Yawn another Republican sex scandal

[bascule]

I don't really see how being hypocritical about sex is worse than being hypocritical about providing health care to sick people.

 

It's not about sex, it's about basic civil rights.

 

The argument coming from the Republicans is that allowing gay marriage would somehow undermine the "sanctity of marriage". This is their rationale for denying gays basic civil rights.

 

Then they go and commit adultery, and in Sanford's case, stick adamantly by the party line.

 

What sanctity does marriage have that the Republicans aren't already destroying themselves?

[ecoli]

I've decided to change my position a bit:

 

I honestly don't see why you're merging the two issues. I agree with you on the gay marriage issue, but this is simply not hypocrisy.

 

Some republicans (politicians, mind you not the constituents) have clearly demonstrated their opinion that having a heterosexual marriage is necessary for living a moral life and being sanctimoniously married, but fidelity is not. Are they picking and choosing which bible versus they want to apply? Yup, they sure are. But they aren't being hypocritical about it (if viewed from this angle). Their sense of morality makes no sense to me (or the rest of the public, judging by the post-act apologies) but it seems clear that affairs are completely ok in their book.

 

yeah it's still a contemptuous act, but this is an altogether separate issue from civil rights (which they are indeed wrong on). But I see them as being wrong on two separate distinct things. Which makes them no better or worse (maybe a bit worse) than their democrat counterparts.

[iNow]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making, mate. When asked why they are against equal protections for gay couples, or allowing this basic civil right to them, the motivation they state is that the institution of marriage is sacred and sacrosanct. This is the foundation of their position, which is coupled with their views on biblically informed morality.

 

So, it logically follows that, if they don't themselves live up to their own standards of morality... if they don't treat their own marriages as worthy of respect and protection... if they succumb to their naturally occurring biological desire for mating opportunities with multiple partners at the expense of their own "sanctimonious" marriage... then they are hypocrites. While they spend their political careers attempting to legislate and invocate their own morality on to others, they cannot even themselves live up to these ridiculous standards. Their years of fighting to make these religiously informed moralities law are demonstrative of their implicit acceptance that "infidelity" too is wrong and out of line with their own voting records, and shows how silly their positions are (since they themselves cannot even live up to them).

[Pangloss]

That is an argument for continuing and supporting the politics of personal destruction.

 

Why is that a good thing?

[iNow]

No, it's an argument for leadership by example, and a reminder that actions speak louder than words.

 

If we disagree with the example being set by our leaders, and find their actions hypocritical, then we are well within our rights to point that out openly and authentically, and to argue for their removal from power.

[Pangloss]

Okay, that suggests that it's not the specific issues that are the focus of your ire, but the hypocrisy itself. In that case, one would assume that you don't limit the accusation of hypocrisy to specific political issues (e.g. Mokele applying the same standard to Al Gore in post #12).

 

Therefore, since Republicans run the gamut of positions on political issues, I assume you agree with ecoli that Republicans are not the issue here, and disagree with bascule's point (which is the underlying purpose of this thread) that they are.

[iNow]

As I said in post #22, it's more that republicans have given countless opportunies lately to notice their hypocrisy. However, the issue DOES matter.

 

In your example, a man is trying to get action taken on global warming as a result of well demonstrated scientific evidence (and further, he HAS taken steps to improve the efficiency of his home and reduce his environmental footprint, which is consistent with his stated motivations), whereas with bascules examples, men are trying to restrict rights from a group for no reason other than their own bigotry, and are engaged in actions DIRECTLY COUNTER to their stated motivations for doing so (the "sanctity of marriage"). Further, Schwartzenegger IS looking to find improved efficiencies for his Hummer, so in much the same way, actions speak louder than words, he IS acting consistently with his stated motivations, and the degrees of hypocrisy and the surrounding contexts are hardly comparable.

Edited June 28, 2009 by iNow

[abskebabs]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Gore only do this after how much he had wasted energy was exposed? Also, didn't he pay carbon credits to a company HE owned?

[iNow]

I will find your question relevant if these republicans engaged in sex scandals come out in favor of same sex marriage, and openly state that their argument about "the sanctity of marriage" is BS. Until then, again... not relevant and not comparable.

[stereologist]

What a boring scandal with an Argentinian connection.

 

This guy needs lessons from Wilbur Mills and the Argentine Firecracker.

