Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Republican Infidelity
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 25, 2009 at 4:20 pm #670536
JoBParticipantJenV…
though the democratic party platform is not against same sex marriage.. it is not exactly for it either…
and the latest “first step” towards equalization giving gay federal foreign service employees stationed outside the United States the right to compassionate leave and access to medical transport for their same sex partners is a far cry from granting those same partners medical benefits… or legal spousal rights…
both i believe within the personal jurisdiction of our sitting president.
as is a supposedly active policy of don’t ask don’t tell a far cry from granting every member of our military sexual discretion… whether their partners are military or civilian… as long as their choice of partners doesn’t violate chain of command.
Not to mention granting same sex partners of military personnel the same legal rights granted heterosexual partners…
We ignore the fact that many of those whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country had no legal right to even claim the body of their partners…
I agree.. that not making legal discrimination a tenant of their political platform does make democrats one step less politically discriminating than republicans…
but i am still far from proud of our party’s stand on this issue.
June 25, 2009 at 4:23 pm #670537
hopeyParticipantHave none of you read the actual emails? The affair was with a woman. His emails make that explicitly clear.
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html
In my mind, the hypocrisy comes not from having the affair, but rather from failing to prevent himself from starting the affair in the first place. In my opinion, a true Christian — committed to his marriage, and to an honorable relationship with his wife and his family — would have realized his attraction to this woman was troublesome, and would have distanced himself long before it got to the “falling in love” phase. That’s the “forsaking all others” part of traditional Christian marriage vows.
Sure, he is human and we all have our failings. But for someone who so loudly professed his Christian faith, shouldn’t he have had more of a conscience? I think that is what people find so difficult to understand.
You don’t all of a sudden wake up one morning deeply in love with another person. Relationships develop over time… time during which a person ought to have self-awareness and conscious control over their actions and decisions.
June 25, 2009 at 4:41 pm #670538
JoBParticipanthopey..
i confess. i didn’t even read the emails when you linked to them.. and i probably won’t…
I agree that it is troubling that a professed Christian.. who based much of his policy making on his religious (moral) views… would honor the financial and legal aspects of his marriage contract while ignoring the sanctity of that union.
June 25, 2009 at 4:48 pm #670539
beachdrivegirlParticipantI guess I am kind of with BlueBird on this one. This affair has nothing to do with his politics and should be kept this way. I hope everyone that is scolding him this loudly was the same with Bill Clinton as well considering he lied about his affair under oath.
Also thanks for the link Hopey. it is unfortunate that people try to make up stories like it was an affair with a man. His family is probably already going through enough without false rumors complicating matters.
June 25, 2009 at 4:52 pm #670540
WSMomParticipanthopey – very well said and I couldn’t agree with you more!
And, yes I did read the emails, I just wouldn’t be surprised, given he went all the way across the world to find love, that Maria might turn out to be Mario (seems to often be the case with professed family values kind of guys!)
June 25, 2009 at 5:16 pm #670541
KBearParticipantbeachdrivegirl, when a politician makes morality a political issue or chooses to associate with a party that does, and then has an affair, the affair is absolutely a political issue.
June 25, 2009 at 7:27 pm #670542
RainyDay1235MemberDidn’t marriage begin as a transfer of property in Ancient Greece – a culture with a rather large acceptance of homosexuality? So what if “the (christian) church” adopted the concept? They adopted a lot of things that were not theirs to begin with, ironically some from Pagan relgions…
You can’t believe everything you read in the bible – which IMHO was written by a bunch of old men looking to keep themselves in power. Or do the concepts of “The husband is to rule over his wife” or “A man who refuses to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law is put to death” or “A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt” still apply because it was written oh so long ago?
And if I hear of one more politician being against “gay adoption” I will scream. There they sit with their large biological families – while condemning those who fight for the right to take in and love other people’s unwanted children. Nice.
But yes…hypocrisy on other people’s “rights” aside, infidelity is a personal family matter and should not legally affect public service (how voters feel is up to them of course) – republican or democrat.
