Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/31/2004 11:25:45 AM EST
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.

This is based upon my understanding of the difference in the roles to be carried out in life by men and women, as derived from my understanding of the Bible and its teachings. For what it's worth, it's not one of my stronger beliefs. I probably haven't yet properly pondered the matter.

I would, however, like to say that I genuinely appreciate that there are many, many women capable of making informed decisions, as much so if not moreso than many men.

However, I do not wish to use this thread to discuss the issue of whether women should have to vote.

As it is, women do, in the US, have the right to vote.

So, here is the question:

Even though in a perfect world, women would not be responsible for voting (or even involved in the process), in our own country, women many decades ago secured the right to vote.

This being the case.........

Do women now, considering the circumstances, have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote?

That is the question.

I've always felt that men had the right to vote, and naturally were responsible for doing so.

So...if women have the right to vote.....am I right to believe women should be responsible for voting?

I realize that nobody is LEGALLY responsible to vote, however, I believe we do have a moral obligation to vote. Do women have this same obligation?



P.S.
This thread is an extension of an earlier conversation I had w/ a female who had decided Kerry was not worth voting for, yet her daddy always told her republicans were bad, therefore she had decided that she just wasn't going to vote.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:32:24 AM EST
you should take up drinking
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:35:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.

Hey, thanks for saving me the time of reading the rest. What a moron.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:35:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:
you should take up drinking



+1

People just don't realize how many problems this can solve!
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:42:38 AM EST

Do women now, considering the circumstances, have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote?


Do most men?

<­BR>



+ 3 for dinking
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:42:47 AM EST
I think if we're going to be completely free and equal, then women should be forced to register for the draft just like men.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:46:32 AM EST
This is going to be good.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:49:30 AM EST
Stop hitting yourself bro.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:50:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Power:
This is going to be good.



Oh, I know....but it IS a serious question, just for the record.

Again, if:

1) Men are responsible to vote
2) women are not

yet
3) women gain the legal right to vote

then

Should women bear the same responsibility for our elections that men do?

(Hey, guys, don't get me wrong...I'm not starting a campaign to end women's suffrage)
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:51:01 AM EST
I don't think it so much women as it is emotion that creates problems when voting. One should not let his(or her) emotions dictate how they will vote. Logic and an understanding of the issues should be your guide, not raw emotion. IF you look at "gun control" on pure logic then none of the laws that have been passed would have ever gotten a single vote. If, on the other hand you play to the emotions of the situation then you can talk people into passing just about any stupid law that you'd care to bring up. Now the big problem comes because women, for the most part, are emotional creatures. If they can learn to use their brains and not their hearts when voting we'd all be a lot better off.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:52:34 AM EST
"End women's suffrage" - The Man Show.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:52:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I don't think it so much women as it is emotion that creates problems when voting. One should not let his(or her) emotions dictate how they will vote. Logic and an understanding of the issues should be your guide, not raw emotion. IF you look at "gun control" on pure logic then none of the laws that have been passed would have ever gotten a single vote. If, on the other hand you play to the emotions of the situation then you can talk people into passing just about any stupid law that you'd care to bring up. Now the big problem comes because women, for the most part, are emotional creatures. If they can learn to use their brains and not their hearts when voting we'd all be a lot better off.



I think the whole 'emotion' thing may explain why women weren't given the role of teachers or preachers in the New Testament.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:57:10 AM EST
Hey buddy, the Dark Ages called, they want you back.

While I agree, Women have terrible voting records, so do men. You think we didn't have political fiascos and problems before women could vote? Come on man, wake up. This is America.

Women have a moral obligation to vote because they are free to do so, i.e. the right is theirs and they should execute it to preserve it, just like every male should. Whether or not they are mentally fit to do so, is a different issue.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:59:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:
Hey buddy, the Dark Ages called, they want you back.

While I agree, Women have terrible voting records, so do men. You think we didn't have political fiascos and problems before women could vote? Come on man, wake up. This is America.

Women have a moral obligation to vote because they are free to do so, i.e. the right is theirs and they should execute it to preserve it, just like every male should. Whether or not they are mentally fit to do so, is a different issue.




This is the type of response I was hoping for.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:01:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.





+1

The whole 'emotion' thing gets in the way BIG TIME!

