Is an affair adulterous if the unfaithful partner is separated?
On every first date, I try to let the conversation flow naturally so each of us can get to know the other as he is, instead of matching ourselves us to some ideal image of the perfect mate, I do try to get two things across, the first about my politics because I know that’s a deal-breaker for some gay leftists and the second about monogamy because his eagerness for an open relationship would be a deal-breaker for me.
The question always arises that, once you start dating, when does the monogamy attach? Obviously it hasn’t yet attached to the (first) date I had this weekend where I did broach the monogamy issue (but not the political one). So, I assume it attaches when we define ourselves as boyfriends, agreeing to be faithful to one another.
Some wait until they have had a ceremony, but the point is that there is a clear, definable moment when monogamy attaches. And that leads to the question, when does it “detach.” And that’s not always so clear. If two parties plan on divorcing, need they wait until the divorce goes through? Or can they start seeing other people once they make their intentions clear? And say a married couple separates, should each partner then remain celibate?
It would seem that in some such cases, celibacy would be unwarranted. And that makes Senator Ensign’s affair a bit less problematic, but it doesn’t excuse Mark Sanford. While the South Carolina Governor has been separated from his wife for “about two weeks,” all evidence indicates the affair had begun long before that separation. Ensign, by contrast, was separated from his wife while sleeping with a campaign aide and ended the affair when he reconciled with his wife. Even so, his lady friend was married at the time, so while his marital vows may been on hiatus, hers were not. It was definitely adultery.
Despite this wrong, there is no evidence the Nevada Senator abused hs position as a public official. Sanford, however, appears to have used state resources to fund his tryst. So, I’m with John Podhoretz on this one, he really has “no choice but to resign.“
But, this all leads me to wonder if the media would give the Nevada Republican a pass if he had had different partisan affiliation?
UPDATE: Glenn links a great article this morning on Reason where Steve Chapman offers some thoughts on adultery which pretty much parallel my own. He does not, however, address the separation “conundrum.” Since Sanford was not separated at the time his affair began, he was clearly violating his marital vows. Chapman pretty much echoes my views, holding “Sex without marriage is OK. Sex in violation of marriage is not“:
Why not? Because adultery, unlike a frisky bachelor lifestyle, connotes a reckless dishonesty at odds with our basic notions of integrity. Because it shows a lack of respect for the most important commitment that most of us will ever make. Because it indicates that the adulterer will always place his selfish desires above those who depend on him. . . .
Is it naive of us to believe that a politician who keeps his commitments to his wife will also keep his commitments to us? Probably. But not as naive as thinking that if he betrays her, he’ll treat us any better.
57 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Yes.
He is also the chief executive of an entire state who disappeared for days at a time without transferring power to anyone, and without telling anyone where he was going.
Also, he’s a frickin idjot. As is ANY Republican who thinks they can get away with something immoral, unethical, or illegal. Who does he think he is? A Democrat???
Comment by American Elephant — June 29, 2009 @ 6:27 am - June 29, 2009
idiot yes, seperated? Maybe. I mean I was ’seperated’ for 3 years from my cheating wife, and did date. But that’s because a) couldn’t pin her down to sign the divorce papers b) was content to stay married since I was renting and the longer we were married the nastier I could be if she turned ugly(ier) and c) there was no hope of reconciliation.
Comment by The Livewire — June 29, 2009 @ 6:38 am - June 29, 2009
Frankly, I don’t see why either one should be cut any slack. There’s plenty of good conservatives who can keep their nads in their pants. Let’s elect them instead.
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 6:52 am - June 29, 2009
Dan, in answer to your title question, it depends. In Sanford’s case, he started his affair before there was any separation, so he was obviously unfaithful at that point. When his wife found out in January, they began to live apart. My understanding though, that this was to give her a time out, and him a chance to straighten out his act. If his purpose was to try to eventually win his wife back, then continuing this affair during their separation counts as unfaithful to me.
As for Ensign, frankly, I didn’t hear about it until Sanford’s story came to light. As such, I don’t think he’s getting the same heat that Sanford is getting. I don’t know if the separation had because one was unfaithful or not. Assuming that it wasn’t, I’m not sure what, if any agreement Ensign and his wife had regarding dating others, etc. If the understanding was they were to be celibate, then yes, Ensign would be considered an adulterer in my opinion.
When an ex and I were in the midst of breaking up, I made one final offer. I suggested that we just cool off for two weeks, and at that point see if we should still break up. He indicated that he was not necessarily planning on being celibate. So I said that was fine, but we have just broken up.
As for resignations, if you asked Sanford if someone in his position has an affair if he should resign, apparently his answer was yes, until the person in his position was him.
Comment by Pat — June 29, 2009 @ 6:57 am - June 29, 2009
In a bar, every one is “separated.”
