Should gays be allowed to vote?

[estesbob]

We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. Most of the ‘gay agenda’ (or at least the big bullet points like marriage and discrimination) relies on the interpretation of existing law, which is the courts’ job. If the ‘agenda’ included ‘every homosexual gets a Ferrari courtesy of the government’, that’d require legislative action, not interpretive.

Most of the homosexual agenda is based on the assertion that sexual behavior deserves the same protected status as race, gender or country of national origin. This assertion is a patently racist propostion.

 

[estesbob]

I can’t believe you are truly serious about denying people their civil rights? Are you an American???

Have you read Tolkiens; “The Hobbit”? Remember the creatures that were deciding how to eat Bilbo who turned to stone when the sun came up? I think the OP should stay out of sunlgiht.

 

[redrosetea]

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about. I can’t stand Tolkien

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Actually, this tells me more about your prejudices than those from whom you were “expecting a different reaction.”

A prejudice is a judgment before getting the relevant facts. Considering I’ve been on this board for quite some time and have had read a lot of posts on homosexuality and the like, prejudice does not apply.

I was wrong and I am man enough to admit it, even though I was under no obligation to do so.

 

[Newbie2]

Reply to the premise of the poll:

It’s more productive talking about Hobbits. Now THEY shouldn’t be able to vote, for fear of the Hobbit agenda.

 

[rlg94086]

A prejudice is a judgment before getting the relevant facts. Considering I’ve been on this board for quite some time and have had read a lot of posts on homosexuality and the like, prejudice does not apply.

There was nothing wrong with my use of the word prejudice. Let me reword your paragraph to demonstrate:

“A prejudice is a judgment before getting the relevant facts. I’ve been around black people my whole life and am very familiar with the way they are, prejudice does not apply.”

Sound familiar? Your prejudice was evident, because you held (hold?) a stereotype about conservative Catholic posters on this forum. You assumed that people who believe homosexual acts are sins and are against Gay Marriage feel that people with homosexual desires are lesser people. There is only a very, very small group of people with that ignorant outlook.

LCMS_No_More:

I was wrong and I am man enough to admit it, even though I was under no obligation to do so.

I’m glad.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There was nothing wrong with my use of the word prejudice. Let me reword your paragraph to demonstrate:

“A prejudice is a judgment before getting the relevant facts. I’ve been around black people my whole life and am very familiar with the way they are, prejudice does not apply.”

Sound familiar? Your prejudice was evident, because you held (hold?) a stereotype about conservative Catholic posters on this forum. You assumed that people who believe homosexual acts are sins and are against Gay Marriage feel that people with homosexual desires are lesser people. There is only a very, very small group of people with that ignorant outlook.

False. Try again.

There are posts on this board about the homasexials that would peel paint if the anger, fear and hatred contained in them were bottled and applied. Interestingly, few people call the originators of said posts out on it. Other, more “conservative” posters tend to defend them. Some of the posts involve criminalizing “homophilia” (how do you criminalize an attraction?). Unfortunately, one of the most hate-filled threads has been conveniently deleted.

Either that or the search function on this board is broken. I remember a specific article about some lesbians forcing their way into a speech that has disappeared.

 

[rlg94086]

False. Try again.

There are posts on this board about the homasexials that would peel paint if the anger, fear and hatred contained in them were bottled and applied. Interestingly, few people call the originators of said posts out on it. Other, more “conservative” posters tend to defend them. Some of the posts involve criminalizing “homophilia” (how do you criminalize an attraction?). Unfortunately, one of the most hate-filled threads has been conveniently deleted.

Either that or the search function on this board is broken. I remember a specific article about some lesbians forcing their way into a speech that has disappeared.

You seem to be getting worked up again.

I haven’t denied that there are a small number of people who take positions contrary to the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality. Again, I charge that they are few in number, and I thought you had acknowledged by your “surprise” at the poll results that you thought (i.e. had a prejudiced view) the numbers in support of the OP would be higher.

By taking a small number of people and applying it to a group at large, you are doing the exact same thing that someone who has racial prejudices does. You are taking my comments as personally insulting. We all have some prejudices. We do well to try to control them. However, it helps to first acknowledge them first.

Maybe we need to set up a 12-step program:
“Hello, I am LCMS_No_More and I am a conservaphobe. I have been insult free for 3 posts.”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You seem to be getting worked up again.

I haven’t denied that there are a small number of people who take positions contrary to the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality. Again, I charge that they are few in number, and I thought you had acknowledged by your “surprise” at the poll results that you thought (i.e. had a prejudiced view) the numbers in support of the OP would be higher.

By taking a small number of people and applying it to a group at large, you are doing the exact same thing that someone who has racial prejudices does. You are taking my comments as personally insulting. We all have some prejudices. We do well to try to control them. However, it helps to first acknowledge them first.

Maybe we need to set up a 12-step program:
“Hello, I am LCMS_No_More and I am a conservaphobe. I have been insult free for 3 posts.”

Double standard.

You call ME out because you ASSUME that I am not a “conservative” (theologicall and morally, I am) but refuse to call others out who ARE and go beyond the line.

Typical.

Perhaps we need to set up a 12-step program: “Hello, I’m rlg94086 and I’m a liberalphobe.”

 

[rlg94086]

Double standard.

You call ME out because you ASSUME that I am not a “conservative” (theologicall and morally, I am) but refuse to call others out who ARE and go beyond the line.

Typical.

Perhaps we need to set up a 12-step program: “Hello, I’m rlg94086 and I’m a liberalphobe.”

Absolutely! I already stated that we all have prejudices…including me.

I didn’t assume anything about you regarding your “conservative” status. I’ve been reading your posts for a long time. IIRC, you have once described voting for a Republican as making you nauseous. Perhaps, I should have named your 12-step program neoconservataphobe or Bushophobe.