On the other hand Men should only have the right to vote if they are 'Land Owners' just like our Foundings Fauthers intended!
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:03:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By GC456:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.





+1

The whole 'emotion' thing gets in the way BIG TIME!

On the other hand Men should only have the right to vote if they are 'Land Owners' just like our Foundings Fauthers intended!



Um.....after decades and decades of not needing land ownership as a prerequisite for voting, I think that one's a lost cause.

And I didn't agree with that one either. I think 'citizen in good standing' should have been sufficient.

I could be wrong.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:05:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By GC456:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.





+1

The whole 'emotion' thing gets in the way BIG TIME!

On the other hand Men should only have the right to vote if they are 'Land Owners' just like our Foundings Fauthers intended!



I agree with that. If you don't own property, then fuck you. No, I'm not being sarcastic. I also think that there ought to be a basic course of instruction approximately equal to a modern college government class, with a passing grade required, to vote.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:06:30 PM EST
I would prefer it if liberals decided not to vote, and instead stayed home to watch the Lifetime channel. They are better suited to that.

But in general, if you cannot even name the candidates, or explain their positions at reasonable length, you have a moral obligation not to vote. That goes for men and women alike. I suspect if the ignorant just stayed home, we'd have very few leftists ever elected.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:08:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By QuietShootr:
I also think that there ought to be a basic course of instruction approximately equal to a modern college government class, with a passing grade required, to vote.



This has merit even without regard to voting. I hate when some reporter says that the American people know how the system works and can make a right decision.

BULLSHIT!

Most Americans have NO CLUE how the government works and have never even bothered to read the Constitution.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:08:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By GC456:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.





+1

The whole 'emotion' thing gets in the way BIG TIME!

On the other hand Men should only have the right to vote if they are 'Land Owners' just like our Foundings Fauthers intended!



Um.....after decades and decades of not needing land ownership as a prerequisite for voting, I think that one's a lost cause.

And I didn't agree with that one either. I think 'citizen in good standing' should have been sufficient.

I could be wrong.



Wow that is a much nicer responce than I was anticipating

My true belief is that the Founding Fauthers put this and a heck of alot other things in place for reasons somtimes I don't even understand.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:10:48 PM EST
Should post-op transsexuals be able to be involved in politics?
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:55:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 12:59:19 PM EST by TRW]
I don't want to stereotype but I have never heard the following comments concerning voting come out of a mans mouth. I have heard them come out of a womans mouth though:

"I voted for him because he was the better looking of the two candidates"

"I voted for him because he looked more presidential"

It is not a political thing. In all fairness, I have also heard the following comments come from womens mouths:

"I bought the Yugo because it was red and red is my favorite color"

"I didn't think you had to check or change the oil"

I'm not advocating that women shouldn't vote, just that stupid, uninformed people of either sex shouldn't vote.

Also, I think people should have to pass a simple civics test to vote in a federal election. Just a few simple questions:

How many branches of federal government are there and name them?
Who is the governor of your state?
Who is your congressman/woman?
Who is your senator?

Also, I like George Orwells idea of some people being more equal than others. Lets apply that to voting:

Everyone mentally sound over the age of 21 gets one vote.
Veterans get an additional vote.
People gainfully employed and paying taxes get an additional vote.
Land/property owners get an additional vote.

No more than 4 votes per person maximum. This means that whiney liberals will have to serve in the military, work, and own property, to get their full four votes. Many already do, but just as many, it seems, do not.

Just an interesting theory to bat about before the election.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:05:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 1:07:49 PM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:11:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By GC456:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.





+1

The whole 'emotion' thing gets in the way BIG TIME!

On the other hand Men should only have the right to vote if they are 'Land Owners' just like our Foundings Fauthers intended!



If my house is worth twice what yours is (trust me that's just a hypothetical) do I get two votes? How about if my buddy sells me 2 square feet of cornfield on his farm, but I live in an apartment in the city, do I get a vote then?

So if a woman is a nuclear physicist she shouldn't be able to vote but some drunk, wife beating bum can if he's a guy? How about if we do it by IQ tests or SAT scores? We don't want dumb people voting do we?

How about by income? One vote for every $ 30k of yearly income?



these are all almost workable as long as a maximum number of votes per person is enforced, like the number 4 mentioned above.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:19:33 PM EST

Women and Voting, a serious question....