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — June 29, 2009 @ 8:17 am - June 29, 2009
For myself, monogamy begins when the sex begins.
It would be best if both resign, but the shame-by-association they bring to their party should in part be reimbursed by staying in office long enough to appoint another Republican to replace them, if this is possible in either case. For them, it’s the least they can do and for the rest of us, it’s politically practical.
It’s ironic that the best way to get rid of Barney Frank might be to legalize gay marriage — then catch him cheating. (Although Mass. voters might not see it that way.)
Comment by Ignatius — June 29, 2009 @ 8:23 am - June 29, 2009
Although Mass. voters might not see it that way.
Running a prostitution ring out of his basement and sleeping with an executive in an agency he was regulating doesn’t seem to have hurt his political standing Massachusetts.
Massachusetts voters re-elected Gerry Studds nine times after he was caught molesting an underage House Page. Ted Kennedy has been in office longer than I’ve been alive, even after he got drunk and killed a woman.
My honest belief is that Massachusetts voters just plain hate the rest of America, so they elect the worst possible scum to serve in national office.
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 8:41 am - June 29, 2009
And why do I suspect that no matter how hard we criticize Ensign and Sanford, the trolls will still accuse us of defending them?
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 9:11 am - June 29, 2009
#6: “For myself, monogamy begins when the sex begins.”
And ends three minutes later, right Ig?
Sorry, you walked right into that propeller.
Comment by Sean A — June 29, 2009 @ 10:27 am - June 29, 2009
#8: “And why do I suspect that no matter how hard we criticize Ensign and Sanford, the trolls will still accuse us of defending them?”
Actually, V the K, I find that the Libtrolls tend to just criticize us for having politicians in our party that turn out to be anything short of Christ himself. My impression is that even they know better to steer clear of the “you defend them” nuance because they are well aware of the distinction. While we distance ourselves from our fallen, human representatives, they DEFEND their sinners AND their sins.
Comment by Sean A — June 29, 2009 @ 10:34 am - June 29, 2009
Human beings don’t make the rules. Monogamy begins when God blesses the relationship. It ends when God says the relationship is over. It’s not a human decision. Sexual morality is simple: Have sex with the person God wants you to have sex with. And that’s it.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 29, 2009 @ 10:52 am - June 29, 2009
I find that the Libtrolls tend to just criticize us for having politicians in our party that turn out to be anything short of Christ himself.
Sure, Sean A, liberals will defend politicians in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. And despite what you and others are saying about criticizing Republicans, it sometimes happens the other way around as well.
Anyway, my only complaint about Sanford is not that he is not Christlike. But he was a good moral policeman for others, but not for himself. Yes, people sometimes fail to uphold their own standards. But he wanted others to resign when they failed, and he hasn’t called himself to resign. Quite the opposite, in fact. So, what he have here is just another bout of hypocrisy.
Comment by Pat — June 29, 2009 @ 11:24 am - June 29, 2009
Human beings don’t make the rules.
The hell we don’t. We’ve been making rules for as long as there have been humans.
Monogamy begins when God blesses the relationship.
Nope, that’s another human decision, by both parties.
It ends when God says the relationship is over.
Again, another human decision, by one or both parties.
Sexual morality is simple: Have sex with the person God wants you to have sex with. And that’s it.
Whose God gets to decide that? Yours? Mine? Does God get to decide everything about our lives, or just sex? What if God wanted Sanford to have sex with the Argentinian woman because He didn’t want Sanford to have sex with his wife to begin with? Anyway, your proposed sexual morality doesn’t sound simple at all.
Comment by Pat — June 29, 2009 @ 11:34 am - June 29, 2009
#12: “Sure, Sean A, liberals will defend politicians in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. And despite what you and others are saying about criticizing Republicans, it sometimes happens the other way around as well…But he wanted others to resign when they failed, and he hasn’t called himself to resign. Quite the opposite, in fact. So, what he have here is just another bout of hypocrisy.”
Yes, I agree Pat. If Sanford called on other politicians to resign for committing adultery and will not step down himself, that would be hypocritical. But name one example of Republicans defending the BEHAVIOR of fallen GOP politicians as something that does not affect their “ability to do the job.” THAT is unique to Democrats and that is the point I was making.
Comment by Sean A — June 29, 2009 @ 11:36 am - June 29, 2009
Whose God gets to decide that?
There’s only One.
I know lefties tend to think of religion as some sort of little hobby like stamp collecting; but you should at least pretend to be respectful to other people’s beliefs.
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 11:57 am - June 29, 2009
Speaking of gay left morality, A gay professor offers up his five year old adopted son for rape on the internet. MSM noticeably silent. According to his Facebook page, Professor Lombard is a fan of gay bishop Gene Robinson.
Now, am I just an uptight conservative hypocrite, or is this multiple orders of magnitude worse than Mark Sanford’s affair?