June 26, 2009 at 1:26 am #670543
JoBParticipantRainyday1235..
i suppose i should thank you. if i can’t sleep tonight i will have a starting place for a whole night’s reading…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
and it’s all your fault. you whetted my curiosity and sent me to begin reading the wiki entry on marriage. There is enough on that page alone to keep me interested.. but the links.. especially to source material.
we are indeed a strange race of creatures with some really strange customs.
including the middle aged crazy lust for youth that seems to have affected so many of our politicians..
June 26, 2009 at 9:00 am #670544
HMC RichParticipantJenV, Thank You for posting your opinion. I know there are many Christians who are absolutely judgemental about same sex marriage etc. I do not believe that their savior would agree with them. I also know that when votes come up 70% or so (give or take 10 percent) vote gay marriage initiatives down. Many of those voters are not hard core Christians. This is bigger than the Religious Right that so many people demonize.
You know I might actually support same sex marriage. I did not strictly deny it. I also want to make some other points which might actually strengthen your argument.
KBear, your post was spot on. He can be called a hypocrite but so can cheating politicians from each side of the aisle. Craig may have played footsy in a bathroom and Foley may have sent innapropriate messages to young pages. They were wrong but actually did not get caught having sexual relations. Maybe if either case had been able to go further that would be the case. I have and always will be disturbed by the Kennedys and their blatant disregard for women. I will never, ever understand why Edward Kennedy ever got away with the Chappaquidic (sic) incident. I will never understand why John was such a predator and of course Mr. Clinton’s mistake(s). All these behaviors damage the family first and all of them should have been called on it. It is not excusable. There is a sanctity of marriage and life. Fortunately, we are a forgiving society and we do forgive if we think people are sincere.
But First. JoB, I think I know my wife a little, not much, but a little more than you. My “Hot” statement was a joke and she knows it. She can hit me with a pan or mink whips for other things but not that bad joke. Besides, I wonder if it was her (Maria’s) accent? Sultry foreign voice and hot (otherwise, why bother!) Sexism lives!!!! Not all males have been castrated by the women’s movement. Actually I support the woman’s movement, especially when I am walking behind them. OK, for that last paragraph every HR department in the US would fire me. I’m just kidding around. Some won’t see it that way. Can’t PC everyone.
Love was not necessarily a part of marriage in ancient Greece. Plato proposed abolishing marriage. Aristotle thought it good for family structure but did not believe life devoted to family and children was not a noble one. Please find romantic love in a greek tragedy. The Greek pantheon had plenty of lust and vengeance but not much Love either. Eros was a huge part of homosexuality in Greece partly in Athens but especially in Sparta. Christianity was not around and as it formed it embraced the family unit and does not usually include homosexuality among other sexual practices. More on this later.
JoB you brought up dowery’s. I give you 5 goats, 3 yaks and a gaggle of geese for your child. Boy, that is romantic, NOT! but it was a norm wasn’t it.
Christianity made the family unit the central and best way for personal fulfillment from the union of a man and a woman resulting in children. In Europe romantic love for the common man and woman to the aristocracy developed in the Middle Ages which was much different from arranged marriages. Also Christianity introduced consent as a part of the process of marriage. Marriage without coercion is now a Christian value.
Since our general morals in America come from the tenets of Christianity, the institution of marriage is predominately a holy union between a man and a woman who love each other. Now, because of no fault divorce, many marriages are a farce. I am not saying there should not be divorce but it might be too easy these days to get one. I also know people change.
But, Love between two people is the determining factor for a union. Marriage these days is based usually on two individuals in Love and consenting to live together as a family until they die. This “Love” aspect from our Christian roots actually can help favor the same sex marriage argument. Conversely, Marriage of same sex people for procreation does not work so well but through outside procedures it can happen. There is one of the dilemmas for a heterosexual.
I might even be willing to support Same Sex Marriage if Roe v Wade was overturned. I suspect even some other Christians might feel the same way. Others will not. How does the LGBT family feel about that?
I have a gay relative. I wish for him the same happiness that I wish for everyone else. Nothing is completely black and white. What I am against now I might be for later or vice versa. Bludgeoning anyone with a point of view usually turns people off. But, standing up for your beliefs is a noble endeavor. There are many quandry’s and sometimes we change our minds. Sometimes we make good decisions and other times we make bad decisions. It is called accountability. If you talk the talk you had better walk the walk. Sanford used to but he fell prey to lust or something else. He showed some dignity in coming clean but I would not want to be him right now.
