Sturm, I need some clarification. Are you saying that Kerry's violation of his marriage vows
should not affect people's acceptance of Kerry's views, but that it
will (regardless of his actual stance on the issue? Otherwise, I cannot make sense out of the following statements:
Quote:
Let's not sully the discussion of Kerry's supposed infidelities by trying to draw some contrived connection with his stance on gay marriage. Red herring.
. . .
Just because his marriage has not been perfect doesn't mean his opinion of who should be able to marry isn't relevant.
. . .
And his support of the "sanctity of marriage" - vis-a-vis his own personal issues - forces one to really question the exclusion of an entire group of people on those grounds. Hypocricy abounds when it comes to this issue, don't you think?
. . .
To Kiki's point, I think Kerry's reputed infidelity, if true, actually helps the same-sex cause.
|
It seems that to suggest Kerry is pro gay marriage means his infidelities should be left out. But since he is anti gay marriage, it suggests he is a hypocrite.
from MavsKiki
Quote:
|
As it stands, it just highlights the hypocrisy between those who would deny same sex partners the right to marry, and then violate the sanctity of the institution themselves.
|
As it stands, the side of the argument that suffers will be the side of the argument on which Kerry stands. And there seems to be some debate as to which side that is. Whatever side he is on, though, will benefit if he comes out and claims that his own behavior is a violation of that sanctity (assuming his own views can be pinned down). If he does that, then as people did with Arnold's sexual activities, and as people did with Bush's alcohol abuse, and as people did not do with Clinton's sexual activity, the public will be willing to forgive, having a justification (Kerry's remorse) that will alleviate what might otherwise be a detrimental level of dissonance.