John Edwards had an extramarital affer (rolling eyes)

Page 3 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

CanyonWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,656
Location: West of the Great Divide

17 Aug 2008, 10:43 pm

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


_________________
They murdered boys in Mississippi. They shot Medgar in the back.
Did you say that wasn't proper? Did you march out on the track?
You were quiet, just like mice. And now you say that we're not nice.
Well thank you buddy for your advice...
-Malvina


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Aug 2008, 7:35 am

sinsboldly wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
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?


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



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

18 Aug 2008, 11:37 am

slowmutant wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
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?


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]


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

18 Aug 2008, 12:11 pm

sinsbodly, I like to think that morality evolves as we gain insight and knowledge, and as necessities change. It can be a very good thing to be held to a higher standard. There is far too much in history I would never go back to. But your point that it hasn't always been the same, and even now is not across cultures, is valid.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

18 Aug 2008, 12:16 pm

Morality is relative.

For some adultery is immoral. For others it depends on the circumstances. I believe if harm is done to someone involved in a relationship, then this could certainly be considered immoral. However if the relationship is not exclusive, then the harm may not apply.

To state that adultery is always wrong is simply to state one's opinion on this particular issue. Some people commit adultery due to loneliness, I do not think this is immoral. It is a natural human trait to fall in and out of love.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Aug 2008, 4:56 pm

corroonb wrote:
Morality is relative.

For some adultery is immoral. For others it depends on the circumstances. I believe if harm is done to someone involved in a relationship, then this could certainly be considered immoral. However if the relationship is not exclusive, then the harm may not apply.

To state that adultery is always wrong is simply to state one's opinion on this particular issue. Some people commit adultery due to loneliness, I do not think this is immoral. It is a natural human trait to fall in and out of love.


Yes, but to be a promise-breaker is universally without honour. To violate a contract, the nuptial contract, how do you put a justifiable and positive spin on that?



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

18 Aug 2008, 6:26 pm

slowmutant wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Morality is relative.

For some adultery is immoral. For others it depends on the circumstances. I believe if harm is done to someone involved in a relationship, then this could certainly be considered immoral. However if the relationship is not exclusive, then the harm may not apply.

To state that adultery is always wrong is simply to state one's opinion on this particular issue. Some people commit adultery due to loneliness, I do not think this is immoral. It is a natural human trait to fall in and out of love.


Yes, but to be a promise-breaker is universally without honour. To violate a contract, the nuptial contract, how do you put a justifiable and positive spin on that?

Not sure if this was discussed before on this thread....
"if the relationship is not exclusive, then the harm may not apply."
Lifestyles can vary whithin different couples, when both of them are consenting and no deceiving takes place in an intimate act, then no one is actually being harm, no victims, no lies, consent.
An example, some married couples are very open-minded and they practice swinging.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Aug 2008, 6:32 pm

greenblue wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Morality is relative.

For some adultery is immoral. For others it depends on the circumstances. I believe if harm is done to someone involved in a relationship, then this could certainly be considered immoral. However if the relationship is not exclusive, then the harm may not apply.

To state that adultery is always wrong is simply to state one's opinion on this particular issue. Some people commit adultery due to loneliness, I do not think this is immoral. It is a natural human trait to fall in and out of love.


Yes, but to be a promise-breaker is universally without honour. To violate a contract, the nuptial contract, how do you put a justifiable and positive spin on that?

Not sure if this was discussed before on this thread....
"if the relationship is not exclusive, then the harm may not apply."
Lifestyles can vary whithin different couples, when both of them are consenting and no deceiving takes place in an intimate act, then no one is actually being harm, no victims, no lies, consent.
An example, some married couples are very open-minded and they practice swinging.


Swingers are obviously the exception and not the rule.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

19 Aug 2008, 12:57 am

slowmutant wrote:
greenblue wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Morality is relative.

An example, some married couples are very open-minded and they practice swinging.


Swingers are obviously the exception and not the rule.


There are rules even in swinging


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

19 Aug 2008, 2:33 am

Swingers are the exception to marital fidelity. Was that not clear enough?



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

19 Aug 2008, 10:41 am

slowmutant wrote:
Swingers are the exception to marital fidelity. Was that not clear enough?


are you married, Slowmutant?


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

19 Aug 2008, 10:47 am

No.



Palek03
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 15
Location: Michigan

22 Aug 2008, 2:17 pm

Dishonesty among politicians shouldnt be surprising anyone. What Edwards didm with his wife on the verge of death with cancer, was dispicable but it shouldnt surprise anyone.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

22 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm

Palek03 wrote:
Dishonesty among politicians shouldnt be surprising anyone. What Edwards didm with his wife on the verge of death with cancer, was dispicable but it shouldnt surprise anyone.


True, Newt Gingrich did much the same, however he actually had the cojones to serve the divorce papers himself to his wife in the hospital. John McCain divorced his first wife as she says in her own words

"Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce.

‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


Fossy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 151

22 Aug 2008, 4:24 pm

Kilroy wrote:
here in Canada-it wouldn't make the news


I'm starting to wish I lived in Canada and I never thought I'd hear myself say that. This country is seriously bleeding.

lol did I seriously spell affair wrong when I started this thread??



Fossy
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 151

22 Aug 2008, 4:33 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
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.


Yes that's the one issue I have with it. I can't imagine that Edwards would voluntarily give an interview and hurt his family like that. I think he must have been being blackmailed or something, and this sucks because he would have made a really good VP, now we have to settle for something less because people in this country are so judgmental. Hopefully Biden gets it.

EDIT: And the people who are judging Edwards for this don't realize that this is obviously a form of agenda setting. Why is this important? Geez I wonder why it became a huge issue now, when it looks like the democrats actually have a good chance of winning. Why do democrats always get harassed for this kind of thing yet republicans don't? I think it's ridiculous. What happened between him and his wife are between him and his wife. I don't care how dispicable anybody else thinks it is. It shouldn't be any of your damn business. Do you think Elizabeth Edwards wants your pity? No, she's standing by her husband. :roll: She really doesn't need people talking about what "horrible" man her husband supposedly is. And yes he was a trial lawyer, he helped people, what is the point?