John Edwards had an extramarital affer (rolling eyes)

Post Reply New Topic

In the USA, the "leaders" are purported to be morally superior to the hoi-polloi. That is, one of the airs they put on is a general superiority to the unwashed masses. They just don't do naughty things--that's for commoner scum like you and me.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for those leaders who fairly openly take the "bad boy" approach to life, such as Huey Long and Bill Clinton.

James A. Garfield had Mrs. Calhoun and Warren G Harding had Nan Britton and Franklin D. Roosevelt had Lucy Mercer and Dwight D. Eisenhower had Kaye Summersby and John F. Kennedy shared Norma Jean Baker with Bobby and Lyndon Johnson had Alice Glass.

and this was back in the good old days when morals were morals and sins were sins unless you kept your mouth shut and looked the other way.

Which they did, like proper philanderers should.

On the one hand I feel cheating to be absolutely despicable. It isn't about a "2000 year old book" or laws or anything else. It's based on some pretty bad personal experience that shattered my faith and trust in a couple people I knew, and the feeling that came with that that I wouldn't wish on damn near anyone. Especially if the guy's wife is dealing with cancer, that's the lowest of the low. How unbelievably selfish.

However, I think that the "tabloid culture's" continued fascination with sleazy behavior rather than substance is unnecessary and annoying. Though I wish some people wouldn't do certain things, I could really not care less about the private lives of 99% of public figures. Unfortunately, a lot of people are too daft to grasp the issues, and go for this sort of news instead.

who's john edwards again? and why should i care? mr knight, a math teacher at amarillo high, picked up prostitutes. i'm sure that counts as cheating on his wife, and is even worse. do you care?

Both cases are of adultery.

Adultery is adultery, no matter who does it.

so, slowmutant. what if two people decide to have an open marriage? They have made their own rules of their relationship.
They would not be bound to the rules that were made up for people that believe as you do, correct?

The key is two people: that they agree to it.

Do I still think they are making a bad choice? YES. I've seen open marriages and despite the talk, someone IS always getting hurt. But, still, that is their moral decision to make, not mine, and if they do not believe it is morally wrong, then they have the right to act accordingly.

Do I still feel it is morally wrong? Yes, actually, because I HAVE seen the harm that comes even when they have agreed it, and neither believes they are doing anything wrong. But I won't impose my belief on them.

In the sense that one person's moral beliefs are going to remain consistent almost universally, regardless of who they are applied to, morality is absolute. In the sense that different people hold different sets of moral beliefs, and have the right to do so, morality is not.

But, heck, everyone makes mistakes. I also don't believe in throwing someone under the bus for an act I believe is morally wrong. What I hope for is that they learn and thrive for something better.

And John Edwards, whose behavior insired this thread ... I would have liked to have seen something better from him, given all the blustery talk he made, but I don't think the error means he cannot serve effectively in certain political offices. And he isn't a player in an election anymore, anyway. It would have been nice for the press to spare his WIFE some pain, and allow a private matter to stay that way.

What is an open marriage? By definition, marriage is a closed contract between a man, a woman, and God. Or, in the case of secular union, a man, a woman, and a judge. Is there any meaning to marriage if adultery is to be part of it? Why not just live common law?

you must really peep your head out now and then, slowmutant. There are all sorts of different people and ideas and philosophies other than what you are used to. There are other Gods people worship and enter into binding contracts with not to mention more religions than Christianity.

I am certain the 'spirit marriages' of the FLDS Churches in Arizona and Texas think their polygamous unions are blessed by a God as omnipotent as yours.

I don't particularly care about the FLDS churches in TX and AZ.

but they exist, and they have their own creeds and hierarchy and the children were raised with those values and they adhere to them as hard as anyone does their church teachings. Why should we not be bound to their concepts of marriage and family life? Are they not as privileged as other religions that make moral judgements on adultery?

I can't figure out why anybody's shocked by the behavior of a trial lawyer who became a politician.

Is adultery not the same in every culture? Does it not mean the same thing?

No, slowmutant, and adultry was not even the same through out the Old Testament OR the Church.

[quote]It is clear Hebrew scripture itself has no prohibition against singles sex, only what has been added by Church tradition. Adultery is more complex. The Jews understood "Thou shalt not commit adultery" very differently than Church tradition. It only applied to men if they had intercourse with someone else's wife. But it was allowable for a married man to have intercourse with a single woman. Adultery was the sin of "trespassing" on a man's property. Until marriage women were the property of their fathers. After marriage they became the property of their husband.

Augustine (354-430 A.D.) was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families.

The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances.

Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Later, with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate,(daughters could not inherit, anyway)

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality (multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times)but the absolute control of church property.[quote]