her to represent her family in voting.

The point is not depriving anyone of representation. It’s just that it’s reasonable to assume solidarity within family units. A gay dependent should feel confident that the decisions his parents make on his behalf are the best decisions. An independent gay man is free to marry (at least in the USA) and start a family of his own.

I think that or a similar system would more adequately reflect attitudes and wishes of the people. But I think you might be right when it comes to implementation. There are drawbacks to both.

One of the reasons I'm not religious is because just about every major religion utterly sh_ts on women.

I don't accept that I'm less rational than men, less capable than men, or that I'm destined to be nothing but an incubator to spew out babies. I'm asexual and aromantic. I've never had sex with a man, and I never will, nor will I ever bear children. Whoever is offended by that can die mad about it.

One of the reasons I'm not religious is because just about every major religion utterly sh_ts on women.

I don't accept that I'm less rational than men, less capable than men, or that I'm destined to be nothing but an incubator to spew out babies. I'm asexual and aromantic. I've never had sex with a man, and I never will, nor will I ever bear children. Whoever is offended by that can die mad about it.

Good to see you posting XFG. I hope your Mom is doing as well as can be expected.

To all: Hicksite Quakers welcome all people, regardless. People of all genders are welcome and in my meeting we have had gay couples, Lesbian couples and at least one transgender individual. We married a gay couple. We also had a Canadian couple who were told by their original church that, as Japanese, they were not welcome after WWII broke out. The Quakers welcomed them and they stayed with Quakers the rest of their lives.

Granted, Quakers are not a major religion but most meetings are Christian.

To bring this back to the topic, Quakers have supported equal rights for women, and recognize Quaker women with a gift for ministering and leading (Quakers do not have a top down structure, no formal ministers, priests or pastors). Quakers do not vote in their meetings. Decisions are made by consensus and women have equal input. Quakers were active in the women's suffrage movement in America.

If we want to go all the way back to the OP, and why women should be denied the right to vote, it is to shut up those troublesome Quaker women.