1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Maybe some day plate techtonics will move the US to the middle east so all the religious wacko's in the world can hang out together.
Apparently miss piggy now claims that it was her belief in the Almighty that got her through the Lewinski affair and gave her the strength to not give up on her marriage to Bubba.
If the democrats become card carrying moral majorities as well, and the right no longer owns the religious voice of America what will that mean for 2008.
Theres a methodist in her madness it would seem.
Just leave us Canadians with Alaska and California....Hawaii can come too.
http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/flash/play/710
Originally posted by kmax87So you're saying that the two situations are not analogous?
If everyone who was married dissolved that marriage because of infidelity then how could not accepting infidelity save marriage? Its actually the non acceptance of infidelity that has actually led to the high divorce rates we see around the world and because of the speed that people divorce these days the institute of marriage has taken quite a battering. The ...[text shortened]... that to save her marriage meant that she would have to be humble enough to forgive her husband.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkI think one big mistake the democrats can make is believing their own propaganda.
Well, it's kind of a flaw, but there are so many individual interpretations of Christianity, its tough to make a call one way or the other.
One thing for sure, is that many are going to view her poorly based on her accepting immoral behavior.
I think a lot of "Christians" will not be impressed by Mrs. Clinton's statement because they suspect her professed faith is disingenious, not because they are against grace nor that there is an inherant problem with forgiving infidelity.
It is one thing for publications such as the NY Times to point out the supposed "hypocricy" of the religous right because they supposedly are against grace. This serves the purpose to put conservatives on the defensiveness and rallies a lot of emotions amoung the liberal core. But lets not get caught up and forget that it is all propaganda.
A good example of such a mistake is in the 2004 vice-presidential debates. Edwards made a deliberate effort to point out that Cheney's daughter is gay, craftily pretending to admire the fact that Cheney hasn't disowned his daugther. Democratics work hard to discredit the idea that it is possible to "love the sinner, hate the sin" because that gives them political leverage. But Edwards forgot that it was all liberal propaganda and imagined throngs of conservative voters being riled up by the fact that Cheney has a gay daughter who he doesn't hate.
It was a distasteful act that I think backfired. I don't know for sure how it translated in the bottom line vote count though. It would definitely tend to anger conservatives and perhaps result in more campaign contributions toward Bush. But that may have been offset by bolstering a sense of moral superiourity amoung liberals as they imagine conservatives thinking less of Cheney after the revelation.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkNo I'm saying that your insistence that the acceptance of infidelity would actually lead to the demise of the institution of marriage is a bit like saying that war will produce peace. I used the analogy to point out the absurdity of the statement.
So you're saying that the two situations are not analogous?
Forgiving the infidelity of a partner can only help to strengthen the institution of marriage as partners would not just throw in the towel at the first sign of weakness.
You on the other hand maintain that forgiving infidelity would actually help destroy the institution. I merely pointed out the absurdity of that statement by arguing that it was the lack of forgiveness over this issue that was actually contributing to the decline of marriage as an institution.
Because your argument seemed illogical I equated it with something else that I thought was illogical. Bush's insistence that war would produce peace.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87I like how you call a man getting Mr. Happy polished by other women a "weakness".
Forgiving the infidelity of a partner can only help to strengthen the institution of marriage as partners would not just throw in the towel at the first sign of weakness.
"Sorry honey, but i have a weakness for girls who gobble."
Originally posted by kmax87No I'm saying that your insistence that the acceptance of infidelity would actually lead to the demise of the institution of marriage is a bit like saying that war will produce peace. I used the analogy to point out the absurdity of the statement.
No I'm saying that your insistence that the acceptance of infidelity would actually lead to the demise of the institution of marriage is a bit like saying that war will produce peace. I used the analogy to point out the absurdity of the statement.
Forgiving the infidelity of a partner can only help to strengthen the institution of marriage as partners wou ...[text shortened]... h something else that I thought was illogical. Bush's insistence that war would produce peace.
Not that I have any desire to be a part of it, but what does it mean for the institute of marriage if the most egregious assaults against it (infidelity) were to be universally accepted?
I merely pointed out the absurdity of that statement by arguing that it was the lack of forgiveness over this issue that was actually contributing to the decline of marriage as an institution.
A non acceptance of infidelity is not leading to the decline in marriage as an institution. Infidelity is a symptom of something else. Call it decreased respect (as in, I don't respect my wifes feeling enough to not jump this bimbo that I just met at the bar) or whatever we want. Bottom line is that it's a symptom and whetever it's a symptom of is what is leading to the decline of marriage.
