• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is an affair a dealbreaker

If your partner cheats, will you stay?

  • No, I'd end it

    Votes: 19 38.8%

  • Yes, I'd stay. Period.

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • I'd stay conditionally

    Votes: 13 26.5%

  • Don't know/not sure/not in a relationship/HOT POCKETS!

    Votes: 14 28.6%
  • Total voters
    49
Khayembii Communique said:
A girl cheats when she's no longer interested in the relationship. You failed to keep her attracted.



Women aren't "too immature" to do that; that's just how they are. Guys tend to communicate incredibly straightforward and logically, when women don't. It's the man's fault for failing to learn to deal with women.



I don't think so. There are people that tend to cheat more often, sure, but they're not "cheaters by nature".



I've experienced plenty of crazy **** from women. I've dated serial cheaters. I've never been cheated on.



Wow, it has nothing to do with a "liberal agenda". People just realize that marriage is a dinosaur institution that deserves to be done away with.
Click to expand...

a woman so $luttish and flighty should've never taken vows. same goes for the man.
the dishonesty and lack of honor and integrity belong to him/her that cheats. to blame
ones self in being f**ked over is a very liberal concept. very effeminate. shows a
complete lack of self-respect and ego.
at least we know where you stand.
 
lewstherin said:
true monogamy is one of the ways civilized man has attempted to elevate himself above the lesser animals.
of course, the liberal agenda hopes to regress mankind at all levels, which is why monogamy is more and more
being portrayed as "unrealistic" through social media and scholastic venues. funny how the liberal atheist rants
and raves about atheist evolution over the manifestation beliefs of the creationist; yet does everything in his power
to stagnate the evolution of society through regressing civilized behavior.
Click to expand...

You're missing the fact that we have not "regressed" at all. Your fantasy of the life-long monogamy past is just that - a fantasy. It has never been true. It probably never will be.

I said myself above that humans do tend to be monogamous. This monogamy is not as strict as the social ideal of the recent past, but over-all, we are monogamous for the duration of our relationships. I am mostly that way myself. So are most other people who have responded to this thread. In fact this thread is a fairly good representation of true human sexual relationships - mostly monogamous, with a few individuals being outliers in either direction of extremity, and a substantial percentage of people admitting to not-completely-monogamous relationships at some point in the past or present.

And what is so terrible about that? How exactly does it hurt us?

I am someone who is quite comfortable with that reality of human relationships. While it is certain there are trials of being in a relationship with me, one of the most frequent positive things I hear from my partners is how easy I am to talk to and how drama-less I am in how I handle relationships. This is largely because I don't cling to fantastical notions or drive relationships into the ground by trying to micro-manage them and have constricting interactions with my partners.

There is never anything wrong with how people feel. There is never anything wrong with things changing, and people changing. As long as there is a standard of honesty and integrity that is carries throughout, my relationships never actually end. They just change forms. I rarely lose the people I love because I can allow us to be what we are.

What is so horrible and morally wrong with that? How exactly does that hurt anything? I don't have the trail of tears following my love life that many people do.

I am not fighting against anything. I am simply allowing myself and others to feel how we feel. If a pair wind up in a happy, vibrant relationship for life, great. My ethos wouldn't prevent that in any way. As long as the relationship continues to be healthy and happy for both parties, there's no reason to end it. That's silly.

The evolution of human relationships, at this point, seems to deal with applying our communication to our emotions.
 
a woman so $luttish and flighty should've never taken vows.
Click to expand...

First, calling women sluts is incredibly sexist.

Second, you shouldn't have married her in the first place if she's so flighty, and if you didn't know at the time you got married then that's your fault for failing to realize it.

to blame
ones self in being f**ked over is a very liberal concept.
Click to expand...

Taking responsibility for your actions is a liberal concept?

shows a
complete lack of self-respect and ego.
at least we know where you stand.
Click to expand...

How exactly does it show a lack of respect on my part? This is precious because you're arguing that it is somehow "liberal" to take responsibility for one's actions and that a true conservative "manly" position is to blame it all on everyone else.

Doesn't that seem a little backwards to anyone else?

Also, I respect myself immensely, and that is proven by the fact that I take ownership over my actions and the consequences of my actions, and look to improve myself constantly in every aspect of my life. If you think that is liberal or effeminate then you're an idiot.
 
MistressNomad said:
You're missing the fact that we have not "regressed" at all. Your fantasy of the life-long monogamy past is just that - a fantasy. It has never been true. It probably never will be.