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 12:06 pm - June 29, 2009
Matt 7:2-5 “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged [if we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly with honesty and justice, His judgment of us will reflect that, too], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other ignoble means, our judgment will reflect it and judging with fairness and compassion will garner likewise in His judgment of us]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ [tell him of his "minor" sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense thinking of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother’s eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin].” At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.
* Jesus’ use of “hypocrite” in this verse is “hupokrites” {hoop-ok-ree-tace’} meaning an actor, stage player, a dissembler, pretender.
V caption this http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/wda0353l.jpg
Comment by rusty — June 29, 2009 @ 12:34 pm - June 29, 2009
And here’s where rusty copy/pasted his deep thought from…
http://www.capalert.com/judgenot.htm
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - June 29, 2009
It is only relevant if the adulterer is a Republican, of course.
Murder, Klan activities, prostitution and adultery allow you to become leaders of the Democrat Party.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 29, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - June 29, 2009
Yes, the affair is adulterous.
Separated is not equal — to single.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 29, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - June 29, 2009
So is rusty Joe Biden in disguise?
Comment by The Livewire — June 29, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - June 29, 2009
Elliot Spitzer: Sanford was worse than me because the women I screwed around with were just whores and I had no feelings for them.
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - June 29, 2009
There’s only One.
V the K, I believe that as well. The problem is that anyone of us who believe in the One True God have different beliefs of what God is and what His rules are, etc.
I know lefties tend to think of religion as some sort of little hobby like stamp collecting; but you should at least pretend to be respectful to other people’s beliefs.
If the latter comment refers to me, I don’t have to pretend to be respectful to other people’s beliefs, I am respectful. However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t question a commenter’s post about his belief in what he says, and why his personal belief of God should apply to all. We question each other’s beliefs, and it sometimes get downright nasty. I think my questions were fair.
And since there are people who’s belief in God is different than others, or people who believe in multiple gods or no God, their beliefs should be respected as well.
Now, am I just an uptight conservative hypocrite, or is this multiple orders of magnitude worse than Mark Sanford’s affair?
It sure is. And then some.
Elliot Spitzer: Sanford was worse than me because the women I screwed around with were just whores and I had no feelings for them.
Yeah, that makes it all right. What a jerk. He resigned, but he is still as bad, or worse than Sanford. Spitzer used to prosecute prostitution rings, and sent people to jail. I think it would have been fitting if he insisted that he was prosecuted and sent to jail.
Comment by Pat — June 29, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - June 29, 2009
But name one example of Republicans defending the BEHAVIOR of fallen GOP politicians as something that does not affect their “ability to do the job.” THAT is unique to Democrats and that is the point I was making.
Sean, maybe I’m still missing your point. Republicans have defended fellow Republicans when they have committed bad behavior (Vitter, Delay, and Stevens come to mind). If you are saying that Republicans have never publicly stated that the fallen Republican’s behavior does not affect their ability to do their job, then no, I cannot think of an example.
Comment by Pat — June 29, 2009 @ 3:02 pm - June 29, 2009
And since there are people who’s belief in God is different than others, or people who believe in multiple gods or no God, their beliefs should be respected as well.
Um, no. I hate this kind of equivalency because it places Lord Xenu on the same plane as the God of Abraham. And that doesn’t work for me. That’s what I meant by leftists treating faith like some kind of hobby. Wordworking versus stamp-collecting, not a whole lot of difference. Christianity versus Veneration of the Pagan Moon Goddess… big difference.
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - June 29, 2009
V the K, I get what you are saying. But there are people who do place the Pagan Moon Goddess ahead of the God of Abraham, and are serious about their beliefs as you are. Are they wrong for doing so? Or just inferior? Does this mean that it’s okay to question, or even ridicule their religion, but treat Christianity with kid gloves?
Comment by Pat — June 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - June 29, 2009
#16: “Speaking of gay left morality, A gay professor offers up his five year old adopted son for rape on the internet. MSM noticeably silent. According to his Facebook page, Professor Lombard is a fan of gay bishop Gene Robinson.”
V the K, I also managed to find that buried, obscure, move-it-along-nothing-to-see-here story about the Duke professor offering his 5-year-old for rape. An example of true evil, but the press, usually so RESPONSIVE to any allegation of rape at Duke, is ignoring it. The professor adopted the child with his male partner, and of course, we wouldn’t want this to harm the Left’s gay adoption agenda. Also not being reported: the child is black. If the perp were a white, affluent lacrosse player, then the story would be–abandoned child of color “rescued” from a hopeless existence in the ghetto only to be re-victimized by rich, white male pedophile establishment.
Comment by Sean A — June 29, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - June 29, 2009
#15: “I know lefties tend to think of religion as some sort of little hobby like stamp collecting…”
Yeah, stamp collecting, with a health dose of gay homicide and imprisonment in concentration camps thrown in.
