The immoral justice of our judgments.

Freedom of choice  - A man who lives by the constitution
Freedom of choice - A man who lives by the constitution

Our immoral judgments placed on others as laws to govern their way of life.

To condemn someone who has committed infidelity is not always a good judgment. The reasoning behind the act of infidelity must be reexamine before the cheater can be proven guilty. As the old tradition say, once a cheater is always a cheater ...that may not always be the case. As you continue to read my thoughts, you'll noticed that the logic that support my arguments will prove this statement to be unreasonable at times.

  • I'm disgusted about the action the media takes against our leaders to penalized those who have committed adultery. The pain and suffering that our media placed their families into are sometime unnecessary. We're a society who's enthuses about news that dealt with celebrities being caught having an affair ... for some reason we get a kick out of that, it actually excite us to see celebrities marriage being brake into pieces. We're the reason why Princess Diana got chased by Paparazzi to the point of an accident that caused her death. Our eager to know about her private life led to this accident. It's obvious that Paparazzi wouldn't have found the need to take private pictures had the price for one been invaluable. The value we place into celebrities private lives has a direct relationships towards their marriage.
  • As a society, we're so not in touch with politics that the only time we know of a politician way about is when his been caught having fun. Our politicians private life is more important to some of us than the constitution that governs our lives.Let's take for example Governor Spitzer since we all know the story. Did his wife deserved this humiliation, perhaps not but she got it anyway. Why? .. because the media ratting went up sky high the moment they began talking about his private life. For some reason, we seems to pay more attention to the media when the issue that is being discussed involve adultery than when it involve politics.
  • Now, the question here is when does the act of adultery becomes immoral? I don't believe that the act of adultery should become immoral just because a bunch of imperfect people in our society justified it as being wrong. It should only be wrong when the couples who are in the relationship suggest that it's wrong. Looking at the relationship from outside in, we may say that since he's a married man, he shouldn't have any reason being caught in bed with another woman ...but would that be enough to form a judgment or are we using other principles that are illogical to placed judgment.
  • If Spitzer's wife had given the media permission to placed her private life on the podium ...yes, I could understand why the exposure but she didn't. Since Spitzer's action effects mostly his wife, to expose her private life to the public without having consulting her, can be viewed as an immoral act on the media's part. Since Spitzer was a public figure, I understand why he must behave in a manner that suit public opinion. However, for him to have given his position as governor because of it, proved that we focus our attention on issues that doesn't contribute to progress. Spitzer's private life had absolutely no relevant to the way he ran the city of New York has governor.Yes, it's possible perhaps he made a mistake but to know for sure whether or not it was a mistake, one would have had to examen his relationship.
  • We must understand that every relationship is different. We may never know what agreement one has in his relationship.Perhaps Spitzer case was different but what if his wife had complications that caused her not being able to be sexually active. Would we have preferred that he devoice his wife for another woman or would we have accepted his reason for adultery because of his wife condition. For argument sake what if his wife was OK with him visiting prostitute every now and then because of unknown reason, would his action be still condemnable.
  • Although Spitzer case may have been different, one may never know if his act of infidelity was immoral until a careful examination of his relationships has been established. We are imperfect beings having a loving experience, the result of our relationship will depends on how we balance our imperfection with our values. What we do in our private lives are our business.
  • I must also include, what contributes to some man infidelity relates to the good girl status their wives wants to maintain. What most women fail to realize is that most man don't want a good girl in bed. A good girl in bed is boring, this is one of the reason why some men find prostitutes & other girls attractive because they offer them a fantasy that teir partner can't provide. Their wives are so caught up playing a good girl in bed, they unwillingness to experience new things caused these men to lose interest to the point where they shift their focus to their fantasy. In this case, what bond them with their wives does not include sex, but rather the commitment they have made to keep their family, the conversation and the investment they have made in their relationship.