I said myself above that humans do tend to be monogamous. This monogamy is not as strict as the social ideal of the recent past, but over-all, we are monogamous for the duration of our relationships. I am mostly that way myself. So are most other people who have responded to this thread. In fact this thread is a fairly good representation of true human sexual relationships - mostly monogamous, with a few individuals being outliers in either direction of extremity, and a substantial percentage of people admitting to not-completely-monogamous relationships at some point in the past or present.

And what is so terrible about that? How exactly does it hurt us?

I am someone who is quite comfortable with that reality of human relationships. While it is certain there are trials of being in a relationship with me, one of the most frequent positive things I hear from my partners is how easy I am to talk to and how drama-less I am in how I handle relationships. This is largely because I don't cling to fantastical notions or drive relationships into the ground by trying to micro-manage them and have constricting interactions with my partners.

There is never anything wrong with how people feel. There is never anything wrong with things changing, and people changing. As long as there is a standard of honesty and integrity that is carries throughout, my relationships never actually end. They just change forms. I rarely lose the people I love because I can allow us to be what we are.

What is so horrible and morally wrong with that? How exactly does that hurt anything? I don't have the trail of tears following my love life that many people do.

I am not fighting against anything. I am simply allowing myself and others to feel how we feel. If a pair wind up in a happy, vibrant relationship for life, great. My ethos wouldn't prevent that in any way. As long as the relationship continues to be healthy and happy for both parties, there's no reason to end it. That's silly.

The evolution of human relationships, at this point, seems to deal with applying our communication to our emotions.
Click to expand...

sorry, hon. but the stats prove you wrong. this nation has went to hell since the liberal agenda effected
it's "destruction of the nuclear family" crusade back in the late 1950's. this nation, along with our culture and
society have been demoralized to the point where love, honor, and honesty mean nothing at all. and with this
demoralization, man has regressed to a more primitive mindset. man is now more interested in material excess
and "gadgets" than his own personal elevation, both spiritual and physical. and it is all connected, whether you like it or not.
 
lewstherin said:
sorry, hon. but the stats prove you wrong. this nation has went to hell since the liberal agenda effected
it's "destruction of the nuclear family" crusade back in the late 1950's. this nation, along with our culture and
society have been demoralized to the point where love, honor, and honesty mean nothing at all. and with this
demoralization, man has regressed to a more primitive mindset. man is now more interested in material excess
and "gadgets" than his own personal elevation, both spiritual and physical. and it is all connected, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

As I talked about above, you're wrong. The increase in divorce has not correlated in an increase in broken or dead marriages. The rate of such marriages has remained the same. It is simply that it became acceptable to leave a broken relationship. And with it, came the fall of suicidal housewives and alcoholic husbands and legal beating of children in these broken homes. The fall of pre-50's culture has done nothing but improve our society.
 
MistressNomad said:
As I talked about above, you're wrong. The increase in divorce has not correlated in an increase in broken or dead marriages. The rate of such marriages has remained the same. It is simply that it became acceptable to leave a broken relationship. And with it, came the fall of suicidal housewives and alcoholic husbands and legal beating of children in these broken homes. The fall of pre-50's culture has done nothing but improve our society.
Click to expand...

lol. that's funny. let's see the feminist blog you have to link for this assertion. i'll get a real kick out of it, i'm sure.
 
lewstherin said:
sorry, hon. but the stats prove you wrong. this nation has went to hell since the liberal agenda effected
it's "destruction of the nuclear family" crusade back in the late 1950's. this nation, along with our culture and
society have been demoralized to the point where love, honor, and honesty mean nothing at all. and with this
demoralization, man has regressed to a more primitive mindset. man is now more interested in material excess
and "gadgets" than his own personal elevation, both spiritual and physical. and it is all connected, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


With all due respect Lewstherin, if you are going to inject "Stats" into your argument (which you've allude to such), it would be really nice if you included "your stats" to support your position. It's not that we don't believe you. Lord knows we trust your every word, but for the sake of argument, appease us.
 
Removable Mind said:
With all due respect Lewstherin, if you are going to inject "Stats" into your argument (which you've allude to such), it would be really nice if you included "your stats" to support your position. It's not that we don't believe you. Lord knows we trust your every word, but for the sake of argument, appease us.
Click to expand...
oh....my bad......with this link you can find the divorce rates from all years from 1940-2010....
Table: Marriage and divorce rate by years, indicators and area, 1940-2010

tell me if you'd like the to see the crime rate stats as well. i'll work on that for you, too.
 