[Pangloss]

As I said in post #22, it's more that republicans have given countless opportunies lately to notice their hypocrisy. However, the issue DOES matter.

 

I acknowledge your points. In my opinion that matters less than the larger problem that this sort of thing (this charge of hypocrisy based on a very loose association of only distantly-related political positions) perpetuates. The reason this is a bad road to keep repaving is that it doesn't actually teach lessons about morality and ethics. It teaches lessons about revenge. And the people you're teaching are going to demonstrate what they've learned the moment they win the next election, just as has happened with the last several elections with tactics ranging from stalled appointments to outright impeachment.

 

I respect that this matters to you and empathize with that position -- it matters to me as well when these bastards betray our trust. And I agree that in general it's not unfounded to challenge a politician who is hypocritical in his political positions. And certainly Republicans have put themselves in the position of making this sort of thing more natural than having turkey at Thanksgiving.

 

I just think there is a better way. Just because we find $90,000 in William Jefferson's freezer doesn't mean we have to accuse him of being a liberal hypocrite with all of his social causes and talk of helping the poor. He can just be a rotten bastard who took a bribe and shouldn't still be in Congress, end of story.

 

My two bits, anyway.

[iNow]

I respect that this matters to you and empathize with that position -- it matters to me as well when these bastards betray our trust. And I agree that in general it's not unfounded to challenge a politician who is hypocritical in his political positions. And certainly Republicans have put themselves in the position of making this sort of thing more natural than having turkey at Thanksgiving.

Well done, sir. That's really damn funny.

<thumbs_up>

 

 

I just think there is a better way.

I'm certainly open to the possibility of finding that better way, but I don't think you've presented precisely what that is. I acknowledge that you think it's harmful to act in a vengeful manner, but what I'm missing is the alternative with which you suggest we move forward. If there's a better way, can you point out what you think that might be?

 

Ignoring these things or not commenting on them doesn't meet my own personal criteria of "better." If we don't hold their feet to the fire regarding the inconsistency between their current actions and previous claims, what shall we do?

[Pangloss]

Ignoring these things or not commenting on them doesn't meet my own personal criteria of "better." If we don't hold their feet to the fire regarding the inconsistency between their current actions and previous claims, what shall we do?

 

You hold him responsible for his personal failures but stop short of raising any comparisons with issues he supported or groups he was a member of. The comparisons are false and nobody buys them as evidence of wrongness anyway, so making them only alienates the very people you're trying to win over.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

You hold him responsible for his personal failures but stop short of raising any comparisons with issues he supported or groups he was a member of. The comparisons are false and nobody buys them as evidence of wrongness anyway, so making them only alienates the very people you're trying to win over.

 

Right... so how is that a different approach? What is this "other way" about which you speak? I'm still missing that part from your replies.

 

 

(Before you edited your post, I noticed you commented that we can all agree that this his actions are no reason to suggest that his opposition to gay marriage is wrong. I quite agree, in fact. I think that his opposition to same sex marriage is simply wrong for countless other reasons, reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with his current infidelity... and wrong on a much more profound level than "because he can't even be faithful in his own marriage." ... His opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that this opposition is wrong for SO MANY other reasons makes me that much harder on him for his own indiscretions as pertains to marriage).

 

 

As you've probably learned about me by now, while I find hypocrisy disgusting, I have zero patience for bigotry, especially when those bigotries are informed by iron age fairy tales.

[abskebabs]

I will find your question relevant if these republicans engaged in sex scandals come out in favor of same sex marriage, and openly state that their argument about "the sanctity of marriage" is BS. Until then, again... not relevant and not comparable.

 

Fair enough, but what about my second question? I guess falsely profiteering while trumpeting a cause may not be hypocrisy or have the spice of a sex scandal; I still find it unforgiveable.

[iNow]

Fair enough, but what about my second question?

FWIW, I wasn't ignoring your second question, I just didn't know the answer to it. I've not read about this "false profiteering" that you mention. TBH, it strikes me as another case of talk radio making mountains out of molehills, and aiming their rhetorical weapons at Al Gore to distract us from the pressing need to do something real about climate change, but I can't say since it's a story with which I'm unfamiliar.

 

As for my position on the rest, I've tried hard to make clear my stance throughout my posts. Hypocrisy is wrong wherever it may be found, but some circumstances I find worse than others.

