Suppose we had two presidential candidates who were identical on issues you care about (both pro-life, good views on marriage, etc.) both of decent moral character.One was a man. One was a woman. Experience was similar.If the only real difference was gender, would you vote for the man or the woman? Would you vote for the woman so she could be the first woman president of the US? Would you vote for the man to have a male president? Please explain your answer.20 points.(I just gave an exam, so I thought I’d add that last bit to stay in exam mode for exam week.________________
This ‘ere feller splains it like it is: don’t git yaself sa worked up about a prez what grabs women’s personal parts; what ya ort ta be worried about is a prez what HAS a woman’s personal part.www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoeyYk1XF74
I was thinking of a general election________________
If they were identical in everything but gender, I would say we were in some kind of alternate universe. Just don’t happen.But since we are in your alternate universe:
I just wanted an honest response. I thought about using ‘alternate universe’ myself earlier in the thread.I’d choose a man if all things else seemed equal, and a mature man over a less mature one.Isaiah 3:12Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.Some people might choose the woman so there would be a woman president________________
I’d vote for the woman. Simply because I seldom do what’s expected.
I can’t imagine 2 parties offering the same good candidate with the only differences being their gender. I would vote for whichever one represented a party that was more likely to be conservative. I know you’re trying to see who would vote for someone simply because they were a man, I’m sure there are a lot of those around, I’m not one.
I see you TRIED to use the same prooftext as the guy in the video I linked to. Honestly he struck me as a person who would take one or two prooftexts, run with them without studying any of the background and without looking at the whole counsel of scripture.But maybe you were being a little prophetic with your reference without realizing it because the actual text of Isaiah 2:12says
The OP was trying to make a point that when all things are equal you should vote for the man because that’s the Biblical answer.Thus the prooftext. It’s sad really.
If all things were equal – and there were two men running – and one was black and one was white, who would you vote for?If one was Hispanic and one was black.If one was Muslim and one was Mormon________________
If their views were identical, I would probably go for the woman for the novelty. She could be a great role model for women. However, no matter how you slice it, men and women do act differently. That said, I would love to have the iron lady as President of the US. Or Condalezza Rice. Women in leadership are put in a difficult role. If they try to come off as not feminine, they are criticized, if they are feminine, they are emotional. Striking the balance is difficult and the key is to be themselves. The Iron Lady displayed strength and warmth, a great counterpart to Reagan of the same era.
Re: prooftexting!
I don’t know what you are talking about.I must have hit 2 instead of 3. I’ll have to fix that________________
is obviously trying to get all you Hillary fans who say you are CoG to admit you are voting AGAINST Biblical principles, your hypocrisy is showing.
I don’t really have a problem with a qualified woman president. I’ve had some woman bosses that were quite proficient in their position. I would venture to say that a woman political leader is less disputed among some Christians than a clerical position because of the judge, Deborah (who by the way was also a prophetess).