Comment by Sean A — June 29, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - June 29, 2009
I had heard of the Duke prof’s crimes, but not that he was gay.
Don’t get me started on Gene Robinson. I am a cradle Episcopalian and lifelong supporter of gay rights, and that dude still pisses me right the heck off. (When I was a child, a divorced person would never be a priest, much less a bishop. And that’s only the start of my problems with the man.)
The issue of an affair being adulterous can be a sticky one. As a divorced woman whose husband had an emotional affair that started before the separation but didn’t turn physical til the end…Hell, yes, it’s adulterous. Honestly, I have pretty much zero respect for people who can’t wait til the divorce decree is signed to start dating. (And don’t give me that “I couldn’t find ___ to sign” stuff. It only takes one person to divorce. The other party can be served by publication, can be in default, and even with everybody there it only takes one person to sign the divorce decree in front of the judge.)
With gay people who largely can’t get married, I’m at a loss. I suppose there has to be an agreement about when fidelity starts and when it ends. I suppose the default there would be it starts when the sex starts and ends when both parties declare the relationship over.
Comment by Sabra — June 29, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - June 29, 2009
#29: “I suppose the default there would be it starts when the sex starts and ends when both parties declare the relationship over.”
If it ever begins at all. Then again, many gay couples define “monogamy” as only having sex with with third parties together.
Comment by Sean A — June 29, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - June 29, 2009
If it’s just a human decision, what difference does it make? Just because someone’s feelings get hurt? Walker Percy, a Catholic novelist, wrote a great book called Lancelot about a reverse search for the Grail. The main character’s wife commits adultery on him, and he, an athiest, wants to know why it feels bad. The search for the source of his pain at his wife’s adultery leads him to God.
There is only one God. There is only one solution to pi. Some solutions are closer than others. I, as a Christian, want the solution which is closest to the truth. Many people are happy with 3.14. I want 3.1416. . . .infinity. I want to get as close to God as possible, and that is only possible through Jesus, who said, “If you love God, then you’ll love me. If you don’t love me, then you don’t really love God, do you?”
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 29, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - June 29, 2009
I don’t think Pat deserved that. To what I think was Pat’s original point: what Ash proposed is unworkable and basically a form of self-righteousness, because in practice, it presupposes that one or both of the parties have God’s Twitter account and get real-time tweets on the status of His wishes / blessings. Last time I checked, no human being did, and the ones who claimed to were committing a pretty serious theological, moral and spiritual infraction. In some fairly traditional Christian theologies / denominations, the marriage ceremony is written so that the 2 individuals marry each other, naming God as a witness. In other words, the 2 individuals decide when monogamy begins, and God is initially passive, making His blessing (if any) clear gradually and over a long period of time after that. That model seems to me to be much more, shall we say, grounded in reality.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - June 29, 2009
But there are people who do place the Pagan Moon Goddess ahead of the God of Abraham, and are serious about their beliefs as you are. Are they wrong for doing so?
Yes.
To me, it’s far more insulting to say, “Your religion is no better than anyone else’s” than it is to say “Your religion is wrong.” The former removes all meaning from religious faith. (“Jesus Christ, Flying Spaghetti Monster… same thing.”) The latter at least acknowledges that there is a higher power, even though an individual’s attempt to reach it is flawed.
Comment by V the K — June 29, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - June 29, 2009
Adultery is a word that has a specific meaning.
From a religious standpoint, if you have sex with someone other than your spouse while you remain married, you commit adultery. If you’re a Catholic, youre an adulterer if you have sex with someone other than your spouse til you die.
The law views adultery much the same. If you have sex with someone other than your spouse while you remain married, you have committed adultery.
If you are trying to redefine the world adultery to make it more permissive, then you are reinforcing arguments against gay marriage.
Comment by American Elephant — June 29, 2009 @ 9:25 pm - June 29, 2009
Actually, human beings have access to God through the Holy Spirit and prayer. We can work together with our community to discern God’s will. We can read Scripture and work to understand what it means today. We can take the sacraments. Nobody has God talking in his ear–but everyone can go to church. Everyone can pray. Everyone can do a Bible study. That’s the tried-and-true method for finding God’s will for your life.
If you want to know whether this person is the lifelong partner God intends, you seek the discernment of Christians you trust. You pray. You discuss your relationship in depth with your pastor. You spend time together with other couples and see how it feels. Take the Body and Blood of Jesus together. After awhile, it becomes clear whether this relationship is God’s will or not. That’s what straight people do, anyway. As churches become more comfortable with gay couples, I suspect more gay couples will seek discernment from their communities.
