Surprise - John Edwards is a Man!

Phaedrus · Post by **Phaedrus** » 17 Aug 2008 00:22

I couldn't agree more with SandChigger and GamePlayer.

Unfortunately, I can't say I speak for the rest of my generation.

It amazes me how among my peers, I'll still hear someone say, "Oh, and then she cheated on him with so-and-so. She's such a slut. I can't believe I thought she was my friend!"

My usual response to this is something like: "Oh, god, no, someone under the age of twenty decided that they didn't like long-term commitment but DID like sex. I'm so shocked."

This usually leads to an argument of sorts that ends in the other person telling me that there's "more to it than that." And they can never specify that it's just their own 1800's style prudish morals that don't mean a thing.

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 17 Aug 2008 01:47

Sanctity of marriage? It's a civil contract nothing more nothing less. Everything else is as Chig notes is ones personal issues confusing matters.

Rob

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 17 Aug 2008 13:41

SandChigger wrote:Could someone remind me why people still engage in this silly practice?

I personally think marriage should be abolished as a civil institution. If people still want to go through the religious ceremony and all that, and make "eternal vows" and all that rigamorole, then more power to them. But really, why should the state still be involved?

Parenthood can easily be determined now by DNA testing. Redefine the laws for income, property and inheritance taxes, etc., in terms of "relational cohabitance" or "shared support of natural or adopted dependents" or some such and get on with it.

YAWN.

Word,

GamePlayer wrote:
SandChigger wrote:There you have it: the sanctity of marriage.

Religious issue. Personal issue. NOT an issue for state involvement.

Nor one for discussion in politics. "Infidelity" is really only the business of the two people involved. I really couldn't care less whether the man has plugged every hole from Jacksonville to Baltimore.

I'm honestly embarrassed sometimes at what prudish children Americans still are.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo my chigga. Rest assured you're not alone, though you'll have to accept my help as a Canadian. No luck for your fellow yanks

and word again. I do however think that there is a place for "civil unions" (or as Chig says, some changes to the laws he mentioned), but I think they should be able to be enacted between any people who are co-dependant. Not just lovers. It seems absurd to me that the only way to get all the extra benefits of "marriage" you have to be fucking the person? What's the difference between two siblings living together and depending on one another and two lovers (from the state's point of view). Between two friends who depend on each other and two lovers? Seems ridiculous.

I think marriage should mean absolutely nothing in the eyes of the state, and that a civil union should be possible between any group (mixed sex, same sex, three people, two lovers and their parents, whatever) of people who can demonstrate that they do in fact depend on each other and need the benefits which come from the civil union.

Whether or not two people are fucking should not grant them extra rights, and should not be the business of the state.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 18 Aug 2008 00:44

And of course we'll get the objection "That's just a sly way of getting gay marriage/multiple partners/hobgoblin-of-the-month validated!" from the unthinking majority.

Wull, yeah. So?

I think the term "civil union" is probably too loaded already. "(Co)Dependent Relationship" is a possibility, maybe not the best.

Whatever it's called, the point is, if you're supporting another person, whatever your relationship to them, you should be able to claim them as a dependent and receive incentives or tax breaks or whatever. Doesn't mean you're shtooping them. Or that you're not. Who cares?

And the important thing is it could be done so it doesn't take away any of the benefits or rights that married couples currently enjoy.

Except the exclusivity thereof.

orald · Post by **orald** » 18 Aug 2008 10:04

GP, get the fuck off my back, I have no fucking clue as to the meaning of what you said. You can chuckle all you want, I still don't get what the fuck you meant to criticise me about, this time.

I'm appalled at how you can all bitch and moan about P&B lying about their notes and books etc, yet at the same time call someone who's been fucking behind his wife's back a "man" in a positive conotation.

Do you all cheat your partners so, or don't give a damn about them cheating on you? Or is it only "wrong" when it's personal?

And I guess someone who can't even control his dick is just the person to lead the world to a better existence, huh?

But NVM, he's the man( ?), right?

Crysknife · Post by **Crysknife** » 18 Aug 2008 10:46

Forbidden fruit? Hell, you still have to eat.

Yeah, if he had an arrangement with his wife that he was to be faithful sexually(not every couple does), then it sucks(no pun intended). But I'm not going to say the guy would have been a horrible leader and policy maker just because he did something that is biologically necessary. Plus, his wife has incurable cancer.....who knows what kind of strain that puts on their sex life together.

