[potatolicious]

> "then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote."

Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please.

Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels.

It's funny that, further up the thread, someone suggested than Libertarian arguments against the seatbelt center around the notion that, once legislated, nothing potentially better than the seatbelt could ever be tried, thanks to the heavy hand of government. It's egregiously incongruent to hear that argument, and hear another that suggests the permanent muzzling of 50% of the population would lead to a better world.

[tomjen3]

When I am against given them the right to vote it is because I don't consider those areas as something that the government should take care of.

Think gay marriages -- should that really be something the government can decide? Or should the individual church be able to decide what they want to do?