Newt: "I Cheated For My Country!"
- Thread starter Smiling Ted
- Start date
I'm no fan of Newt, but I'd love to live in a country where the sex lives/marital affairs/ankle thickness/wardrobes of various political candidates was of no importance.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
It becomes of importance when the politician involved runs for office emphasizing the importance of morality, the sacred tradition of marriage under attack from homosexual activists, and denigrates others for "immorality."
I'm pretty sure 'I did it for my country' is right behind 'I was just following orders' in the 'not a good excuse' department.
I will never understand why "traditional" marriage is threatened by gay marriage and not heterosexual infidelity.
The US is a Judeo-Christian civilization? Funny I thought our society was based on a separation of church and state and religious freedom.
The US is a Judeo-Christian civilization? Funny I thought our society was based on a separation of church and state and religious freedom.
Kinda.
You see, the USA has 'two' foundings.
Well, four. Kinda.
The first was when a load of tight laced, sexually repressed, providencial Puritans landed here.
The second was our load of Founding Fathers, who were mostly zany, freedom loving deists...well, except for the Federalists. (That is a biased statement.)
(The third and fourth could be considered the Civil War, which changed our national character a whole hell of a lot, and the Great Depression and what happened after that, which created a lot of power structures that we now take for granted).
We've never quite shaken off the Puritans choke hold on our popular culture. Whether that is good or bad depends entirely on your own moral compass.
I think it's one of the longstanding ills that this country has yet to shake off, and leads primarily to autocratic patriarchy.
The big irony of the whole Puritanical ideology is my home Massachusetts. We
started off as the home of Puritanical Repression and now we are one of the most liberal states in the Union.
Agreed. I'd be fine with just leaving out all that personal stuff, but if a candidate is going to be the one bringing it up, it's fair to train the same critical lens on that candidate as he's training on others.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
You know, I don't get this. I'd have a lot more respect for someone if they simply said that they have done things that they weren;t proud of in their lives. Who hasn't? This is just silly.
But it's just so much easier to find a scapegoat, such as Mr. Santorum has done. Now if only Gingrich had been mentioned in a Savage Love column, he'd have a ready-made scapegoat.
The bigger issue here is that Newt was able to find someone to have an affair with. I mean, good god women, WTF!?
The problem or hypocrisy is, Republicans tout their platform as defending morality and being the moral rudder for the nation. They say their platform includes defending the sanctity of marriage. Which brings up the question of how can they claim to defend the sanctity of marriage when they are unfaithful in their own marriages?
Defending something, and believing something is good, doesn't mean that person can't have addictions or issues with it.
A doctor can say, "Smoking is a bad and disgusting habit," and then go and smoke a pack a day.
I'm confused by what they mean when they say sanctity of marriage in the first place. And protect it from what, exactly, besides those of us homos? Is divorce or unfaithfulness on the rise, for example?
From what I understand they are protecting it from gays. For some unfathomable reason a number of Republicans think if gays marry, marriage as a whole is doomed.
Why they don't include their own infidelity as something that dooms marriage hasn't been addressed yet.
Why they don't include their own infidelity as something that dooms marriage hasn't been addressed yet.
A good link about why that statistic is slightly misleading, however correct it may be.
But then I guess my question is, what the hell is sanctity? I guess I'm not up on my Abrahamic research enough to follow...
But then I guess my question is, what the hell is sanctity? I guess I'm not up on my Abrahamic research enough to follow...
Another question is: Why should we sanctify a ritual banked around women being untouched property?
I think we should sanctify love, mutual respect, and trust...even if people express that by picking up people at bars and fucking them in a wild, drug filled threesome. How is that LESS loving, LESS respectful, and LESS trusting than a lying twit screwing around while loudly shouting that they love their wife and will never ever cheat on them.
The lying twit is not only turning his marriage into a political object, showing an immense lack of respect for his partner...but he's also being a lying, hypocritical twit.
I think we should sanctify love, mutual respect, and trust...even if people express that by picking up people at bars and fucking them in a wild, drug filled threesome. How is that LESS loving, LESS respectful, and LESS trusting than a lying twit screwing around while loudly shouting that they love their wife and will never ever cheat on them.
The lying twit is not only turning his marriage into a political object, showing an immense lack of respect for his partner...but he's also being a lying, hypocritical twit.
You know it's based on the idea that homosexuality is a sin and that opponents view marriage as a religious rite, rather than a civil right, right? I'm not saying they're "right" but there's little misunderstand for where they're coming from.