Now, if he had been found with child porn all over his computer and house, then we'd have a problem. He had sex with a consenting adult...big whoopty deal.

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 18 Aug 2008 11:53

Orald, Edwards broke his contract with his wife, that is no ones business but theirs. It is none of our business yet the religious conservatives in this country, take it on themselves to pry into peoples private affairs and then when they get caught in an affair, soliciting blowjobs in public restrooms, etc, piss and moan, I asked god to forgive me! My wife and I talked she's forgiven me! There is a lot of hypocrisy, so when we say Edwards is now a MAN! It is making fun of all those hypocritical busy bodies and the reality that they break the vows and promises more often than those they go after.

BTW, Bush has big dick syndrome and he sure has made the world a better place now hasn't he? Too much dick thinking in world politics me thinks. Bush is impotent, Russia is on viagra at the moment, wheres the lesbian porn?

Rob

orald · Post by **orald** » 18 Aug 2008 12:25

Robspierre wrote:Bush is impotent, Russia is on viagra at the moment, wheres the lesbian porn?

Rob

Condi and Livni?

(

)
http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepics3/Condi031407a.jpg
(It's that long?!

)

So you're all supporting him because the conservatives are using this for political gain?

I'm not sticking any kind of religeous meaning into marriage, but a contract you guys have said, and a simple contract it is- and he broke it.
He broke the trust that was put in him.
He should NOT be supported for this, nevermind ho much you hate conservatives.

And "just because he did something that is biologically necessary"?! Can't he jerk off anymore? I do believe he's got two healthy hands.

I still can't understand how you, truth loving people that you seem to be, can't see how despicable this act of infedelity(sp?) is.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 18 Aug 2008 13:05

You want me to explain why you deserve ridicule because of what you posted orald? Well let's conduct a little test of your sincerity. Read the first paragraph of this article on KJA (see below). It’s VERY relevant to both this discussion and the reply you posted.

I hate dichotomies. I find the idea that the world should be perceived in a binary on/off mode ridiculous, sophistic and insulting. Dichotomic argumentation is a manipulative tool used by orators and essayists desperate to win over their audience. They mask the weaknesses of their positions by setting up binary oppositions, often in emotionally charged rhetoric, that seek to obscure options that lie beyond their discourse of opposites in conflict. Burning fossil fuels or economic collapse? Heterosexual marriage and reproduction or homosexuality and AIDS? Instinctual or cultural? Feminist or sexist? Free-market conservative or totalitarian communist? Unlike what many would like us all to believe, rejecting one of these extremes does not equate embracing its supposed opposite. The world is much more complex than that.

And for the sake of our home viewing audience...

orald wrote:GP, nobody's deifying marriage, we're deifying actually sticking to one's promises and vows, or maybe you don't mind lying to everyone around you?

"BOOM! Code X!"

orald · Post by **orald** » 18 Aug 2008 15:03

Oh yes, now you've got me. I'm actually KJA trying to ruin your name.

If you're protecting someone supposedly as great as him for fucking up like that, does it not make you guilty as well?

And I deserve redicule for pointing this out, do I? Don't you like lying then? Then how can you protect him? Why won't you condemn him for the lying cheater he is?

But hey, it's no biggy, everyone does it, right? So it must be OK. And natural.
Maybe even a biological necessity.

BTW, I liked that "consenting adults" bit someone(Chig?) wrote. Was his wife consenting as well?

Crysknife · Post by **Crysknife** » 18 Aug 2008 16:11

BTW, I liked that "consenting adults" bit someone(Chig?) wrote. Was his wife consenting as well?

Is a Jew consenting as well when two homosexuals get it going on in the bedroom?

Sorry, that started to sound like a bad joke, but it makes my point; butt out, it's between him and his wife, and no one else.

You wouldn't have to vote for him, but he's still better than the other guy on policy issues. And the other guy cheated on his wife as well. Maybe he should have just masturbated?

Give me a break.

I personally don’t give a rat's ass if McCain cheated on his wife; I just can't stand everything else he stands for.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 18 Aug 2008 20:31

orald wrote:Oh yes, now you've got me. I'm actually KJA trying to ruin your name.

