Could you support a President who believed Extra-marital-hetero sexual sex to be a sin?

[bryant69]

That is, he or she believed that any heterosexual sex to a person who you are not married to is, by definition, a sin. He or she doesn't believe it to be a crime, doesn't believe it extra-marital sex should be punished by the government; he or she simply believes that it is an offense to God.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[babylonsister]

1. I support the idea that it's none of their business. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. I really wish I could answer that this was a stupid poll, but alas

There actually are candidates who believe that (and I fear not all of them are Republican.)

[bryant69]

12. It's sort of in reaction to the Gay Marriage/Obama kefluffle

Last time I read the Bible it mentioned Adultery like 10 times more than it mentioned Homosexuality; and in our modern political discourse, people claiming to be working from the Bible, mention Homosexuality about 100 times more than they mention adultery (unless, of course, speaking about President Clinton).

Bryant

[TwilightGardener]

3. Which candidate are we talking about here?

[SteppingRazor]

4. Follow up question: Will this candidate keep their religious views out of politics entirely?

If the answer is "yes," then they can believe whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

[bryant69]

8. Well that's the question.

If they promise to keep their religious views out, fair enough. But can they really?

Bryant

[SteppingRazor]

14. Here's the thing, though...

the likelihood that such a candidate will reflect my political beliefs is pretty slim.

Playing in hypotheticals, though, if there was a progressive candidate whose policies I completely supported, but who also believed that premarital sex was a sin, but who promised that such view would not affect their policy decisions, then yes, I could support that candidate.

That's called freedom of religion, and not having a religious test to be president.

[bryant69]

15. Actually there are very few mainstream churches who don't believe extra-marital sex to be a sin

Extra-marital sex includes both pre-marital sex and adultery.

And most candidates belong to a mainstream church, it strikes me.

Bryant

[SteppingRazor]

17. But that's a false analogy.

Mainstream church X believes Y
Candidate Z is a member of mainstream church X
Therefore, candidate Z believes Y

That's a logical fallacy unless exactly similar beliefs is a requirement for church membership, and that's not the case in most mainstream churches -- after all, there's plenty of pro-choice Catholics.

[bryant69]

20. True enough

I wonder how many candidates are asked "What is your stance on Pre-Marital sex? How about Adultery?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SteppingRazor]

23. None that I've heard of, and I would certainly be curious to see an answer.

I don't know that it would define a candidate for me, but it would certainly be interesting to see. Heck, some states still have laws on the books against adultery, so it's not as though that specific type of extra-marital sex has remained wholly the purview of the religious world.

[iamjoy]

33. Why Couldn't They?

Now, take Joe Lieberman. (please)

Anyway, forget his hawkishness and support of Republicans for a moment - let's look at his religion. Now he's Jewish - and quite observant. So, he considers eating pork or even having a cheeseburger to be wrong. Yet, you don't see him trying to get laws passed to ban these food items.

So, you could have an elected official who for religious reasons thinks sex outside marriage is wrong, but he/she wouldn't necessarily try to apply that view to the nation.

OTOH - I think many laws in this country, which supposedly has freedom of religion, are based on the Christian principles of the men who wrote them.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Delete

I misread the question.
GAC

[robcon]

6. I don't care. I could support such a person or not.

Depends on their stances on more important issues.

[treestar]

7. Very few people would support it as OK

Even people who do it probably feel really guilty. No one wants their spouse to cheat on them. So I'd say it's a real safe bet.

Now as to whether such a person, having done so, should be forgiven or continue in office, that's the tough question. Obviously the repuke has a zero tolerance policy for politicians, if not for him/herself.

[T Wolf]

9. Anyone who talks in terms of "sin" is showing their irrationality. Therefore,

they are disqualified from holding any position of authority in government. IMO.

[0007]

10. I second that! nt

[ProfessorGAC]

Well, You're Right

I misread the question the first time, and actually voted wrong. Brain cramp, i guess.

Since i don't believe in that "sin" stuff, i would question the ability of any such person to seperate real life from belief.

Once i read your post, i thought "I must have misread the OP." Sure enough, i did.
The Professor

[winter999]

16. Do you believe there is such a thing as "sin" or "good" or "evil"?

According to Websters:

Sin: "Any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle."

[bryant69]

24. most poeple use sin in a religious sense; i.e. an affront to God n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Then I Eschew That Definition

There are certainly moral judgments to be made. There are ethical considerations that are involved in all choices.

Making one that ends up highly negative to others or self may be "bad". It doesn't make it a "sin". There is a deistic and religious implication to that word.

Hence i agree with the Wolf on this.
The Professor

[Tyler Durden]

11. I continue to move toward the thought that RELIGIOUS belief...

..of any radical sort that OVERRULES the RULE OF LAW should be a disqualification from public office, right down to Dog Catcher.

If a candidate cannot stand on the podium and say loud and clear, "My religious 'beliefs' do not in any way allow for usurpation of the Rule of Law or support any such usurpation through inaction," then the individual should be disallowed from holding public office.

[bryant69]

13. ANd if they say that- can you believe them? n/t

[Tyler Durden]

28. Nope.

Bet you couldn't either. SUCKS to be so pragmatic in this day and age, doesn't it?

[aikoaiko]

34. Yes, as long as they separate that from policy.

I could support a person with a lot of different or IMHO wrong beliefs if they were right on policy

[soleft]

18. Your link doesn't have anything about ex. marital sex

[bryant69]

21. N o - i'm what's known as a blogwhore

That's my personal blog.

Bryant

[rucky]

19. As long as they're not trying to legislate it,

I can live with it.

[Marrah_G]

22. I look forward to a day where religous beliefs don't detirmine eligibility

I could never successfully run for office due to my religion.

[Lilith Velkor]

25. As long as he or she respects the First amendment

He/she could believe in Scientology for all I care.

[tekisui]

27. What is a "sin"?

:shrug:

I want a president that doesn't believe in that.

[bryant69]

30. so you are looking for an atheist/non-religious candidate

I'll admit it does bug me that you aren't likely to see that soon, but you aren't likely to see that soon.

Bryant

[Annces]

29. Do you mean

are we so desperate for a candidate, that we will overlook some of their stupid ideas? I have to say yes. I am willing to vote for any democratic candidate as opposed to a republican. In my own mind, I think not actively loving someone is the worst you can do to them in a marriage, if you want to label types of sins. People commit adultery for a myriad of reasons.

[blondeatlast]

31. If they think it, even if they express an opinion when asked, I'm okay with that.

If they intend to actively pursue it as part of their agenda, hell no.

It wouldn't be a deal-maker or -breaker for me, if that's what you are asking.

[zbdent]

32. I take it we're not talkin' Republican candidate, here ...