Monday, November 24, 2008

Maybe this will help...

I'm so cranky today. I was feeling fine in the morning, ready to start my short work week, and of course, I'm stupid enough to try to catch up on the financial news that I unintentionally avoided all weekend. Sure, Citigroup is waaaaaay too big to go under but man, another bailout? Sure, let's go spend money we don't have. Wait, spending money we don't have by banking on future growth??? Hmmm, sounds familiar doesn't it? Wait, what caused this turmoil again? I'm confused. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing but every bail out news that comes out seems to put me on tilt these days. So, maybe blogging will help... writing has always been moderately therapeutic for me.

So last week, I talked about some of the topics I wanted to discuss. Marriage and morals seem to be generate some interest even though the topic itself will probably be uninteresting once you realize what I'm talking about.

You see, last week, my friends and I were having one of our many useless (ie political and financial) discussions over email and one of our more conservative/republican friends brought up that Clinton "was a liar and a cheat and generally lower standards." His reasoning behind that was the whole Lewinsky deal. Another one of our conservative friends brought up the point that "a guy who cheats on his wife is more likely to lie and cheat elsewhere." So, that got me to thinking... is that really true?

Do you cheat on your marriage because you are generally someone with lower standards? Personally, I disagree. Now keep in mind, I never cheated on my wife during our marriage. That's not how I roll and marriage is a big deal to me and I really hoped it was a once in a lifetime event (granted, if I never remarry, it could still be a one time event). So, in that sense, I understand that cheating on your marriage is a big deal. But is it really because those people have less morals? Is someone who cheats on his wife a bigger liar than someone who deceives the nation to go into war? Ok, bad example, and that was somewhat of a poo fling that I wanted to avoid. If you call in sick to your work even though you're fine and you just wanted to take a "mental health day" is that more justifiable? Sure, one can argue that you never took an oath under God for employment. So then, my other question is, is it a bigger deal because you swear "in the presence of God" or some other sacred reason?

Personally, I don't think someone cheats on their marriage because they are a cheat and a liar... I mean doesn't it have more to do with temptation, filling the void, etc etc? In other words, let's say that your marriage was rocky. Things were not going well and every time you and your spouse talk, it was always about necessities (like bills, who picks up the kid, etc etc) and if it wasn't that, it was always an argument. Over time, that gets old, you end up spending more time at work... and then let's say you meet someone who is also going through something similar. Unrewarding home life, constant battle with the spouse, etc... you get along, the other person is fairly attractive, you share a connection that you can't find with too many other people, etc etc... is it really totally immoral and make you a low life scum to end up having an affair to fill a void in your marriage? Again, let me make one thing clear. I understand that you should talk to your wife/husband, have discussions, fight it out, go see a counselor or do whatever it takes since this is someone you swore that in good times and in bad, you would stick together with. But I guess I am just questioning that even if you did have an affair, does that make you a less moral person than someone else who didn't? You really can't compare the two, can you? Maybe the other person has a happy marriage so they weren't "tested" with temptation. So it's not like someone who doesn't cheat on his wife or better yet, who hasn't cheated on his wife yet, is someone who has better judgment or morals than the one who has, does it? Or does it?

I just don't think someone having an affair is really indicative of their moral levels but some of my friends seem to think that it is. And back to where the discussion came from, despite what Clinton did with that bitch Monica, I don't think he was any less of a President if he didn't do that. I didn't think John Edwards cheating on his wife was that big a deal either but I know the democrats are glad they went with Obama because people in this country would immediately denounce Edwards, based purely on his "family values" and regardless of what policies, domestic or foreign, he would be pushing for. And in my mind, a man (or a woman)'s home values (as long as it's not illegal) would not affect his/her job.

So, I would love to hear it from everyone about what they think on that. I mean what if it's your boss? Picture someone that you worked with that you look up to, who is amazing at his/her job, and someone that you want to be like. If you find out that that person had an affair with someone else, would that affect how you look at that person or how you work with that person? Why?

Wow... shockingly, that did help.

8 comments:

Astin said...

From a political standpoint, the entire US government is so corrupt that these "family values" idiots are just looking for an easy scapegoat. You can't pick use of drugs as an excuse, because Clinton, Bush, and Obama did drugs in their youth.

One thing that has come out time and again is that the louder someone screams about "family values" the more likely it is they're trying to distract people from their own shortcomings. The most vehement anti-gay Republicans are regularly outed as gay themselves. How many "family value" pundits have been caught in a cheating scandal? Nowhere does "methinks thou dost protest too much" ring truer.

So no. People cheat. It happens. 50% of marriages end in divorce. McCain dumped his crippled wife for a richer, younger model. Kerry did the same. Spitzer got dumped as Gov and replaced by someone who admitted to having an affair years before. It doesn't make them bad people, just bad husbands.

Glass houses, stones, he without sin... etc.. Gimme a break.

HighOnPoker said...

