Before I post the last of the Arizona desert posts, I decided to cover one more aspect of sexuality and the United States as it seems to fit with the last post (about which most commenters disagreed with me which I think can be good when it puts out both sides of an issue). Anyway, let's see if that happens on this one too.
In listening to the talking heads this week, a question was being asked: should someone who is involved in sexual immorality be removed from political office? If a potential candidate knows they have had or are having an adulterous affair, should they not enter politics at all? Surprisingly, to me, the answer seemed to be that sexual morality should be a major criteria for choosing political leaders.
The issue is not whether someone like Spitzer, who committed an illegal act, a crime he had been vigorously enforcing, should be removed from office. Serious legal issues are usually cause for removing a leader; but the question is about something that is not illegal in most states (although it is in a few) i.e. adultery.
It's interesting where our concepts of monogamy even came from, but I think it has to be religion which serves a deeper cultural need. We are not the only mostly monogamous animals, but we are the only ones (of which I can think) where it is important to the community at large that faithfulness be enforced. Around the world and in some states in the USA, there are still criminal penalties for marital unfaithfulness-- Wikepedia.
What makes it so important to the community at large that married couples be monogamous? Serial monogamy is acceptable (if not preferred) but anything else is definitely not okay with Americans and really much of the world.
Is it important to you to be sure your candidate has never committed adultery? If (like newly appointed New York Governor Patterson) the husband and wife have worked this out and are in agreement, would it still be a factor in your decision in the voting booth?
Looking at our current political slate, of those most likely to be president, all have gossip swirling around that they may have had at least one affair. Would it impact your vote in November if a candidate you had preferred turned out to be an adulterer?
It's interesting to consider as there have been very few presidents in our United States history who were totally monogamous. Does being sexually immoral mean the person is less effective as a leader? Or put another way, what is it about someone being sexually pure that would make them a better leader? Hidden sexual relationships have risks for sure in terms of blackmail but putting that aside, should it matter? Does it matter? And if it does, why? Going along with this is the question: would you vote for a gay even if they were in a monogamous relationship?
On one of the talk shows I heard the answer that 'unfaithfulness' mattered because it meant the person would have had to lie to their spouse which means they will not be trustworthy in anything else. Okay, maybe so (although not sure I go with that theory), but what if the couple had an arranged, non-monogamous marriage, would that still make either persona non grata as a leader? My best guess is to most voters, that would even be more suspect. There is something about happily ever after (and not of same-sex couples) that seems to carry over into the voting booths.
5 comments:
I guess the main thing that I'd wonder about is that if he/she would willingly break that promise and be unfaithful to a spouse, why should I not expect the same thing from them in their political office? I'd like to think that they all at least go into office with good intentions of honorably doing a good job at their elected position. That is probably also how they entered their marriage, with good intentions of being faithful.
Does it carry over? I don't know. I've heard it said that the only way to find a truly pure hearted person is to only consider those under the age of about five (ie, before going off to school) and I don't think they qualify, at least for President of the US.
Does it make that much difference to ME? I don't think so as I also feel that those who enter into politics have a hard time telling what the truth is. Most of them seem to change with the wind. I guess that is one of the reasons I kind of lean toward Obama- he isn't as much of a career politician as all of the others and I am really getting tired of career politicians.
As far as I am concerned, as long as a political personage is not spending public money doing it (or ignoring their official work in favor of) and as long as s/he is not leaving him/herself open to the afore-mentioned blackmail, I don't really think that I care about his/her sexual peccadillos. I particularly do not want to read about/hear about/see anything about the whole affair in the media.
That said, it is awfully hard to feel kindly toward a hypocrit (even/especially if it is me!) Gay/straight/bi, I don't care.
What is harder for me to parse is financial fidelity. Personally, I feel that each couple should need a license to conceive and conceptions should be limited to those that can be afforded financially and emotionally and world-population-wise. I wander far afield.
Cop Car
I'm not interested in a candidate's sex life until it involves national security or publc funds, i.e.,my pocketbook. I would like to think that most of our politicos are wise enough to keep their pecadillos private but I'm probably wrong. Sigh.
As to a gay president, I could care less as long as he/she conducts himself/herself in the same honorable manner I'd expect from a heterosexual.
Sex is over-rated anyway Rain. :-)
I don't really care if a candidate has extra-marital affairs, but I do care that they leave themselves more vulnerable to the political opposition than they do to their own spouses. I don't like how infidelity has become media fodder. I'm not sure it conveys anything about a candidate that would have an impact on their ability to lead and serve. There was a time when the press did not print stories about affairs. Our country never crumbled in bedrooms of illicit sex.
Post a Comment