[Pangloss]

Right... so how is that a different approach? What is this "other way" about which you speak? I'm still missing that part from your replies.

 

It's a different approach because it doesn't make a falsely suggestive comparison. We say "you're wrong to commit adultery", and not something like "these gay marriage opponents on grounds of marriage sanctity can't even keep their own zippers zipped up" (etc).

 

Or:

 

Is it me or is "Republican hypocrisy" just completely redundant at this point?

 

Not trying to rag on bascule for his opinion, I'm just saying there are consequences when large numbers of the voting citizenry start waving banners of that nature. You make things like Fox News and Air America, not things like gay marriage.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Hypocrisy is wrong wherever it may be found, but some circumstances I find worse than others.

 

Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

[abskebabs]

I've not read about this "false profiteering" that you mention. TBH, it strikes me as another case of talk radio making mountains out of molehills

 

Unfortunately, I doubt it is. It is not difficult to find information about this, indeed if you would have attempted a google search you may have found some of these articles:

 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232

 

Don't get me wrong, I can't blame his logic, anthropogenic climate change is probably a great means for a political wheeling dealer to extract money from the all too ready to give public for his own finances; while purchasing carbon credits to "offset" his CO2 emissions from the Generation Investment Management LLP, a company which he is founding member and chairman.

 

Maybe this guy needs a nobel prize...

[iNow]

It's just a distraction. What people should be focused on is solving the problem, not displacing attention on to Al Gore. Thanks for the links, all the same (even though most of them refer to the issue as "alleged" global warming, or a "religion" of global warming alarmism).

[bascule]

The real problem with the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is it is one entirely based on moral superiority. There's no other logical reasoning behind it.

 

The Bible says both homosexuality and adultery are wrong. Yet we don't see any Republicans out there passing laws making adultery illegal. However they're happy to sit around rambling on about the "sanctity of marriage" and how gay marriage is wrong, immoral, a sin etc.

 

If you're dictating legislation based on your religious beliefs, could you please not pick and choose which Bible verses you wish to codify as law ktks?

[john5746]

The real problem with the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is it is one entirely based on moral superiority. There's no other logical reasoning behind it.

 

I agree with you in the way that most people use the phrase, but I do think there is logic and good reasons to have marriage in a society. Do I think homosexual marriage damages it? No.

 

The Bible says both homosexuality and adultery are wrong. Yet we don't see any Republicans out there passing laws making adultery illegal. However they're happy to sit around rambling on about the "sanctity of marriage" and how gay marriage is wrong, immoral, a sin etc.

 

Well, to be fair they are not outlawing homosexuality - they just don't want to endorse it. I don't think they want to endorse adultery either.

[JohnB]

It's just a distraction.

 

Just out of curiousity, would it still be "just a distraction" if it was a Republican ex VP that stood to make millions?

[iNow]

Interesting question, but the objective answer is obvious. Yes, it would.

In fact, to be perfectly frank with this, I'd probably like Dick Cheney a lot more if he were making his money by taking steps which would ultimately "green" our energy approach instead of making it by drilling and burning petroleum and coal, which we know is killing us and other life on this planet.

[Pangloss]

The real problem with the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is it is one entirely based on moral superiority. There's no other logical reasoning behind it.

 

The Bible says both homosexuality and adultery are wrong. Yet we don't see any Republicans out there passing laws making adultery illegal. However they're happy to sit around rambling on about the "sanctity of marriage" and how gay marriage is wrong, immoral, a sin etc.

 

If you're dictating legislation based on your religious beliefs, could you please not pick and choose which Bible verses you wish to codify as law ktks?

 

Even so, I fail to see how a personal failure in that department proves, in and of itself, that those grounds for objection are invalid.

[bascule]

Even so, I fail to see how a personal failure in that department proves, in and of itself, that those grounds for objection are invalid.

 

Why codify a ban on homosexual marriage into law, but not one on adultery, or eating shellfish, or wearing clothing of mixed fibers, or working on the Sabbath?

 

Why are their suggestions for codifying Bible verses as laws inconsistent with the Bible?

 

I can only guess, and you would not like my guess. My guess is that banning gay marriage is no skin off their nose, but they want the option to be adulterers, they want to eat shellfix, they want to wear clothing of mixed fibers.