Oh, I thought that the title was "Women and Vomiting, a serious question...."

Sorry.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:20:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:
you should take up drinking



+1

People just don't realize how many problems this can solve!



+2
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:26:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By TexRdnec:
you should take up drinking



+1

People just don't realize how many problems this can solve!



Is that what your girlfriend told you to say?

<­BR>

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:28:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 1:31:22 PM EST by Dino]
there is a story that I can't remember the title of where they give out multiple votes based on education. I think it might have been by Mark Twain.

seeing if I can find it now eta: here it is The Curious Republic of Gondour

p.s. women have the same responsibilities as men when it comes to any civic duty.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 2:29:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 2:31:12 PM EST by SNorman]

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.

Hey, thanks for saving me the time of reading the rest. What a moron.



Women getting "involved" in politics is one of the top worst things that ever happened to this country. "That guy has cool hair and he says he's 'pro-woman'" (i.e. a sleazebag liar douchebag who never would have got elected normally, but since it's so easy to lie to women he now has a chance) "I'll vote for HIM!! he he ".

Some women of course take offense to this. But even though there are women who actually know what is going on in politics and who they are voting for, this only accounts for a very small percentage of the women who vote.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 3:48:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:
there is a story that I can't remember the title of where they give out multiple votes based on education. I think it might have been by Mark Twain.

seeing if I can find it now eta: here it is The Curious Republic of Gondour

p.s. women have the same responsibilities as men when it comes to any civic duty.



Sounds damn near perfect to me.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:10:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 2:23:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

How about by income? One vote for every $ 30k of yearly income?



any system where the chronically unemployed can elect leaders who will take money from productive members of society and give it to them is doomed to eventual failure. (put more simply "why work when you can elect someone who will give you money?")

If you pay taxes, you can vote.

If you don't, then get a job, then you can vote.



Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:35:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:

Originally Posted By QuietShootr:
I agree with that. If you don't own property, then fuck you. No, I'm not being sarcastic. I also think that there ought to be a basic course of instruction approximately equal to a modern college government class, with a passing grade required, to vote.



While it's not college level, the instruction you are referring to is high school government or civics class. EVERYONE in the U.S. is entitled to attend. They must get a passing grade to graduate from high school.

What a person does with education and information that is offered to them is UP TO THEM.

As for the founding fathers wanting only land owners to vote, the premise is quite simple. A person who is INVESTED in this country i.e. a landowner would feel a greater sense of responsibility towards the successful development of this country over, say, a transient who was just passing through.

arowneragain,

I know you don't want this to denegrate into a discussion about women's rights but I have to ask... where in the world are you pulling the position that women shouldn't vote out of the Bible? The Bible says a woman should submit to her HUSBAND but also reinforces that the husband should show deference to his wife's input.

The Bible was not written in a democratic environment. Voting as we know it did not exist. You're comparing apples to oranges and declaring it a pear.

The right to vote in America has more to do with having a vested interest in the well-being of this country which is now defined by citizenship as opposed to land ownership.

I agree that a person should be educated about the electoral process and should be familiar with the candidates and the issues. However, apathy regarding the race is not gender-based.

At this point, I'd like to point out that offering women an education wasn't even considered necessary until fairly recently in our collective history. This was a decision made by men. If a person is not encouraged to learn about issues then how would one make a decision? Perhaps it would be on "feelings"? Maybe we should look at the possibility that women ARE genetically predisposed to be more emotional and that the PATRIARCHAL society that we live in has actually encouraged this thought process by limiting the opportunites to gain objective information on social subjects. Hmmmm??

Oh... and by the way.... your claim about women not being teachers or preachers in the New Testament having to do with their tendency towards being emotional creatures is crap, Einstein. WOMEN WEREN'T GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET AN EDUCATION BACK THEN. Again, by men. So, um... you were saying???

But that's just my feeling....

But now... today... women are offered the same educational opportunites as men (for the most part) and YES we do bear a responsibility to vote, to shape the future of our country and have an input on where we are going and how we are going to get there.

BTW, if we were going back to the aforementioned system of being given votes for mentally sound citizens over 21, landownership, military service and being a gainfully employed and tax-paying citizen, I would max out at 4 votes. How many of y'all can say that??



Ma'am, I didn't shout at you.

I'd humbly ask that you get your, ahem, emotions, under control.

Don't make my point for me.

FWIW, I was emjoying your post...up to a point.

And you and I arguing the Bible might be akin to teaching a pig to sing. One of us is going to waste our time, the other will be annoyed.

But if you'd like a civil discussion, I'd welcome it with open arms.

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:39:44 AM EST
I thought her response was well thought out with very little emotion coming into play.

Perhaps its your emotional filter that makes it appear that way?

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:49:07 AM EST
Yeah, but you missed the point. Miss Magnum is supposed to be seen and not heard, to submit to the patriarchy. We can't have women speaking their minds!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 5:55:59 AM EST
I follow politics
Wife raises kids and grandkids

I have had two votes for the last 25 years

GM
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:16:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Merrell:


any system where the chronically unemployed can elect leaders who will take money from productive members of society and give it to them is doomed to eventual failure. (put more simply "why work when you can elect someone who will give you money?")

If you pay taxes, you can vote.

If you don't, then get a job, then you can vote.






Ding, Ding, We have a winner!

Or how about this, you get a government handout, you don't get a vote.


Alexander Tyler, (in his 1770 book, 'Cycle of Democracy' )

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a lousy fiscal
responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years.
These nations have progressed in this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage"

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:27:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 6:31:20 AM EST by spitfire17]

Originally Posted By the:
I would prefer it if liberals decided not to vote, and instead stayed home to watch the Lifetime channel. They are better suited to that.

But in general, if you cannot even name the candidates, or explain their positions at reasonable length, you have a moral obligation not to vote. That goes for men and women alike. I suspect if the ignorant just stayed home, we'd have very few leftists ever elected.



+1

As a woman (of course voting for Bush) and as educated as I can be on the issues (research) I have to agree with the above comments. The problem with emotions ruling is on both sides, male and female in my opinion. I may be moody on occasion but I have had months to determine who to vote for - of course it was easy for me - I'll keep my anti-Kerry comments to myself. he
As for women being part of a draft. I see your point but I have to say that if I were a man in a combat situation, I would not want to be side by side with a random woman who was drafted. I myself wouldn't mind being drafted, but I am weaker than any male counterpart. So I would hope that I would be in a situation where that wasn't an issue. Women would quickly be 'your weakest link in a physical strength situation. I want to be careful here and not generalize too much because there are some seriously tough women out there!


Originally Posted By TRW:
I don't want to stereotype but I have never heard the following comments concerning voting come out of a mans mouth. I have heard them come out of a womans mouth though:

"I voted for him because he was the better looking of the two candidates"

"I voted for him because he looked more presidential"

It is not a political thing. In all fairness, I have also heard the following comments come from womens mouths:

"I bought the Yugo because it was red and red is my favorite color"

"I didn't think you had to check or change the oil"

I'm not advocating that women shouldn't vote, just that stupid, uninformed people of either sex shouldn't vote.

Also, I think people should have to pass a simple civics test to vote in a federal election. Just a few simple questions:

How many branches of federal government are there and name them?
Who is the governor of your state?
Who is your congressman/woman?
Who is your senator?






I agree that uninformed of either sex shouldn't vote, go tell that to Puffy Daddy. Blah!
I am also sorry you have run into the above statements from women. I can't address that other than to say you are right and they are stupid. he
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:39:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:
While it's not college level, the instruction you are referring to is high school government or civics class. EVERYONE in the U.S. is entitled to attend. They must get a passing grade to graduate from high school.



That's funny, because I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and I never took that class.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 6:41:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:
While it's not college level, the instruction you are referring to is high school government or civics class. EVERYONE in the U.S. is entitled to attend. They must get a passing grade to graduate from high school.



That's funny, because I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and I never took that class.



I'm halfway through an MBA and the only gov't class I ever took was in HS, and it was worthless. Taught by a rabid anti-gun, anti-hunting democrat, as a matter of fact.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:16:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By QuietShootr:

Originally Posted By GC456:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.





+1

The whole 'emotion' thing gets in the way BIG TIME!

On the other hand Men should only have the right to vote if they are 'Land Owners' just like our Foundings Fauthers intended!



I agree with that. If you don't own property, then fuck you. No, I'm not being sarcastic. I also think that there ought to be a basic course of instruction approximately equal to a modern college government class, with a passing grade required, to vote.



Sorry, couldn't make it through the whole thread without posting a reply to this first.

I strongly disagree with property ownership as a pre-requisite to voting. Think about the sheer number of current voters you would be alienating. Why? They are otherwise productive members of society. They work, they pay taxes, they serve in the military, they raise future generations of America, and they RENT an apartment or house because, at least for now, they simply can't afford to buy one. (Or hell, for some, including myself a couple years ago, spent so much time traveling on business, that I literally lived in hotels. I was NEVER home, so why buy a house I'll never see?)

So, while the founding fathers may have intended it that way, you have to remember that they founded our government in an agricultural society. America is no longer an agriculturally domminent society. Thus owning land in order to vote is a bit much in these times if you ask me. (which you didn't, but I answered anyway)

For the original question about women being responsible for voting:

Absolutely. Women "fought" long and hard to gain "equal rights." They wanted to vote. They wanted to serve in the military. They wanted economic "equality." etc, etc, etc.
Well, guess what? Now, for the most part they have all that. (Yes I know the feminists will say we still aren't equal, but that's a whole other thread and I don't want to hijack this one.)

You are given a right. It's yours. No one can take it from you, but with that right comes responsibility. Any right for that matter. So I say women are just as responsible for voting as men are.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:37:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:43:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:48:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:
While it's not college level, the instruction you are referring to is high school government or civics class. EVERYONE in the U.S. is entitled to attend. They must get a passing grade to graduate from high school.



That's funny, because I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and I never took that class.



I'm halfway through an MBA and the only gov't class I ever took was in HS, and it was worthless. Taught by a rabid anti-gun, anti-hunting democrat, as a matter of fact.



Fly-Navy,

You should have taken it in HIGH SCHOOL, not college, unless you were a poly-sci major. I believe it is a requirement for a diploma in the U.S. I would be curious to know what HS is not teaching government or civics.

arowneragain,

You basically proved my own point... the opportunity was there, it just appears you weren't that motivated of a student. I grew up in Northern California... try telling me about rabid Democratic teachers.

Personally, I asked questionsand pointed out other points of view. I read books outside of the required curriculum. When it came time to give speeches, I asked to give a special presentation both semesters. Yes, I was THAT much of a dork.

Education is available. What you do with it is up to you.



You said it!



Kidding of course. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders. Wish I could say the same about others. (women and men actually)
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:53:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Fly-Navy:

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:
While it's not college level, the instruction you are referring to is high school government or civics class. EVERYONE in the U.S. is entitled to attend. They must get a passing grade to graduate from high school.



That's funny, because I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and I never took that class.



I'm halfway through an MBA and the only gov't class I ever took was in HS, and it was worthless. Taught by a rabid anti-gun, anti-hunting democrat, as a matter of fact.



Fly-Navy,

You should have taken it in HIGH SCHOOL, not college, unless you were a poly-sci major. I believe it is a requirement for a diploma in the U.S. I would be curious to know what HS is not teaching government or civics.

arowneragain,

You basically proved my own point... the opportunity was there, it just appears you weren't that motivated of a student. I grew up in Northern California... try telling me about rabid Democratic teachers.

Personally, I asked questionsand pointed out other points of view. I read books outside of the required curriculum. When it came time to give speeches, I asked to give a special presentation both semesters. Yes, I was THAT much of a dork.

Education is available. What you do with it is up to you.



Ummm....how does it appear that way? Did it ever occur to you that some of us don't feel the need to constantly beat our political chests about our expolits as junior republican truth-seekers in our younger days? I DID argue the truth with the old geezer. Didn't see how that was relevant here.

Give me some credit, and I'll give you some.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:53:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
First, let me state that I do *NOT* believe women should be involved in politics.

This is based upon my understanding of the difference in the roles to be carried out in life by men and women, as derived from my understanding of the Bible and its teachings. For what it's worth, it's not one of my stronger beliefs. I probably haven't yet properly pondered the matter.

I would, however, like to say that I genuinely appreciate that there are many, many women capable of making informed decisions, as much so if not moreso than many men.