Marriage is a gift of God. It’s not a human decision. It’s not a social construct. It’s not two people who like each other. I suggest you see Fireproof and apply it to gay couples. You would then see what a Christian approach to gay marriage, monogamy, and adultery would look like.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 29, 2009 @ 10:40 pm - June 29, 2009
First, that’s not what you said. If you now wish to modify what you said, that’s fine. But for the record, you had said this:
The plain meaning of those words is: Have sex with whoever you think *God* is telling you to have sex with. Don’t exercise your God-given responsibility of thought and choice. Be driven by whatever you think God is telling you. If God moves you through ten different “relationships” in the same evening (like speed-dating, only with sex) – No problem; each of those was monogamous until “God said it was over”, and He moves in mysterious ways.
Now, I pointed out the obvious problems with that, like: How do you know what God is telling you? By Twitter, telephone, fax, or Western Union? I also hinted at (while not making explicit) the way it abnegates human moral agency and responsibility. In response, you have changed your formulation. Again, that’s OK; it’s allowed. Your new formulation is:
That’s much better. Still, though, in practice, it amounts to: Do whatever *people* are telling you (including yourself as one of the people, i.e., what you think you are hearing in prayer as “God’s will”), on the assumption that if you-all approach it in religious terms, what you’re all agreeing is God’s voice, must then really be God’s voice. I know that that is one traditional Christian approach. Here’s one of its weaknesses: history shows that even large groups of thoughtful people are capable of mistaking God’s voice. I mean, how do you know you’ve listened long enough? Who tells you that? Also, as phrased, again you negate human agency and responsibility to *make* marriage – for example, the human responsibility to make one’s marriage successful. Sorry, but marriage doesn’t just happen – not even as God’s gift. It’s an effort that you dedicate yourself to making; not an event or a possession. It doesn’t drop out of the sky; certain parties have to continually step up and make it happen. (Same as I’ve been trying to tell you on health care, by the way.)
The approach I would suggest is: Do the best you can do, and acknowledge that you may very well be w-r-o-n-g, but still, the best you can do is the best you can do. Listen to your feelings. Also look at it rationally, without feeling. Listen to what other people have to say. Also ignore what other people say. Listen to what you think God is telling you in prayer. Also recognize that that may very well be only another form of your own wishful thinking. Then make the best decision you can make. Recognize that it is *your* decision (and your partner’s). Don’t try to pawn it off on poor ol’ God. God loves even spineless doormats and whiners – but He doesn’t necessarily like them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - June 29, 2009
So much for free will!
And our entire system of government!
Comment by American Elephant — June 29, 2009 @ 11:44 pm - June 29, 2009
Dunno, ILoveCapitalism. Maybe Ashpenaz has a light-up “Buddy Jesus” doll that tells him when God blesses a relationship, and when God “says” it’s over.
On the other hand, maybe God sets fire to a teeny little bush to signal the end of a relationship. Maybe he asks you to sacrifice your Shih tzu instead of your first-born son. Or would he flood your bathroom for forty minutes and … (er) another forty minutes? Turn your salt shaker into an …equally small pillar of salt?
Just to get back to the original question: legally speaking, relations outside of a non-voided marriage are adulterous. Non-formal relationships have been recognized as valid to a degree, if you follow “palimony” cases, but I think the key point here (which GPW touches on in his original post) is the mutual understanding of ground rules for that relationship. Does monogamy start with sex (Iggy)? Does it start after the first sleep-over? Maybe it starts when one begins leaving personal articles (change of clothes, toothbrush, etc.) in your partners’ abode. Or does it start after a certain anniversary? Four weeks? Six? Six months? A year? As any fan of physical comedy (“go LEFT! No, YOUR left!!”) knows, people need to be on the same page to avoid screw-ups.
Returning to the original definition of adultery (sex with anyone NOT your legal spouse), we all have known at least one couple who were separated but not divorced. Yet. On the other hand Pat mentions a “cooling off” period, wherein it is generally understood to mean “separation, but no fooling around.” This could refer to either a legally married couple or a less-formal relationship. In the first case -assuming that divorce has been predetermined- I don’t doubt many Americans would give a pass to someone who engaged in an “illicit” relationship. On the other hand, if the marriage were in theory salvageable (and the partners willing) one could argue that an outside relationship was adultery.
This leads us back to Pat’s “cooling off” scenario where outside relationships might not have been explicitly discussed, much less permitted. In Pat’s case, he made it damned clear they were off limits. End of story.
Which leads us back a bit further to GPW’s original thoughts on monogamy. It should be self-evident by now that the critical component is that both partners are on the same page/same wavelength. If person A (six months into dating) thinks the relationship is “open” (non-monogamous) while person B holds serious expectations of exclusive dating, the lack of communication is clear.
In response to GPW: the monogamy begins when both parties agree this is so. Obviously effective communication is required for a successful relationship.