Cheating on one's wife does not necessarily mean that a person is more apt to lie, but it does mean that the person likely has willpower issues or thinks that he/she is untouchable. Both are potentially problematic. Even so, I wrote about this topic a couple of times, so you probably know how I feel. Politicians, in general, are more likely to be cheaters. It takes a power-hungry narcissist to decide to run for office. Often, these people also have redeeming qualities, like an altruistic nature or the desire to "do good". But they have to be at least somewhat narcissistic and power-hungry to decide to go for political office...and those two traits are probably common amongst cheating men (and maybe women).

All that said, it's complete bullshit. Any conservative who focuses on Clinton's sexual liasons lacks the information to attack him on legitimate political grounds.

JT said...

You're the leader of the most powerful country in the world. You can have any woman (or man, if that's your style) you want. And you choose...Monica Lewinsky. Come on. If your married buddy said to you, "Dude, I'm cheating on the wife with Monica Lewinsky", what would be your reaction? Exactly. How can you trust a guy with really bad tastes, cigar not included, to make important decisions.

Klopzi said...

I'd say that cheating on your wife or husband means that you're total scum. I don't care why it happened: anyone could justify something like that happening.

The truth is that you take an oath to love, honour, obey, and respect your better half. If you're having doubts about marriage, you speak to your husband/wife. And if you feel that the marriage is over, you divorce. Cheating on your spouse is an underhanded and easy way out.

No matter how many or how few years you're married, you should at least give your spouse the common courtesy of letting them know that the marriage is over before spending time with a surrogate spouse (whether or not that involves sex makes little difference in my mind).

I think that people jump far too lightly in and out of marriage nowadays. You take the good with the bad. And you don't have affairds. Simple.

Anonymous said...

Do you think bailout is the correct terminology? Isn't the media using the term bailout incorrectly? It's my understanding that these are loans from the government that will be paid back by these companies with interest. I think that is one point that is being missed by alot of organizations covering thise.

While I didn't agree with Bush on alot of things, he knew how to frame an argument. There is no way he would have let the term "bailout" be used over and over again if he wasn't a lame duck. He would have called it something like a loan or an economy booster (or something else...mostly likely something he couldn't pronounce correctly...haha).

Marriage and morals? I worked at a company where a married COO was hooking up with a vendor. Once the company found out the COO was let go. The CEO had the argument that someone who cheats on their wives will act unethically else where.

Now that wasn't a person that I knew. What happens if it's a person who I know and respect? I think for me I'd compartamentalize my feelings for that person. I wouldn't go to them for relationhip advice any more, but I would still seek their guidance on business manners.

So I guess I'm with you, in that cheating doesn't make someone unethical in all manners. Maybe it just makes them unethical at relationships.

Anonymous said...

Do you think bailout is the correct terminology? Isn't the media using the term bailout incorrectly? It's my understanding that these are loans from the government that will be paid back by these companies with interest. I think that is one point that is being missed by alot of organizations covering thise.

While I didn't agree with Bush on alot of things, he knew how to frame an argument. There is no way he would have let the term "bailout" be used over and over again if he wasn't a lame duck. He would have called it something like a loan or an economy booster (or something else...mostly likely something he couldn't pronounce correctly...haha).

Marriage and morals? I worked at a company where a married COO was hooking up with a vendor. Once the company found out the COO was let go. The CEO had the argument that someone who cheats on their wives will act unethically else where.

Now that wasn't a person that I knew. What happens if it's a person who I know and respect? I think for me I'd compartamentalize my feelings for that person. I wouldn't go to them for relationhip advice any more, but I would still seek their guidance on business manners.

So I guess I'm with you, in that cheating doesn't make someone unethical in all manners. Maybe it just makes them unethical at relationships.

Riggstad said...

The fact that Clinton did Lewinski is proof positive that it was a dick thing. As stated above, "the most powerful person in the world" could have had anything he wanted.

She just happened to be the one in the office coming on to him when his dick was hard.

Us humans have been trying to defy nature on the grounds that we are intelligent beings for the last couple of thousands of years. Obv it doesn't always work. The introduction of religion and morals have been pretty effective though... I guess.

Bush hate all you want, but he never lied under oath. Which is the real crime that Clinton perpetrated. And I assume that he lied not to deceive the American people as much as he did to protect outing himself from doing it with a cow. (not a weight referrence)

I believe that matters of the heart, or flesh rather, are in a completely different category than other things when it comes to defining someones integrity.

LOL at Astins perception that conservitives are REGULARLY outed as gay. Hater!

Fuel is gay

Brian said...

I didn't read all the other comments because I'm far too lazy. I too get angry when people complain about Clinton, but then only attack his infidelity. The ONLY argument I've ever heard that I agreed with in regards to that topic was that they felt he abused his power as Prez to try to get away with cheating on his wife. I couldn't really argue with that idea, but I still stand by the issue being a personal issue than a political one. If a guy cheats on his wife he gets divorced, rarely does he lose his job.