June 26, 2009 at 2:32 pm #670545
cjboffoliParticipantWow. I’ll bet Mark Sanford wishes we waited 24 hours to announce his infidelity. His news would have probably barely made page 12 of the Times.
June 26, 2009 at 3:07 pm #670546
KenParticipantMarriage for Love is a by product of the Judeo Christian ethic
I tried to stay out of this pie fight because I really really don’t care what anyone does with their genitals, with consenting adults, on their own time.
The issue is hypocrisy. No getting around it.
But what drives me nuts is the abysmal ignorance by Christians of the contents of their own freakin book.
Women and children were considered property throughout the period of time chronicled in the bible. The only thing that changed between the period of the bible and the 18th century christian institution of marriage, was some areas shifted from bride price to dowry depending on the ratio of men to women and slight shifts in inheritance laws.
Even today, the language of most christian marriage ceremonies make clear the subservient nature of the female.
State and federal law are the only way any equality was injected into the process and only in the 20th century.
Husbands could have there wives committed to an insane asylum on their own unsupported word in this city in the memory of people living today.
Judeo Christian ethics my a$$.
I despised Sanford the hypocrite long before this episode and nothing he is doing now is likely to change that.
My opinion of Republicans in general keeps sinking with every attempt to pretend they aren’t just using christians as political tools of convenience.
June 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm #670547
JoBParticipant“Husbands could have there wives committed to an insane asylum on their own unsupported word in this city in the memory of people living today.”
painfully true.. and you don’t have to be THAT old to remember it happening to someone you love… here or elsewhere.
in the case i am most familiar with, the sexual deviant had his wife committed because she objected to his desire to add bondage.. etc.. to their personal relations.. and tried again when she caught him molesting one of her kids and objected to that…
but hey.. he was the man.
i know it is difficult for young women to understand why some of us are militant about women’s rights… but the stories you think are too awful to be true because they could never happen… they happened.
And all sanctioned from the pulpits of many local churches…
this woman went to their pastor for help. The pastor “helped” her get immediate institutionalized counseling.
And still Ken, I am a christian.
There is much good in that book even tho some of the stories used to justify homophobia, child abuse, sexual discrimination, bigotry, etc… are antiquated and distorted by those who would use it for their own purposes.
Even tho Christianity and the Bible itself have been modified to support power structures that were anything but Christian in nature…
Christianity is not the problem…
People who profess Christianity and wield it as a weapon without embracing christian behavior or Christian ideals are the problem.
June 26, 2009 at 5:56 pm #670548
LindseyParticipantcjboffoli – So true!
June 27, 2009 at 1:13 am #670549
HMC RichParticipantClearly the progressive, eugenics, slavery crowd has better ethics or so you preach. Whatever.
June 27, 2009 at 1:33 am #670550
HMC RichParticipantWait, I got peeved. Let me clarify. You want the government to be your master (regarding the slavery comment).
I have said all along that Mr. Sanford’s affair was stupid and wrong. Yes, you can call it hypocrisy. Hell, I started the thread hammering him.
Women were property for a long time. It is through thoughtful activism, education and morality that these issues have changed. There is morality whether people want to believe it or not.
Why some people cannot encompass some of the JC ethic is beyond my comprehension. We are a moral people. More so than many. Sometimes it takes a while for ideals to change.
June 27, 2009 at 2:07 am #670551
bluebirdMemberJust out of curiosity, how do you feel morality has been a driving force behind women’s autonomy (self-governance)? If you equate morality with religion, it seems like a contradiction. From a simple observance point of view, the more religious a family, state, country, the less equality for women is apparent.
And isn’t morality really subjective based on a given society’s customs and norms? Or are you saying only American judeo-christians practice correct morality?
Definition of morality: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
June 27, 2009 at 4:11 am #670552
JoBParticipant“Women were property for a long time. It is through thoughtful activism, education and morality that these issues have changed.”
or at least some would like to thinks so…
fact is that the Equal Right’s Amendment giving women equal rights has yet to be ratified…
These are the states that have yet to ratify the Equal Right’s Amendment…
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
It would only take three of these states to make equal rights law…
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
Most of these states are in what is called the Bible belt… and most of them are what have been traditionally republican states.
it’s not likely that either of those two observations are mere coincidences..
enlightenment apparently hasn’t trickled down as far as legal rights.