If the two partners do not (or cannot) agree, then either poor communications damage the relationship (was there a sit-down defining honest expectations?) or someone was deliberately dishonest, and deserves to get their chops busted…
P.S. If memory serves, Pat is correct in saying that Sanford has been known to call for the resignation of “unfaithful” politicians; at least until his own situation became known. So in the very specific case of Sanford, there was definable hypocrisy.
Comment by Casey — June 30, 2009 @ 1:06 am - June 30, 2009
“On the other hand, maybe God sets fire to a teeny little bush to signal the end of a relationship.”
That could be painful for lesbian couples
More seriously, how about it going from this direction. Is an oath you made still valid if the other party breaks their side of it?
Comment by The Livewire — June 30, 2009 @ 7:07 am - June 30, 2009
ILC, your comments pretty much echo my thoughts.
To me, it’s far more insulting to say, “Your religion is no better than anyone else’s” than it is to say “Your religion is wrong.” The former removes all meaning from religious faith. (”Jesus Christ, Flying Spaghetti Monster… same thing.”) The latter at least acknowledges that there is a higher power, even though an individual’s attempt to reach it is flawed.
V the K, that’s fine. At some point, we all choose what religion, if any, to belong to. That can either happen by being brought up in a particular religion and being taught that is the best (or only) way to believe what God (or gods) is, and deciding to maintain that belief. Or deciding as an adult to become a member of another religion or a religion (if brought up in a non-religious setting) or no religion at all. In either case, the person probably believes their religion is the best, surpassing all others. Even Pagans.
So I can understand one who is a Christian does not want to equate the God of Abraham with the Pagan Moon Goddess. Or a Pagan who also does not want to equate them either. Perhaps some of them are insulted if they are told that their religion is no better than anyone else’s.
My point is that there are many different faiths out there, and many different opinions of what other faiths might be almost as good as theirs, and which ones don’t quite measure up. Some like Ashpenaz might think that if you don’t worship Jesus, then forget it, you can’t get close to the one and only True God. So even Jewish persons who believe in the same God of Abraham are doomed. And there are Christians who basically think that Mormonism is well below the other Christian religions (I’ve even seen this from a couple of posters on both the left and the right on this blog). So what criteria do we use to decide that certain religions are okay, and which ones don’t pass the muster? It seems to me that would be tough, because there are just as many different beliefs for this as well.
And this lead to my other point. What Ashpenaz suggests for others may not even apply to them, let alone work for them. And that’s fine if Ashpenaz continues to believe it, and I respect it. But I questioned it. I don’t think it was disrepectful to question it anymore than we question anyone’s else’s thoughts on any issue discussed on this blog.
Comment by Pat — June 30, 2009 @ 7:17 am - June 30, 2009
It’s not a human decision.
Ashpenaz, what you described above this comment in #35 is fine, except that’s not how all straight people get married. But what you also described is a human decision. There are many times a combination of things that go into making a decision, and that includes when and who to have sex with, who to marry, if and when to no longer become monogamous and/or end a relationship.
If it’s a matter of semantics here, then fine. I’m of the thought that it’s better to own and take responsibility for your own decisions and not pawn it off on others, including God.
It’s not a social construct.
I’m afraid that’s not true either. All our institution’s are social constructs. If you want to say that marriage is inspired by God or something, that’s fine. But it’s still a social construct.
There is only one God. There is only one solution to pi.
The former is a matter of faith. The latter is a matter of fact, within the constructs of the recognized definition of pi (the ratio between the circumference of any circle to its diameter).
I, as a Christian, want the solution which is closest to the truth. Many people are happy with 3.14. I want 3.1416. . . .infinity.
Most people want, or think they want, the truth or the closest thing to the truth. As for pi, 3.14, 3.1416, or 3.14159265358979323846 are the best approximations with the given accuracies. Since it is a known fact that the decimal representation, at no point, ever forms an ever continuing pattern (i.e., is an irrational number), we’ll never know the full decimal representation. With regards to the nature of God, there are many widely recognized “approximations” and they are contradictory.
Comment by Pat — June 30, 2009 @ 8:16 am - June 30, 2009
More seriously, how about it going from this direction. Is an oath you made still valid if the other party breaks their side of it?
I’ll say no, Livewire. But I think it’s best for that person to hold his end of the bargain for a period of time, to find out for certain that the other party did, in fact, break the oath; to decide if he wants to accept or excuse the reasons for the other party breaking the oath; and/or wants to forgive the other party for breaking the oath.
I think Jenny Sanford is handling this quite well. She obviously takes her oath seriously, and is still trying to decide if her marriage can be and is worth saving. If and when she reaches the point that the marriage cannot be saved, she is well within her rights to cancel her obligations under the vows of marriage. As far as I’m concerned, that can happen as soon as she files for divorce.