I trust orald to be orald, which you have been doing most disastrously. Missing the point and ridicule are just naturally attracted to you; no conspiracy, I assure you. "Trust me!"

Anathema · Post by **Anathema** » 19 Aug 2008 05:56

Johny couldn't controll his johnson while ms. Edwards has only 2-3 years to live (if I recall correctly), wich pretty much makes him an asshole in my book as far as I can assess the situation.

Nevertheless, if I thought that Edwards was a brilliant politician I'd still vote for him if I were a US citizen. But I don't, and I'm not

orald · Post by **orald** » 19 Aug 2008 09:34

Anathema wrote:Johny couldn't controll his johnson while ms. Edwards has only 2-3 years to live (if I recall correctly), wich pretty much makes him an asshole in my book as far as I can assess the situation.

No, no, he's the man!

Crysknife wrote:Is a Jew consenting as well when two homosexuals get it going on in the bedroom?

Sorry, that started to sound like a bad joke, but it makes my point; butt out, it's between him and his wife, and no one else.

Now that's dumb.
Did I say I care what someone religious nut thinks of gays, or anything that goes on in the bedroom for that matter?
Or do you support the conservatives' claim that only religion brings morality?
Is lying and cheating on your spouse OK with secular, liberal and enlightened people?

I think you're on about "those conservatives" and ignoring the fact I oppose this from a moral standpoint. But since you seem so eager to atack "them", be my guest.

So a question to all you supporters and well-wishers: Do you cheat on your "loved ones"(how much they're actually loved is uncertain if you do) and can't care less if they do the same to you? You all seem mighty enthusiastic and supportive of it for some reason.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 19 Aug 2008 09:42

If we dissalowed people from running for office for having moral or ethical skeletons in their closets no one would ever get elected.

However I feel that if you're going to run for public office your life is open to the media and it will be up to each individual to judge whether or not the guy deserves a vote.

Civil marriage has become a joke in this country.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 19 Aug 2008 10:48

(This has become one of those "stupid" threads, hasn't it?

)

Post by **Freakzilla** » 19 Aug 2008 10:52

SandChigger wrote:(This has become one of those "stupid" threads, hasn't it? )

It has to me.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » 19 Aug 2008 12:58

orald wrote: No, no, he's the man!

No one said he was the man, the OP said he was a man, meaning he is human and prone to mistakes. Of course I haven't read this entire thread, so maybe someone did call him the man and I missed it.

Personally I think he's a shithead for cheating on his wife. I have no idea what his relationship with his kid is like.. can't really blame him for wanting to keep that a secret, but he should have known it would come out eventually. I can forgive him for making mistakes though, everyone does stupid shit. It's not like he lied and got a bunch of people killed.

Crysknife · Post by **Crysknife** » 19 Aug 2008 13:01

So Orald, have you changed your mind about McCain?

I don't think anyone supports cheating on your wife, but at the end of the day, it's almost like destroying a good leader because he promised never to smoke again and then he does. If he made it a habit and it was well known, then one might decide it too much to vote for him. His wife is still with him, orald.

And now that this thread is so stupid, I guess we should start ignoring it.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 19 Aug 2008 13:21

I think we've made a bigger deal of it here than the media has.

Crysknife · Post by **Crysknife** » 19 Aug 2008 13:36

True!

But the media wants to get rid of it fast because they love liberals. And, no doubt, McCain wants no part of it.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 19 Aug 2008 13:40

So, should we should vote for the guy who cheated on his wife the most times or with the best looking chick?

I think McCain's wife is pretty hot and she's still with him, so I'll vote for him.

Crysknife · Post by **Crysknife** » 19 Aug 2008 13:43

Gotta give you that one!

Rich and Hot....damn!

Did you see the girl Edwards cheated with? Eh, not so much.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 19 Aug 2008 13:53

Crysknife wrote:Gotta give you that one! Rich and Hot....damn!

Did you see the girl Edwards cheated with? Eh, not so much.

No, I haven't seen her.

I'm not a cheater myself but it seems a lot of men are. I don't think they necessarily go for women who are hotter than their wife, just a woman who is NOT their wife. I can sympathize with that. But I know my luck, I'd never get away with it.

Crysknife · Post by **Crysknife** » 19 Aug 2008 15:07

Agreed. I can't keep secrets and I'm an emotional wreck most of the time anyway. There'd be no chance I could pull it off. My wife knows me too well.