  • There are different types of relationships, some are monogamist others are polygamist. We may not choose to acknowledge a polygamy relationship because of what we've condition ourselves to believe, but it doesn't mean that a polygamy relationship is wrong. It's actually a selfish idea to love one person. Love was meant to be shared, even beyond two couples, it's another way one can create a balance within his love life so long as there is mutual respect. It's possible that If love was shared among more than two people in this country, devoice could have been to a minimal because a balance would have been created, but how true is that is easy said than practice.
  • No relationship is perfect, we're more likely to compliment each other when we're a group of lovers than when we're just a couple. It is no coincident why people who are in a polygamy relationships are less likely to end up in a devoice than those who take part in a monogamy relationship. Polygamy relationships not only provide financial support between couples, but more importantly there is a sense of sexual happiness that exist among the couples. Family values in this country needs to be revisited because now days we have different families who shares different values. This society need to give consideration to those families. Whether it's two women or two men, it's still a family. As the president elect said, we can't face new challenges with the same old ideas.
  • Now, let's look at the case of Governor James McGreevey. No wonder why the man was a good governor, he was a happy guy. Getting caught doing a three some is not an immoral act, specially if his wife was involve in it. Had it been just the three some, I say this story should have never made the news like it did. But it was more than that. The problem there shouldn't have been because governor McGreevey was gay but rather because he deceived his wife into having her thinking that he was straight. That's when his action became immoral, he let his wife assumed that he was straight when in fact he's bisexual ...that's call deceiving your partner and it's wrong. However, had she new that he was bisexual, this three some story should have never made the news. Since him having a three some had no effect with his job as a governor, demanding his resignation for that would have been unjustified.
  • We also have another problem in this society, we have an issue against gay people. We believe that they shouldn't have the right to get married as if getting married was a privilege that deserve merit. It's a double standard, in someway we like gay people but we think them getting married compromise our way of life. We seems to think if gay people were to be allowed to get married, it would have devalued our marriage certificate, as if our marriage certificate held any value. No wonder why the devoice rate is skyrocketing. The commitment that exist among couples are not held by a marriage certificate. That commitment is held by the process of couples having the ability to compromised their differences in a manner that complements their relationship.
  • Gay marriage may not be viewed as a civil right under the premise that being gay is a choice and being born black is not. If Gay people wants to argue that a man can be born gay then they can admit that a man being born gay shouldn't necessarily must engage in homosexual activities to be accepted in the Gay community as a Gay person. The reason behind that concept rest on the principle that anyone who is naturally born a certain way should not have to do anything to prove to anyone that they're a certain way. This has nothing to do with the physical characteristic of the Gay relationship, but everything to do with free choice, allowing people to choose and accept being who they are depending on their comfort level. The contention being that a person who is naturally born Gay will eventually venture into a Gay lifestyle by choice. The only problem that complicate people's choice in society is the social pressure irrespective to society.
  • This is why I did say that if Gay people is willing to accept that sex between same gender is not a necessity for acceptance, than my reason for Gay marriage not being viewed as a civil right is wrong for the reason being that both the person who is naturally born a certain way and the skin color of the black person are unchangeable. Base from that perspective both would have been classified as an acceptable reason for the civil right position. What I thought was missing was the education, many people do not understand how someone can be born gay. ( my intent was never to upset the Gay community. I was trying to rationalized how Gay marriage could be classify as a civil right. If it did appear as an insult than I offer my sincere apology). I was always under the pretext that it is our culture that produces Gay people, and that no one is actually born gay. (edit July 5, 2012) I was wrong to have thought that, and I apologize for publishing that message without finding first what the conditions were. I support people's right to choose, people's right to maintain how they wish to be perceived in the world regardless of their personal choice, I support liberty and freedom of choice for all.
  • Therefore, marriage is a right not a privilege, a right that should be granted to all people. As it is noted, we shouldn't expect Gay couples to like this idea of placing married heterosexual couples in a lower tax bracket while having them pay a higher tax rate. Since they're not able to get married, it's absolutely unfair to have them pay a hire tax rate. You see, I don't believed that this is an idea of either or. Gay, straights, bisexuals, transsexuals all add significants to human existence. By having either or would create an imbalance in our lives. Since society is not stagnant, we can't expect our values to be. As we continue to progress as a society, new ideas will developed and those ideas will subsequently change our lives. If the left shoe was trying to fit in the right foot, I would have been debating for straight people's right, but it's not. It is the right shoe that is trying to fit in both foot and therefore have made it very difficult for us to move forward.
  • Yes, America is not alone when it comes to not legalizing homosexual marriage but we must remembered that Haiti was the first free slave country that gave rise to other slaves which then caused them to revolt. A fight is a fight and it must start somewhere, it's much easier to lose a fight by giving up than to stay fighting. It is without a doubt by not allowing gay couples to get married relates a clear case of discrimination.The fight will continue and the new generation will win it. Although the fight to disengage proposition eight from our constitution has not yet been achieved, gay people will not give up ....because they undestand in fighting there are always disapointments. "L'union fair la force" gay & straight people who opposed this proposition should aslo join the fight because as DR. Kings said " an injustice to one is an injustice to all" ... " Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly". OneLove.
  • Although I am for gay marriage, I do have my own concern in that regard. Take shemales and transsexuals for instant. I think that a man who portrayed himself has a woman to attract straight men is deceiving the man who fall for it, and therefore has committed an immoral act. This is not a judgment on the character of the person, because the person has the right to choose, but by deceiving the straight man that person has in turn violate his right to choose. How should we deal with that in today society is to educate people about the intent. In support of Gay marriage, I believe as a society we need to open our minds to other ideas that bond us as opposed to divide us. At one time in this country's history the Bible was used to justified slavery and today it's being use to devalued gay marriage. I think to some extent the problem between evangelicals and gays goes beyond gay marriage, it's an issue that underlines the division of power.

why women cheat
why women cheat

Ron Paul = Freedom

More by this Author


Comments 9 comments

TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

CoolBreezing,

Very good point, Monogamy as a Christian value is relatively new from a historical viewpoint. The first Holy Roman Emperor had multiple wives. Monogamy was driven more by social issues at the time, as civilization was taking root, the population imbalance between men and women was starting to equalize, but money was not.