Comment by Pat — June 30, 2009 @ 8:26 am - June 30, 2009
Since a reference to my comment came up (Casey), let me clarify. I stated that for myself, monogamy begins when sex begins, meaning I’m faithful to the person with whom I’m intimate. But that doesn’t mean that physical intimacy is the only kind, nor does it mean that monogamy only refers to physical monogamy (though my statement only referred to the physical definition). I believe one can commit psychological adultery such as dating someone and being intimate short of sexual activity. (And I’m not necessarily drawing a parallel to Jimmy Carter.) Again, my above statement merely referred to physical adultery and I think this is the definition in most common usage. With this clarification, I was faithful to my partner before sex began.
Comment by Ignatius — June 30, 2009 @ 9:53 am - June 30, 2009
Again, if there is no God, what difference does it make what you do to each other? If what you experience as personal values is just the result of random molecules coming together and creating the illusion of a conscience, who cares? Maybe adultery is the Selfish Gene’s way of finding more avenues to survive. How can the emotions of another person matter when persons, as such, don’t exist but are simply a bunch of random neuron firings? I just don’t see what the purpose of deciding “for myself” what is right and wrong. If marriage is something humans create, who needs it? If there’s no God, then everything is permissible.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 30, 2009 @ 10:04 am - June 30, 2009
Again, if there is no God, what difference does it make what you do to each other?
Perhaps to the other person you made a promise to.
If what you experience as personal values is just the result of random molecules coming together and creating the illusion of a conscience, who cares?
I’m not sure what this means, or what relevance it has.
How can the emotions of another person matter when persons, as such, don’t exist but are simply a bunch of random neuron firings?
I don’t know. The brain is a complex thing.
If marriage is something humans create, who needs it?
I would surmise almost all married couples. We do know that atheists marry. Besides, we humans have created a lot of things that we need.
If there’s no God, then everything is permissible.
Before people believed in God that wasn’t true. And if we found out somehow tomorrow that there is no God, it won’t be true.
I keep myself in line, i.e., try to make the best choices for myself, my partner, my family, my friends, my community, my nation, etc. For me, at least, these decisions do not depend on whether my belief in God is true or not, and will not change if I find out or come to realize there is no God.
I just don’t see what the purpose of deciding “for myself” what is right and wrong.
But you do decide for yourself what is right and wrong. To see this, you and others take plenty of time studying the Bible and seeing what God is, and what is right and wrong, etc. And you come to different conclusions as to what is right and wrong. For example, you believe homosexuality is okay, while many other Bible students are convinced that homosexuality (or at least acting on it) is wrong. You also made the decision to recognize the New Testament, but not Book of Mormon. These are human decisions. You simply attribute it to God, which is another human decision.
Comment by Pat — June 30, 2009 @ 10:25 am - June 30, 2009
That’s an excellent point, one often forgotten by those who may be overly (i.e., naively or dysfunctionally) religious: the difference between faith and fact, or faith and knowledge. The whole reason we have a separate word for it, “faith”, is that we don’t have factual knowledge about it. When we have factual knowledge about something, then we don’t call it faith anymore; we call it fact / knowledge.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2009 @ 10:28 am - June 30, 2009
Another excellent point. And Ash: Did it ever occur to you that a decision-making process which tries to pawn all the responsibility off on God, might be a mis-use of God? Sure He loves you and all; but did it ever occur to you that He might **slightly prefer** (let’s say) that you-or-whomever would just grow up and make your own decisions already?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2009 @ 10:39 am - June 30, 2009
Sounds rather low on self-esteem / sense of personal honor.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2009 @ 10:42 am - June 30, 2009
(Plus, like Pat, I don’t see the connection to the rest of the discussion; if anyone brought up atheism, I missed it.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2009 @ 10:43 am - June 30, 2009
Pat’s argument that 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition = Moon Goddess cult invented 15 minutes ago by a womyn’s studies grad student largely concedes my point that the left sees religion as a meaningless hobby.
Comment by V the K — June 30, 2009 @ 11:10 am - June 30, 2009
If what we call a “person” is simply a vehicle for transporting Selfish Genes from one place to another, then I fail to see why I should care about “persons.” What difference does it make if Selfish Genes are transported by adultery or monogamy?
Discerning God’s will is not immaturely turning over my decision making power to God. God and I are in a relationship. We make decisions together. Because I want our relationship to work, I don’t want to make a decision which would cause problems in the relationship. Therefore, I want to discern God’s opinion on any decision I make, the same as He wants mine on His decisions. As far as I can tell, the only means God has set up for this relationship is through Jesus. So, I look to Jesus as a way of understanding what God wants from our relationship, and He looks to Jesus to see what I want from Him. (This works because Jesus if fully human/fully God.)
I’m not a vehicle for Selfish Genes. I’m one of God’s friends, and as friends, we work together to make the kind of decisions which help our relationship to grow. God and I do this in a community of our other friends. So, decisions about who to have sex with involve discerning the thoughts of God and the community. Sex is not a private decision–or there wouldn’t be weddings. Gay marriage means that gays now want to bring God and the community in on their sexual relationships because that’s what a marriage does. (I still prefer to call it “same-sex covenant.” But it’s the same principle.)