The question needs to be asked again. What purpose is marriage if infidelity is an accepted practice?
Originally posted by MerkThe whole point of marriage should be a meeting of minds and needs as well as wants. Over time the first flush of romance will inevitably fade and what with the demands that life places on both partners these days one of the first things that usually happens to a relationship is the cooling of passion for the significant other. So as partners start becoming more and more focussed on their careers or their interests and they communicate less and less like lovers but more and more like managers of their various interests(homes,children,pursuits,pleasures) what eventually happens?
what does it mean for the institute of marriage if the most egregious assaults against it (infidelity) were to be universally accepted?.....A non acceptance of infidelity is not leading to the decline in marriage as an institution. Infidelity is a symptom of something else..... Bottom line is that it's a symptom ..of what is leading to the decline of marriage... What purpose is marriage if infidelity is an accepted practice?
They forget their first love. This can happen in either direction. Its not just men who cheat. The point is that its not about saying that for marriage to survive it should write an open cheque for those who engage in extramarital affairs. The point is that one would hope that should a partner not be able to resist temptation that the other partner after a period pf cooling down might be willing to accept that sometimes there are pressures that drive spouses into the arms of another that probably has nothing to do with the level of love or commitment that the straying partner actually feels to the partner they cheat on. I'm not trying to blame the victim, (the partner being cheated on) but its a fair bet that if they were honest they might confess that they may not have been as caring of their partners needs and wellbeing leading up to the incident of infidelity.
If a partner felt that it was a pattern of behavior that was unlikely to change, (and they would be the only people equipped to make that decision) then if they decided to end that union then so be it. However there have been many situations where a partner learns to accept that people can make errors of judgment and that sometimes an occasion where a partner may be a bit relaxed and off their guard might descend rapidly into an impulsive act that can sometimes sweep someone away into an act that they will probably regret for the rest of their life.
If the partner aggrieved by their significant other's philandering actions was however convinced that their partner was truly repentant of their actions and was willing to put in place strategies that would avoid such blindspots in their relationship from ever developing again, then why on earth should they be abused for wanting to make a go of it and remain married? Surely marriage should allow for a maturity of response and also allow for the wrongdoer to be able to make amends.
Originally posted by kmax87I see what the misunderstanding is here. You're speaking practically.
The whole point of marriage should be a meeting of minds and needs as well as wants. Over time the first flush of romance will inevitably fade and what with the demands that life places on both partners these days one of the first things that usually happens to a relationship is the cooling of passion for the significant other. So as partners start becoming m ...[text shortened]... d allow for a maturity of response and also allow for the wrongdoer to be able to make amends.
I see no problem with the idea of forgiving a spouse. Sure, sometimes its a bad idea, but not always. (kids etc.)
We're not talking about your views or mine. We're talking about how the Moral Majority views Hillary.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkYou may have identified a major ideological flaw in much of the moral majorities platform. Their articles of 'faith' are largely unpractical and unworkable and tend to arbitrarily pontificate on issues in a very unbalanced way, only because for the most part the moral majority has been marketed and branded as a right wing neo con movement. I think what Hilary might be signaling is that it is okay to be Liberal and be fundamentally religious as well.
I see what the misunderstanding is here. You're speaking practically.
I see no problem with the idea of forgiving a spouse. Sure, sometimes its a bad idea, but not always. (kids etc.)
We're not talking about your views or mine. We're talking about how the Moral Majority views Hillary.
The two states of consciousness are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To listen to right wing sycophants you might think that they are.
Originally posted by kmax87Liberals and fundamentalists have a lot in common. They both like to stuff their beliefs down other peoples throats.
You may have identified a major ideological flaw in much of the moral majorities platform. Their articles of 'faith' are largely unpractical and unworkable and tend to arbitrarily pontificate on issues in a very unbalanced way, only because for the most part the moral majority has been marketed and branded as a right wing neo con movement. I think what Hilary ...[text shortened]... essarily mutually exclusive. To listen to right wing sycophants you might think that they are.
Originally posted by kmax87It's an intelligent move. She needs something to balance her pro-choice-ish views. And the Moral Majority will look like Pharisees if they try to criticize someone's decision to forgive their spouse.
Apparently miss piggy now claims that it was her belief in the Almighty that got her through the Lewinski affair and gave her the strength to not give up on her marriage to Bubba.
If the democrats become card carrying moral majorities as well, and the right no longer owns the religious voice of America what will that mean for 2008.
Theres a methodist in her madness it would seem.
It could also be a true statement. But it's a good move, regardless.