This disparity was creating turmoil, so naturally the Church loaned it's control of people to this issue and made monogamy the norm. Yet today, most Christians unaware of their history feel as if this was how it always was and; therefore, how it shall always be, when in fact it is just the same old church/government control.

It is like saying this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values when in fact it was the opposite as Many of the Founding Fathers were Deist and held strongly in the belief that the Church was the Biggest threat to liberty after a Central Bank.

Thanks to the Fascist slant in our education system over the last 60 years no one knows why we fought the Revolution (England imposing the Central bank and charging interest on the currency) nor do they know the history of Marriage, most do not know that Marriage was originally a civil affair and the Church had no stance on it until the Middle Ages when the Church began recording Marriages in order to help the Government (When the Government of Rome and the Church were one entity). Again good Hub

TMG


Misha profile image

Misha 7 years ago from DC Area

This hub regarding our real biological drive for polygamy may be interesting to you guys http://hubpages.com/misc/LUSTANDLOVE


TheMoneyGuy profile image

TheMoneyGuy 7 years ago from Pyote, TX

Misha you just said it all, anything titled like that will provoke the initial interest. That's why sex is on the Media it sells and that is the bottom line(Pun intended). LOL.

TMG


Lgali profile image

Lgali 7 years ago

very good hub


denise mohan profile image

denise mohan 7 years ago from California

Coolio, You are soooo right. I didn't really like the way th media handled the whole Clinton cheating affair. My daughters were young yet old enough to read. They printed all the details about the dress and the cigar in the newpapaer. AND in Newsweek! C'mon don't people have better things to do? You addressed many good points about how closed minded people really are. When will it change? Great Hub!


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

MoneyGuy thanks for the history lesson. I'm not aware about the history of marriage/relationships as it relate to the church but I will surely look it up. You absolutely brought awareness to this argument. Thanks for the info Misha, I will definitely check it out. Denise you're right I didn't like the way the media handled the Clinton cheating affair as well. I mean the guy almost got impeach for this nonsense ...I couldn't believe it. George W Bush took us to war, spend our money, put our militants in harm's way and yet his not impeach. But Clinton who simply got a job done at the white house ….and we were ready to throw him out. So you tell me ...where is the justice. I mean no disrespect to women but if some women new that they could have gotten famous and rich from performing a job to the president, they would have been a line ranging from New York to California. No one care to asked Hillary what she thought about it before making the story public. The media just print it out without giving any consideration to Hilary's feelings.


d.william profile image

d.william 5 years ago from Somewhere in the south

This is really an excellent article. You have valid and logical arguments and absolutely correct in your presentation. This government (0r should i say, those old farts that are running our government) are always trying to mandate morality in their own images.

Sexual activity between ANY two, or more, people is none of anyone elses business in any form or manner. And, i also, blame the media for sensationalizing it on the news. The government, or religion, has no business making laws that make anything sexual against the law, or sinful. These matters are between the individuals and their maker, if they believe in one.

Also, i was quite astonished at the remarks of Ron Paul, in the video. I did not realize just how liberal he truly is. And i agree with him in all aspects of that video. I will look forward to reading more of your hubs.

If you have a moment or two to look at my hub called: Are people born gay? You might find a different view of this phenomenon, that is truly NOT a life choice, but rather a birth right. And if you are like i am, in believing in a God that does not make mistakes, you will understand the nature of all birth rights. dw


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 5 years ago from New York, New York Author

Hi! William

Yes Ron Paul is the candidate that Obama should fear. His willingness to speak freely on some issues can bring some difficult debate to the democratic table. However, because of his stands on some issues he may not get enough fundings but if the republicans are willing to back him up he is definitely going to make noise. The American minds weren't ready for him 4 years ago but now his getting positive feedback from a lots of citizens.

Most people tends to think that I'm a democrat because I support president Obama, but little do they know that it is not President Obama that I support but the issues that the president is in favor of. In reality no one is really we are all affected by policies directed towards certain issues. In that respect it is the issues that the candidate support that we in favor of not the president per say.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 5 years ago from New York, New York Author

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working