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 30, 2009 @ 11:30 am - June 30, 2009
Actually, (oh boy this is getting fun) V the K, I’m in the ‘different faiths’ camp.
When my wiccan friends pray for intervention they’re calling on a higher power. Now I know ‘My God can beat up you god’, but being a Henotheist, I accept there are other powers out there, and they may have an interest in their followers afterlives.
Yes, a religion created by a ‘woman’s study major’ (Or a science fiction writer) as a hobby has little power, but there are faiths as old as ours, and the bible’s pretty adamant that there are other gods, why else would the commandment exist?
Comment by The Livewire — June 30, 2009 @ 11:46 am - June 30, 2009
More non sequiturs thrown into the mix by Ash. Just to restrict myself to what was on point:
Right… and does God seriously never tell you, “Come on, you decide; surprise Me”? (I’m told that. I tell Him “OK, I was just checkin’.” Not kidding.)
Good one TL – made me look it up!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2009 @ 1:24 pm - June 30, 2009
So, if anything anyone believes in is equally valid to what anyone else believes then, then I guess the Heaven’s Gate people really did go to a giant spaceship hidden behind a comet. Right?
Comment by V the K — June 30, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - June 30, 2009
Mark Sanford’s recent words indicates that he has been inappropriate in his marriage with his wife and has had some form of sexual contact (he doesn’t define what he means by that) with other women besides his current paramour, whom he has had a sexual relationship with. Sanford has been adulterous in his marriage by his own words. What happens from there is between him and his wife and is their personal business. What he did on the taxpayer’s dime and on official business, if he misused public monies to see his paramour, etc. is a public matter, which is being investigated by the Atty General of SC
His other problem is you can’t condemn others such as Bill Clinton for the same thing and then be caught at it and no less admitting during his marriage he has been engaged in some form of sexual content with other women.
In my humble opinion, Sanford can’t then say well I am against same sex marriage since its against God’s laws when he is violating his own religious faith and marital vows, which he received a state civil license to receive that right to marriage and if he had a religious marriage ceremony, then violate his faith’s laws in the process.
Hypocrisy is bipartisan and has no party affiliation. The old saying of beware those who pray loudest in church and then they engage in hypocrisy in their behavior holds true here. We are all sinners but I leave to his God and his family as to what occurs next. Engage in such conduct during the people’s time and people’s taxpayer dollars in his official duties as Governor is another issue between him and the law and the citizens of SC.
That also held true with Clinton and every other elected official who use taxpayer dollars to engage conduct on the taxpayer’s dime (ala Gov. Elliot Spitzer who used state troopers to stand watch while he engaged in sexual activities with a prostitute while on his official duties as Governor of NY, etc.)
Comment by Rocket — June 30, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - June 30, 2009
Pat’s argument that 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition = Moon Goddess cult invented 15 minutes ago by a womyn’s studies grad student largely concedes my point that the left sees religion as a meaningless hobby.
Sorry, V the K, now you’re making arguments of mine that I didn’t make. 1) I personally never said they were equivalent. However, I did say that others might view their religion better than Christianity, and they take it as seriously as you. 2) Maybe we were talking about different Pagan religions. But some Pagan religions have been around longer than Christianity. 3) Even if 2 is true, as I believe, I’m still not making the argument that they are equivalent. 4) Speaking for myself, I don’t regard religion as a hobby at all. I have thought seriously about it for years, just like you apparently have. However, I’m all for questioning religion just like any other topic, and not insulted when someone questions my beliefs. 5) Even if I did personally see religion as a meaningless hobby, how does this concede your point that the left does?
So, if anything anyone believes in is equally valid to what anyone else believes then, then I guess the Heaven’s Gate people really did go to a giant spaceship hidden behind a comet. Right?
Sure, why not? Actually, again, I don’t believe it. But since you mentioned it, just about any religion contains certain beliefs that an outsider looking in would say, “Um, yeah, right. Next thing you’re going to tell me there is a giant spaghetti monster deity.” So, it’s all about faith.
Comment by Pat — June 30, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - June 30, 2009
“Um, yeah, right. Next thing you’re going to tell me there is a giant spaghetti monster deity.” So, it’s all about faith.
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh C’thulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn,”
Seriously, the Talmud teachers “The righteous of any faith will be saved in the world to come.”
As long as they’re not blowing others up, should I really care waht someone believes? If they believe in Fuzzy the love bug (or Scientology) and they’re wrong, well I’ve done my duty as a Christian (albiet a heritic) to tell them about the way through Christ. Free will means making stupid decisions sometimes.
Comment by The Livewire — July 1, 2009 @ 7:50 am - July 1, 2009