June 27, 2009 at 4:29 am #670553
mom2sorenMemberhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/jenny-sanford-how-i-found_n_221785.html
Lots of bible quoting in his apology, and a looming investigation about using state dollars to fund a prior trip to Argentina.
June 27, 2009 at 5:06 am #670554
JoBParticipantfrom mom2soren’s link..
“About an hour after Jenny Sanford talked of her pain and feelings of betrayal, her husband brushed aside any suggestion he might immediately resign, citing the Bible and the story of King David _ who continued to lead after sleeping with another man’s wife, Bathsheba, having the husband slain, then marrying the widow.
“What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily _ fell in very, very significant ways, but then picked up the pieces and built from there,” Sanford told members of his cabinet in a session called so he could apologize to them in person and tell them the business of government must continue.”
Christianity is not the problem. Christians aren’t the problem. People who use the bible to justify actions which are not part of a Christian life are the problem.
I don’t know if he should resign or not.. that will be up to his state and his party. But it is clear that a man who weeks ago was one of the major contenders for a presidential candidate for the Republican party is not much of a leader…. in either words or deeds.
June 27, 2009 at 5:30 am #670555
charlabobParticipantYou’ll all be pleased to know that Rush has figured out how Sanford’s folly is Obama’s fault. How, you ask? Here you go …
http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/06/26/rush-limbaugh-its-obamas-fault-that-gov-sanford-cheated-on-wife/
I left the long link in case you just want to see the Cliff’s Notes(tm) version :-)
Meanwhile, once again the American(sic) people refuse to address the real political/moral issues. Shocking but true: I don’t give a rat’s rear about Sanford’s fidelity or lack thereof. I do mind that he was willing to sell out the poor folks of his state by refusing the stimulus money so he could enhance his possibility of getting the Rep* nomination for president.
I would really like to see a debate about what kind of country we want, based on ideas, rather than garbage. 72 percent of the people want a public option for health care. They understand that their health care is now regulated by uncaring *for profit* bureaucrats and, this time, aren’t buying the venality of government bureaucrats. Our elected officials, bought and paid for by industry, do buy it. (Or were bought and paid for BY it.)
But we, left and right, drag red herrings across the path. Is Sanford a hypocrite or a bad Xtian — or is he an elected official who does not make decisions based on what’s best for his state? Let’s ignore that and debate his personal life. Much less threatening to the corporatists who really rule this country.
As long as we’re easily distracted, there will be no kind of change — whether or not we believe.
June 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm #670556
mom2sorenMemberOf course Christians in general aren’t the problem. It’s Christianity in politics.
June 27, 2009 at 10:02 pm #670557
JoBParticipantmom2soren…
it’s politics disguised as Christianity:(
charlabob…
it’s really difficult to keep your eyes on the goal when there are so many red herrings thrown in the path… we can only try…
I have to admit that Sanford was never on my personal radar at all until he made a spectacle of himself… imagine that:))
June 28, 2009 at 12:03 am #670558
CountingCoupMemberThe end game, anyone who backs a man who went after Clinton about his extra marital affair and stated he should resign his elected seat and doesn’t follow his own idiotic political rhetoric, is as hypocritical as Sanford is. Bottom Line……….
June 28, 2009 at 3:58 am #670559
rockhillsMemberWhen you go into politics, whatever your party, you know you will be placed under a microscope. I wonder whether it is a particular failing of politicians or if the percentage of cheating politicians is commensurate with the overall population? Either way, why is no-one asking how can all these people be so stupid as to make themselves politically vulnerable in that way?
June 28, 2009 at 2:26 pm #670560
CountingCoupMember“why is no-one asking how can all these people be so stupid as to make themselves politically vulnerable in that way?”
My belief is because they are human, regardless of their rhetoric.
These things happen in life, and to condemn this behavior is as unrealistic as those who condone this could -or- would never occur in their own lives.
The “holier than thou” competitive game of pitting one person against our own moral judgement is a joke and leaves me very little room for empathy for those who fall on their own sword.
In the end we are just human…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.