Feminist blog? One need only know a cursory amount about being married in the 50's to understand the concept and why this is a "good old days" fallacy.

It would also be nice you'd tell me exactly how society is falling. Society works better for more people than it ever has, as evidenced by longer life-spans, more upwards mobility, and that was once an institution of convenience in the age you aspire to is now an institution of love.
 
MistressNomad said:
Everyone knows the divorce rate is higher, and I don't see anyone denying it. This is due to social acceptability of leaving a broken marriage. That's a good thing.
Click to expand...

no...this is due to the degradation of honesty and integrity.
 
lewstherin said:
no...this is due to the degradation of honesty and integrity.
Click to expand...

How is it honest to stay married to someone you can't stand? Is it simply the principle of the thing? Is it a good reason to stay unhappy for the rest of your life? Is the chunk of metal so important that people should spend their lives like that?

You really don't have any understanding of the time you wish to go back to.
 
MistressNomad said:
How is it honest to stay married to someone you can't stand? Is it simply the principle of the thing? Is it a good reason to stay unhappy for the rest of your life? Is the chunk of metal so important that people should spend their lives like that?

You really don't have any understanding of the time you wish to go back to.
Click to expand...

"vows" are promises. if a person isn't willing to keep a "vow", then they shouldn't make a "vow".
for better or for worse, for sickness and in health. love, honor and obey. that's the "vow".
i say what i mean. i have that much honor still, even in today's sick world.
 
People actually found something to argue about in this thread?

...

Wow.
 
"vows" are promises. if a person isn't willing to keep a "vow", then they shouldn't make a "vow".
for better or for worse, for sickness and in health. love, honor and obey. that's the "vow".
i say what i mean. i have that much honor still, even in today's sick world.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're a disgusting human being.
 
lewstherin said:
"vows" are promises. if a person isn't willing to keep a "vow", then they shouldn't make a "vow".
for better or for worse, for sickness and in health. love, honor and obey. that's the "vow".
i say what i mean. i have that much honor still, even in today's sick world.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with you, which I why I never plan to be married. To make a promise about how things will be in 40 years is ridiculous. No one knows that. And the only way to guarantee that vow is kept is to be willing to sacrifice your quality of life for it, and bring your partner down with you. I don't see any reason to do that. It causes less pain and destruction for people to be honest about how they feel and for partners to be honest with each other. I think marriage itself is a faulty institution.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Khayembii Communique is now thread banned.
 
Removable Mind said:
Lew...huh, where is the "Republic of Moldova"? Reason I ask - that's where you link goes to.
Click to expand...

ummm...i think it's that far away land where statistics are just a click away. the fairies and the elves merely type
in the years and the subjects of that which they wish to gain knowledge in....and BOOM....the magical gift of everlasting
glorious knowledge comes forth and devours the ignorant as a great dragon does a lowly peasant.
 
lewstherin said:
ummm...i think it's that far away land where statistics are just a click away. the fairies and the elves merely type
in the years and the subjects of that which they wish to gain knowledge in....and BOOM....the magical gift of everlasting
glorious knowledge comes forth and devours the ignorant as a great dragon does a lowly peasant.
Click to expand...

Actually it's a tiny little country of about 3.5 million in Europe, so I don't think your linked stats from there are particularly relevant.
 
And sex slaves. Moldova has lots of those.
 
Jeezy said:
And sex slaves. Moldova has lots of those.
Click to expand...

sex slaves are always statistical.

so..........does anyone have a link refuting my claim that divorce rates have steadily increased since the late 1950's?
because if not? all your "link-bashing" bull$h!t is for naught.
 
Was anyone ever claiming they weren't, on the whole?

It was just a funny link.
 
lewstherin said:
sex slaves are always statistical.

so..........does anyone have a link refuting my claim that divorce rates have steadily increased since the late 1950's?
because if not? all your "link-bashing" bull$h!t is for naught.
Click to expand...

Most graphs I've seen indicate late 60s. Doesn't really affect whatever the hell it is you were saying though.

This thread turned stupid overnight.
 
lewstherin said:
sex slaves are always statistical.

so..........does anyone have a link refuting my claim that divorce rates have steadily increased since the late 1950's?
because if not? all your "link-bashing" bull$h!t is for naught.
Click to expand...


Lew, come onnnnnn, you can do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom