Should gays be allowed to vote?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mister_De
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mister_De

Guest
By “rights” I mean gay marriage, adoption, etc.

Please state your opinion on the matter.
 
Mister_De said:
By “rights” I mean gay marriage, adoption, etc.

Please state your opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
I participated in this poll but I have to say that I think that the question is rather silly. Why in the world would a person’s sexual orientation be used to restrict his/her right, as a citizen, to vote? Should people who break the 2nd Commandment be denied the right to vote as well? :confused:
 
Mister_De said:
By “rights” I mean gay marriage, adoption, etc.

Please state your opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
Interesting question.

Personally, I think there shouldn’t be any restrictions on gay people adopting. I know there will be a lot of people who dissent with me, and I would be grateful to hear your opinion on the issue as well. But I still largely say it’s okay for homosexuals to adopt kids, as long as, like with any potential parent, they can provide the child with a home with a suitable atmosphere.

The thing is, if you allow homosexuals to adopt, it would create a demand for children. That, in turn, could help fight the problem of abortion.

Of course, this again doesn’t mean you should throw all caution out the window. If the potential parent is one who has one night stands all the time and stuff like that, straight or gay, adoption shouldn’t be an option until they get their act together.

To the original poster, if I can make a suggestion, I think you might want to re-formulate your post and poll into something more cohesive. I can see where you’re going with it, but you might want to take a little bit to polish it.
 
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.
 
The poll has a fundamental flaw:
poll:
Voting is their right too. A pro-gay rights candidate being elected is a risk we’ll have to take.
Click to expand...
Gays are only a small portion of the voters who support gay rights. Holding a witch hunt for gays will not significantly reduce support for such rights. Moreover, banning gay voters would likely increase support for gay rights since many voters would be repulsed by the oppression.
 
Next I suppose the government should deny the right to vote to everyone who fornicates outside of marriage so that no sexual sinners get to promote their “lifestyle” because there are a whole lot more heterosexuals in our society having sex before marriage or being adulterers by the sheer numbers. As has already been stated, someone could promote the so-called “gay agenda” without being same-sex attracted or actively living a “gay lifestyle” themselves.

If all sinners are denied the vote, the polls will be a lonely place.
 
That is really an asinine question. It’s called inalienable rights, and they are for everyone, not just the popular people or the elite few.

Only Christians should have the right to vote and be citizens is a bunch of nonsense.
 
I must say that I’m pleasantly surprised by the responses so far. I was expecting a different reaction.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
I must say that I’m pleasantly surprised by the responses so far. I was expecting a different reaction.
Click to expand...
I’m actually not surprised. There’re a lot of reactionaries here, yes, but they’re nothing if not consistent: ‘representative government’ means ‘representative government’. It isn’t a perfect system, it may not always do what they want, they may really want to change things, but they do play fair, most of them.
 
Yes, democratic decisions in their entirety are a risk we’ll have to take by allowing (most) all people to vote - our moral compass is only as good as the mob mentality driving it. That’s why Christ established a monarchy 😉
 
I didn’t vote because there isn’t a “what the heck??!” option. The question is ridiculous.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
I must say that I’m pleasantly surprised by the responses so far. I was expecting a different reaction.
Click to expand...
Actually, this tells me more about your prejudices than those from whom you were “expecting a different reaction.”
 
Personally I think only Latin Mass loving traditionalist Catholics should be allowed to vote or hold office. Better yet, they should be allowed to own everyone else as slaves as well, the better to bring them to the “true” faith. :hypno:
 
Mirdath said:
I’m actually not surprised. There’re a lot of reactionaries here, yes, but they’re nothing if not consistent: ‘representative government’ means ‘representative government’. It isn’t a perfect system, it may not always do what they want, they may really want to change things, but they do play fair, most of them.
Click to expand...
Although have problems with most of the so called homosexual rights agenda I have no complaints as long as they are voted in-not imposed by the courts.
 
estesbob said:
Although have problems with most of the so called homosexual rights agenda I have no complaints as long as they are voted in-not imposed by the courts.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mister_De said:
By “rights” I mean gay marriage, adoption, etc.

Please state your opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
I need a little bit more information before I can answer:
  1. Are the gays in question US citizens?
  2. Are the gays in question convicted felons?
Your answers, on the other hand, need a world more clarification – as they are based on a logical fallacy.

*Yes - Voting is their right too. A pro-gay rights candidate being elected is a risk we’ll have to take. No - As Christians, we must do anything we can to make sure pro-gay rights candidates stay out of office.
*
This implies that if gays are not able to vote, then no candidate on the ballot would be pro-gay rights. That just simply doesn’t follow.

Gays only make up somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of the population, depending upon which study you look at (along with the political agenda of the studier). In other words, they don’t make up a large enough percentage of the population to really be able to influence elections, one way or the other, even if they voted as a block. Liberals, on the other hand, make up between 30 and 40 percent of the population. If liberals weren’t able to vote, then I’d see that pro-gay-rights candidates would never be on the ballot. But that wasn’t your question.

So if you can clarify your question and remove the logical fallacy from your answers, I’ll be more than happy to vote in your poll.
 
I can’t believe you are truly serious about denying people their civil rights? Are you an American???:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top