Internet shocked to hear VP Pence won't dine alone with a woman other than his wife

[Running Gator]

2 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Given all the harassment controversy of the last 20 years or so - Bill Clinton, David Letterman, Roger Ailes, now Bill O'Reilly - would it not have benefited these men to have a similar public stance?

Blessings,

-Ed

The trouble they all got into had nothing to do with what they did in public, but what they did in private.  That is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about eating a meal in a public setting. 

[MorningGlory]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Really bad analogy.  There is no way to make an intelligent argument that says that two men, one who objectifies women and one who does not objectify women are both sexist.  That is an argument devoid of any internal consistency.   And to pretend that it even bears any resemblance to racism is nothing but laughable.

 

The leftists always have to have sexism, racism, or other divisive rhetoric or else they have NO arguments to put forth. 

[Running Gator]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Really bad analogy.  There is no way to make an intelligent argument that says that two men, one who objectifies women and one who does not objectify women are both sexist.  That is an argument devoid of any internal consistency.   And to pretend that it even bears any resemblance to racism is nothing but laughable.
 

Good thing I did not say that Pence was a sexist.

Quote

A more appropriate way to look at it is not that it demeans the opposite sex to honor one's marriage covenant, but rather, it actually honors the opposite sex.   A married man chooses not even have lunch alone at a restaurant with a female co-worker that he is not married to isn't demeaning her at all.  He is protecting her honor and the honor of his wife.  He is honoring both his wife and his co-worker, who might also be married.   He is honor not only his marriage covenant, but the marriage covenant between her and her husband, as well.   He is showing the kind of respect he would want from the other husband if the situation were reversed.  There is no way that anyone can make an intellectually sound argument that such behavior is "demeaning"  to women.   That is a impossible jump in logic for anyone to make.   And yes we do view women differently than men, and we should because women are different than men.   Looking at women differently doesn't mean that one hold them in lower esteem or views them as inferior, it can actually be quite the opposite.   "Sexism" is a false value that is being assigned to this just to have something to knock down.

I see it differently, to tell someone "I cannot have a meal with you because people might get the wrong idea" is a ridiculously demeaning thing to do in my opinion.  What you have just done is give more value to the opinion of some bystander than to the person in questions.  You have told that person that the opinion of some busybody gossip is more valuable to you than they are. 

Separate but equal has never worked, and never will.  

 

Quote

It's one thing if the gossip is manufactured, but when you behave in a manner that causes reasonable people to conclude that something inappropriate is going on, one cannot really complain that he is being gossiped about, especially if he brought on himself.

There is nothing reasonable about assuming two people having a meal together are also having sex with each other, it is a ridiculous, antiquated view that is steeped in the sexit view that men and women cannot coexist without sex being involved.

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

The leftists always have to have sexism, racism, or other divisive rhetoric or else they have NO arguments to put forth. 

Not unlike the Righties calling everything "hate" when they have no other argument to put forth. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Not unlike the Righties calling everything "hate" when they have no other argument to put forth. 

We don't call everything hate.  Just death threats, lies, character assassination defamation, rioters that beat people up and damage property, obstructionism, harassing family members...

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Good thing I did not say that Pence was a sexist.

Yeah, you pretty much did.   You are assigning sexism to his motives.

Quote

I see it differently, to tell someone "I cannot have a meal with you because people might get the wrong idea" is a ridiculously demeaning thing to do in my opinion.

But that is not what this is about.   Let me try to re-explain this again. This is not about saying, "I can't have a meal with you because people might get the wrong idea.  It is not about refusing to eat at the same table.   It is about simply making sure that there is one other person at the table, that a married man and/married woman is not at the table alone with a member of the opposite sex.   It is simply about not being alone.   It is not about not eating with someone because of what others might think about seeing you with them.   It is about how it looks for married people to be alone with those who are not their spouse.   In most cases, he might even be able to bring his spouse, so there is no problem.

Quote

 What you have just done is give more value to the opinion of some bystander than to the person in questions.  You have told that person that the opinion of some busybody gossip is more valuable to you than they are. 

Actually no.  I guess I will have to re-explain this, as well.   By wanting not to be seen alone with a member of the opposite sex he is protecting HER honor, as well as honoring his wife.   He is not wanting this other woman to be scandalized to be spoken evil of, and he doesn't want her to be gossiped about.   He is not saying that the opinions of the gossipers is more important, but that she is SO IMPORTANT, that he wants to protect her from the gossipers, too.  He is honoring her marriage covenant, with her husband and shielding her from any false accusations.   So, you are reading this all wrong.  Completely wrong.

Quote

Separate but equal has never worked, and never will.  

Not separate.  Different.   Different but equal always works and that is how God designed us.  If that is a problem, take it up with God and explain to Him why He is sexist.

Quote

There is nothing reasonable about assuming two people having a meal together are also having sex with each other, it is a ridiculous, antiquated view that is steeped in the sexit view that men and women cannot coexist without sex being involved.

Yes, it is not reasonable.   But who says that everyone is reasonable?  This is about nipping scandal in the bud.   It's about stopping it before it starts, being proactive and making sure that there is no possible way that anything can be misunderstood, by one's spouse, or by the spouse of the other person, or by anyone else.   There is nothing wrong with making sure that all of the bases are covered.

And the remedy is really, really simple.   You simply have your spouse or someone else at the table with the other person if that person is a member of the opposite sex and either one or both of you are married.   That is a reasonable and sensible.

And the best part is that despite what you say, it is not sexist.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The trouble they all got into had nothing to do with what they did in public, but what they did in private.  That is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about eating a meal in a public setting. 

Actually, the private is assumed along with the public.   Billy Graham's commitment and Pence's commitments were/are both private and public.

[Running Gator]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, the private is assumed along with the public.  

And that is the problem, I do not think that we should let other people's assumptions control our actions.  People are going to belive what they belive regardless of what we do.  My example of talking to a woman after the service is a good example of this, though it seems that you feel that was also the wrong thing to do.

The other part of this whole thing is that we, as in Christians, only have these rules for a few pet areas.  Sex and booze typically, other than that appearance does not seem to matter.  If a Christian lives in a million dollar home and give the appearance of greed (which is just as evil as sexual immorality) nobody would say "you should not live in that house", or at least I have never seen it happen in all my years as a Christian. 

[SavedByGrace1980]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The trouble they all got into had nothing to do with what they did in public, but what they did in private.  That is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about eating a meal in a public setting. 

I submit to you it represents a particular (Christian) mindset, and so it IS what we are talking about.

If the Clintons, Ailes and O'Reilly's had had that heartfelt mindset in their public life, most likely it would carry over to their private life as well.  Unless they're the world's biggest hypocrites.

And since no one has accused Pence of being a hypocrite (not yet, anyway), that's a topic for a different discussion.

Blessings,

-Ed

[MorningGlory]

42 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

We don't call everything hate.  Just death threats, lies, character assassination defamation, rioters that beat people up and damage property, obstructionism, harassing family members...

Good description of what I'm seeing myself....I've not seen or heard about even ONE instance where a conservative person or group attacked buildings or people in the past few months.  Nor have they had any street demonstrations where they dress as female body parts and spew vulgarity into the cameras.  I never heard anyone on the right talk about 'blowing up the White House' when the Obamas lived there either.  I haven't seen any right wing group try to stifle free speech, anywhere.  Gee, I could go on all day but I'm at work so time is limited.