Arguments Against Women's Right to Vote.

Post Reply New Topic

Nowadays?!

No you couldn't assume that.

And are we really expectiing modern women to be the ones not to vote if that's the system? Not the women and men I know...

What about gay people?

Multi generation households?

People who live with house mates?

Stupid system, just give every adult the right to vote.

Actually, Christianity is based on all 66 books of the Bible (more if you count the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha), with Jesus and his teachings at the core.

But just because Jesus treated his mother like any Palestinian man of the day would treat a woman ("What would you have me do, woman?  You know it is not my time.") as a "weaker vessel" in need of direction, instruction, and someone to take care of them ("Behold your mother" / "Behold your son"), that does NOT mean that women of today have no means or motivation to think for themselves and cast their own votes.

Using religion to justify slavery and oppression is something that I would expect of people less educated than yourself.

Christianity is based on the worship of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, mostly.

... and from where do we get the "Creation Story", the "Promised Land Story", and the "Christ Story", including prophesies and commentaries?

Hint: The same place we get our custom of denying women their rights.

A 66 book bible didn't exist until Lutheranism was founded over 1,500 years after Christ. Christianity is based on the divine and unchanging teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church founded by Jesus 2,000 years ago on the foundation of Peter. Christians believe that church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:16). The church didn't settle upon the canon of scripture until the late 4th century. That canon had 73 books. Christian bibles have contained the same 73 books ever since.



Are you saying Jesus was sexist or a misogynist? Christians believe Jesus is God and that what God says is far superior to human wisdom and reasoning. Of course, anyone is free to believe whatever feels right to them but it's not Christianity that they're following.

I never claimed women have no means or motivation to think for themselves. There are many good reasons why I, and nearly everyone throughout history up until 100 years ago, believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Unfortunately, I can't share them because this forum doesn't tolerate anyone disagreeing with liberal ideology on this topic.



Teaching women to have morals and accept their God given role is not oppression. I realize morality, humility, and submission to God and their husbands isn't popular today but it's still part of being a Christian.

No, the reason they would not be allowed on this website is because those ideas are regressive, repressive, and misogynistic, and rank right down there with keeping women barefoot and pregnant so that they will stay at home while serving their master-husbands.

Equating a woman's submission to her husband with moral behavior is an expression of hateful sexist ideology that has been holding women back for thousands of years.

Somehow reminds me of when Baptists and Mormons used the bible to justify slavery and racism.

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.

... and the Catholics ... and the Puritans ... et cetera ...

Did you know that even past Popes have had slaves -- black African slaves from Mali?

Does not surprise me.

It shouldn't, because it is just as much a part of history as the fact that many past Popes also kept some as "mistresses" and produced offspring of their own.

The 66 book Bible existed long before Jan Hus (Moravian Church) and Martin Luther. The issue of what was to be included as holy scripture was supposedly started by the first council at Nicaea in AD 325, as well as the concept of the triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), which this point was driven.nome in the creed written by Athanasius of Alexandria in the text Quicunque Vult.

The Mormon church didn’t allow black members until 1977.

So some of us can agree that the bible has been used for centuries to justify everything from racism, sexism, and homophobia.

The Bible has been used to...

Justify American independence from Britain, and...to justify continued American loyalty to the crown.

And to justify...

The abolition of slavery, and...to justify the continued existence of slavery.

And to justify

The Spanish American war, and to justify opposing the Spanish American War.

And to justify..

Women's sufferage, and to oppose women's sufferage.

and to justify

The labor movement. And to oppose the labor movement, and to support management.

and to support...

The Black Civil Rights Movement/integration, and to oppose the Black Civil Rights movement (and to justify segregation).


And so on...

In the US the Bible has been used to cut both ways. There is a whole book about that entitled "The Bible Tells Me So" about how opposing sides have always used scripture since the nation's founding.

I am sure there are preachers who cite scripture to condemn Greta Thunberg, and others citing scripture to praise Greta Thunberg, both as we speak!

The bible has a lot of contradictions. On one hand it tells you to love your neighbor, on the other hand it says to kill homosexuals and witches.