Socks

I said it defending Bill Clinton, and I will say it here again, personal, private life “morality” has nothing to do with public morality.

There are people I would trust with all my money, but whom I would not trust alone with my daughter or my wife, and there are people I would trust to take a naked hottub with my wife, that I would not trust with my money.

Catholic doctrine, I think, is right on one thing, and Hillary even mentioned this during the Monica time; sexual sins are animal sins, they are considered lesser sins, than most others, in catholic theology. This goes against the popular conception of the sexually uptight catholic, but thats because the catholic doctrine, which I think comports with reality, with our biology, says that the sex drive is an urge that requires constant efforts to overcome.

To be sexually “virtuous,” requires resisting, actively resisting, natural urges.

Compare with theft, or graft, these are things that you must decide to do.

It may sound like a small difference, but I think it is real, because I know, I know very well, people who are sexually, what society would call “immoral,” yet in every other aspect of their lives, they are trustworthy, honest, and decent.

On the other side, I know many strident prudes, righteous about their sexual purity, who have the worst morals, when it comes to dealing with others, that I have ever seen. They will lie, cheat, and steal, in a second, but they pride themselves on their “morality” because they are chaste.

@Promnight: I understand – John Edwards would have been a good president, and neither you nor I would have impeached him for getting something on the side. But Greater America would have – we live in a country where sexual sins are weighted far out of proportion. So it is.

separation of church and state?
ha haha hahahahahahaha

never was, never will be.