FVC – Another one bites the dust

Yup.  It’s that time again.

Time for another FVC – Family Values Conservative, to bite the dust following the revelation of his extramarital sexual relations with a part time staffer.  Representative Mark Souder, R-IN, is resigning after having served for eight terms as a righteous voice of the family values pack.  Representative Souder can be seen here in a video about abstinence education (something he seems to have missed out on given his extramarital dalliance) being interviewed by the staff member that he allegedly had been breaking his marriage vows with according to TPMMuckracker.

The more the family values, religious right crowd rails against sex – be it premarital sex, prostitution, homosexuality, extramarital sex – the more likely these hypocrites are to be indulging in the very sin they so wholeheartedly attack.  Look at the culprits – Senator Vitter (LA), Senator Ensign (NV), Governor Sanford (SC), Governor Gibbons (NV), Rep Vito Fossella (NY), Rev George Rekers, Rev Ted Haggard… the list goes on and on.  I’d suggest the minute you hear any of the FCV crowd on their pulpit, be it governmental or religious, attacking sex, look closely because you most likely are watching someone playing in the sandbox they so stridently attack.


Related Articles

5 thoughts on “FVC – Another one bites the dust

  1. I remember when I was little when I heard about these groups I thought they pushed for stuff like families having dinner together and marriage counseling. Little did I know the sinister motivation of bigotry behind their agendas, and the shocking attack on honest sex education.

    It’s to the point where I don’t use phrases like “family values” or “moral values” because they’ve been hijacked into the bigoted movement so completely I don’t want people to get the wrong idea about what I’m saying.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say every bigot that rants against others all the time is likely to be guilty of cheating on their partner or whatnot, but it certainly exposes the “holier than thou” hypocrisy of these hateful agendas.

  2. Well here we go again. You seem to think just because someone can’t live up to the high standard that he holds, that it negates the standard. As if it were better to have no standard at all. So it’s just better to condone premarital sex or extramarital sex. That way you can sit there with your smug superiority and at least say you were never hypocritical. Yeah clearly that’s the way to go.

    You know I make an effort to have clean thoughts, be patient and kind to people, not use foul language, etc. But if and when I occassionally slip up and fall short — because all of us are imperfect — does that make me a hypocrite? Does that disqualify those character traits?

    Aside from this particular post, I have noticed you love to cry “hypocrite” anytime someone you disagree with doesn’t live up to the standard they have set for themselves. When I clicked on the “hypocricy” tag on this blog, I noticed the MadCityMan is a particular fan of using that tag (in some cases where it makes little to no sense, must have a trigger finger on the H key). And while I only looked back over the last year or so of posts, I am betting a liberal or “progressive” politician has never been given that honor on this blog. I wonder why, when I see plenty of hypocrites in that camp all the time. Maybe the fact that you don’t equally pass your judgements of hypocricy makes you the hypocrite.

    1. This is a sensitive issue, and when it comes to issues of equality, freedom, and truth I admit I get riled up.

      I share some values with social conservatives, but marginalizing or denying the existence of entire types of people is not one of those values. I believe people don’t take marriage vows seriously enough much of the time, and while I think they should be free to divorce it sickens me that so many couples with children split up. I don’t swear either. I think people like us are kind of rare like that. I don’t consider myself any better due to not swearing, nor would I ever claim am I without my own personal issues, but it’s just something I don’t do.

      When it comes to fiscal issues and the argument isn’t some off the wall lie (IE people saying the health bill nationalized the insurance industry when it didn’t) I try to see the other side of the coin and agree to disagree civilly. When it’s about a group of people trying to deprive others of equal rights it’s another matter entirely though, and I admit many times it is those passionate issues that get me to comment, but I do not act like that about all subjects.

      It’s hard to respond to this without getting extremely wordy, which is probably happening anyway. The first thing I need to do is explain why heterosexuality is not a standard. Many social conservatives equate gay or bisexual couples in loving same sex relationships as somehow morally bankrupt or “without love,” and so when one of them (in my opinion) does something like this it seems like hypocrisy to me. The fact that people make mistakes like this is exactly the right point: heterosexuality is no more moral than homosexuality or bisexuality (which does not mean being in relationships with more than one partner). It’s the actions of the individuals in the relationship that matter, and not the type of relationship. How faithful and honest they are to each other and how devoted they are to growing as a family trumps any trivial obsession about how the family looks. The fact of the matter is that sexual orientation merely defines which gender you are attracted to. It does not define whether or not you choose to act on that attraction, nor does it define how you act. Calling being heterosexual a “moral standard” is akin to calling liking apples instead of cheese a “moral standard.” That fundamental lie needs to be dispelled because I find many heterosexual people have been brainwashed into thinking there’s some kind of choice involved in the matter and that a same sex relationship is somehow inherently wrong. Sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a behavior, and that is a fact. Heterosexuals certainly aren’t defined as asexual until they date after all, and holding people to a “standard” of heterosexuality is factually akin to asking bisexuals to ignore same sex attractions, which I’m sure many of them do, and more sinisterly asking homosexuals to either lie about what they are or live lives of celibacy.

      This leads to my main issue with such organizations. I’d love to see a “family” organization that’s really about helping families grow. Instead they are often organizations that seek to either legislate stuff to outright attack other people or oppose legislation that does nothing more than grant equality to people. I value trying to respect others with differing opinions, but it’s a challenge for me to stay polite when a movement’s agenda is dehumanizing entire segments of the population as immoral, and then setting out to literally go after them with the law. It hasn’t been ten years since the Supreme Court knocked out the backwards “sodomy” laws. I cannot understand for the life of me how anyone could devote their energies to the task of going after people who have done absolutely nothing wrong to them other than living their lives and refusing to pretend to not exist.

      The bizarre attacks on birth control education (even if parents can opt out of it) I admit I entirely don’t understand, though I know not all “pro-family” organizations do that.

      I’m just trying to explain why I react so strongly to this topic. Once upon a time people called interracial relations immoral for example. Few today would see that stance as anything but backwards. My dad used to say it’s wrong, claiming it’s not fair to the children. I always told him any bigotry to an interracial child is a problem, and not the child himself, herself, or his/her family. A few years later an interracial man was elected president.

      The irony of this entire exchange is that my motivation for replying was not to attack Mark Souder but to emphasize that not every “family values” politician is like this. I tried so hard to make it clear I disapprove of the more bigoted elements of that movement that the original purpose of the reply was totally lost.

      I apologize if this message is offensive. I’m just trying to explain why I consider this a civil rights issue, and not an issue of mere political disagreement.

    2. HHHHHHHHHHHHH ooops! My finger got caught on the h or hypocrisy key.

      I definitely like juicy hypocrisy stories and find that there are many coming from the right wing that fit this categorization. Does that mean that there are none on the left? No, it just means that what I cover is the hypocrisy on the right. Just like a sports writer can write about the Browns without covering the Packers or baseball to the exclusion of writing about football or hockey…., I’ve elected to follow and write about right wing hypocrisy. Sexual hypocrisy by moralizing right wing FVC falls well within this purview. Does that mean I should talk about people like Spitzer or any other politician caught with his pants down or skirts lifted on the right or left? Only if they are dangerous hypocrites who are public in their condemnation including legislative efforts or public pronouncements attacking the very things they are doing themselves.

      If you want to see attacks on the real and imagined hypocrisy of the left, you’re welcome to visit any of the many right wing blogs covering this or else just turn on Fox News – Palin, Beck or Rush anyone?

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment bofcudahy and for commenting forgotmyscreenname.

Comments are closed.