However, I do not wish to use this thread to discuss the issue of whether women should have to vote.

As it is, women do, in the US, have the right to vote.

So, here is the question:

Even though in a perfect world, women would not be responsible for voting (or even involved in the process), in our own country, women many decades ago secured the right to vote.

This being the case.........

Do women now, considering the circumstances, have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote?

That is the question.

I've always felt that men had the right to vote, and naturally were responsible for doing so.

So...if women have the right to vote.....am I right to believe women should be responsible for voting?

I realize that nobody is LEGALLY responsible to vote, however, I believe we do have a moral obligation to vote. Do women have this same obligation?
P.S.
This thread is an extension of an earlier conversation I had w/ a female who had decided Kerry was not worth voting for, yet her daddy always told her republicans were bad, therefore she had decided that she just wasn't going to vote.




Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:57:06 AM EST
You're judging your basis on whether women are responsible enough to vote based on one conversation with one woman. If I can find no reason why I would want either candidate in office I will not vote. If I don't feel confident about a candidate I feel I have no business voting for either one with an eeney meenie miney moe. If she cannot find a just reason to vote for either candidate, she can sit out the election. Better that than have her vote for the wrong candidate! Men have the same option.

Now let me also say......I have no problem being enlisted in the draft should it come to it. If my country needs to call on me for service in the armed forces I would go willingly. I hope it doesn't come to that, as I have my daughter to raise, but I'll do what is required of me for my country.

And as for the rest of your comments and why you even bothered to post this here......




Male chauvanist pig!



Link Posted: 11/1/2004 7:59:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:02:35 AM EST
Interesting topic. I've thought about this before and I figured if I had my way, only married couples with children who own property, would be allowed to vote. My thought is that they have the most vested in the future of our society and are most likely to create an orderly and productive, morally fit society. The uneducated and poor should not be allowed to vote as they have nothing productive to offer society. But I guess disqualifying non tax payers is a good start, as it eliminates a lot of people that shouldn't vote anyway.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:05:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Miss_Magnum:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
Ma'am, I didn't shout at you.

I'd humbly ask that you get your, ahem, emotions, under control.

Don't make my point for me.

FWIW, I was emjoying your post...up to a point.

And you and I arguing the Bible might be akin to teaching a pig to sing. One of us is going to waste our time, the other will be annoyed.

But if you'd like a civil discussion, I'd welcome it with open arms.



Who was shouting? It certainly wasn't me. I use capital letters to place emphasis on words, just as I would if we were speaking. But it's definately not yelling.

You're asking me to get my emotions under control but that was nowhere near an emotional arguement. In fact, if you notice the smilie... that was sarcasm when I was referring to how I "felt."

As well, where was I making your point for you?

I am not arguing the Bible. I asked you for your references and you haven't submitted any. In fact, you infer "I" would be opposed to a civil discussion and yet you intimate that I have no knowledge whatsoever of what I speak. When did calling someone stupid constitute civil??

Forgive me but you are not the only person on the Earth to have read the Bible or attended Bible study. I, as are all of us, am still learning about God and the Bible but I am not a stranger to the good book.



If you weren't shouting, then it appears that I was mistaken.

With that, I suppose it would be appropriate to give my views on where, how, and why the Bible teaches that women shold stay out of politics.

Gimme a little while. I'm kinda having a busy day at work right now.

I can't type out a 10-page reply at the moment....
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 8:11:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By HeldHostage:
You're judging your basis on whether women are responsible enough to vote based on one conversation with one woman. If I can find no reason why I would want either candidate in office I will not vote. If I don't feel confident about a candidate I feel I have no business voting for either one with an eeney meenie miney moe. If she cannot find a just reason to vote for either candidate, she can sit out the election. Better that than have her vote for the wrong candidate! Men have the same option.

Now let me also say......I have no problem being enlisted in the draft should it come to it. If my country needs to call on me for service in the armed forces I would go willingly. I hope it doesn't come to that, as I have my daughter to raise, but I'll do what is required of me for my country.

And as for the rest of your comments and why you even bothered to post this here......




Male chauvanist pig!






No, not judging anything based on one person. And thanks for your comments (except that last part...forgive me for having beliefs, even if they're unpopular).
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top