Besides that, when it comes to homosexual issues, I have consistently called people out when they are “beyond the line.” I believe in the Church’s teaching, as written in the Catechism, and completely reject those who wish to subject people with homosexual desires to “unjust discrimination.” Yet, I am a Bush supporter. The horror!

And, again, you seem to be getting worked up. It’s not healthy…you need to laugh more. Too much hatred will eat away at you.

 

[estesbob]

And, again, you seem to be getting worked up. It’s not healthy…you need to laugh more. Too much hatred will eat away at you.

Hi -my name is estesbob and I am a CAFaholic. my 11,686th post was 11 seconds ago…

 

[BlaineTog]

I think the assertion that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to vote is absurd on its face.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Absolutely! I already stated that we all have prejudices…including me.

I didn’t assume anything about you regarding your “conservative” status. I’ve been reading your posts for a long time. IIRC, you have once described voting for a Republican as making you nauseous. Perhaps, I should have named your 12-step program neoconservataphobe or Bushophobe.

Or perhaps I’m not a mammon-worshiper.

Besides that, when it comes to homosexual issues, I have consistently called people out when they are “beyond the line.” I believe in the Church’s teaching, as written in the Catechism, and completely reject those who wish to subject people with homosexual desires to “unjust discrimination.”

Good for you.

Yet, I am a Bush supporter. The horror!

And yet you apparently suffer from severe cognative dissonance.

And, again, you seem to be getting worked up. It’s not healthy…you need to laugh more. Too much hatred will eat away at you.

Not at all. In fact, I bet a I laught more than you do…and some on this very board would call that a sin…excess frivolity or some such.

 

[Exalt]

new awardwinner for dumbest poll

that’s it, I was all set to volunteer at the local elections board, but if we have to start testing for this, im outa there.

You think it’d be a dumb poll…

But as of 5 minutes ago, 10% people said they ought to not be able to vote.

Which is very, *very *disturbing.

A while back, I had a thread asking if homosexuality should be illegal. Before it got closed and hidden from public view, 30% of the responders said it should be. Compare that to a very similar sin, the lack of belief in God, and only 10% of responders said it should be illegal.

Prejudice? Oh yes. Don’t pretend there is none.

 

[Flopfoot]

It’s possible the 10% (of ‘no’ votes in this poll) was jokes or trolls.

Also I have no clue of what your definition of “very similar” is…

 

[BlaineTog]

You think it’d be a dumb poll…

But as of 5 minutes ago, 10% people said they ought to not be able to vote.

Which is very, *very *disturbing.

Not 10%. Five people. Though yeah, those five people are either their heads examined or are trolls (so they need their heads examined).

Prejudice? Oh yes. Don’t pretend there is none.

Oh sure, though please don’t think that this forum is representative of Catholics in general.

 

[RobHom]

As both a Catholic and a very “conservative” person…in fact I am so conservative that I think “neo-cons” are “wusses”… I personally think that any move or attempt to prevent “gays” from voting or running for office is illegal and unconstitutional. Face it folks, the US is a nation built and based on laws. At one time many groups of people were “disenfranchised”…and it was wrong, and has been proven wrong.

Any thought of restricting the right of any American citizen to vote is dangerous, and illegal. If it were possible to restrict one group’s right to vote based on any single or even multiple factor…such an activity once legalized would open a fatal Pandora’s Box…because before you could spell “it”…you would have multiple exclusions to rights to vote.

How would you feel if it was made “illegal” for Catholics to vote or run for office? Or if you are of another denomination and your right to vote was stripped away? Talk about falling off a precipice and sliding down a slippery slope!!

Whether or not you like or dislike gays and their lifestyle…they are US Citizens and have the right to vote and run for office. Your only recourse is to vote for another candidate.

 

[rpp]

I myself am very concerned about people who suffer from a very serious mental illnesses who vote. Their illness affects them in many ways and can often lead to irrational or unreasonable conclusions and actions. A sufferer of schizophrenia, a congenital mental disorder, for example, may allow his illness to get the better of him when selecting a candidate or deciding on an issue. A sexual deviant has a similar problem.

 

[BlaineTog]

I myself am very concerned about people who suffer from a very serious mental illnesses who vote. Their illness affects them in many ways and can often lead to irrational or unreasonable conclusions and actions. A sufferer of schizophrenia, a congenital mental disorder, for example, may allow his illness to get the better of him when selecting a candidate or deciding on an issue. A sexual deviant has a similar problem.

I find idiotic, small-minded, heard mentality, irresponsible, and bigoted voters concerning as well. I find it concerning that someone with no idea how the government actually works votes. Yet, this doesn’t mean we should prevent them from voting, because that’s not how democracy works.

 

[rpp]

I find idiotic, small-minded, heard mentality, irresponsible, and bigoted voters concerning as well. I find it concerning that someone with no idea how the government actually works votes. Yet, this doesn’t mean we should prevent them from voting, because that’s not how democracy works.

As one could tell from my post, I would agree with the assessment in your first two sentences. As for your last sentence, it would be more correct to say that is not how the republic in the USA works.

So much for my opinion. Now for some facts.

But keep in mind that there are are circumstances in when, in the USA, a person is legally disenfranchised. A person convicted of a felony and who is serving their sentence cannot vote. Neither can a person who is not a citizen of the USA.

Other countries, such as Japan, do not let people who have serious mental illness vote. In addition, each person much pass a basic civics test before being able to vote in Japan. Thus there is a precedent in another major country for not permitting those with serious mental illnesses, or who do not understand how their government works to vote.

The right to vote is not as absolute as you may think. It does not trump all considerations in all countries.