the real issue here is why are we obsessed with sex? He lied because the establishment REQUIRES it. Politicians are REQUIRED to be seen going to church and to lie about a faith they obviously don’t have in many cases. A political system that cares about sex (vs. crime, i.e. underage sex) is bound to fail. We shouldn’t ask about someone’s sex lives at all….and i don’t see a double standard, straight sex sells just as well.

It is the same for alcohol..we are obsessed like it is something so bad but we still want it. We had a referendum here in Mass to allow grocery stores to sell alcohol and the comments were amazing. People wrote letters “restrict access to evil alcohol”..I’m not kidding. At O’Hare this weekend I witnessed a 70 year old couple being carded “It’s an O’Hare policy” the waiter told them.

We are obsessed with vices, like we don’t do them except in secret. This comes from a society that believes we all sin and its ok as long as you tell the priest.

How about we accept who we are..sexual beings…and that we like to drink and not label that sin, not get worked up over it. We’d have a modern, intelligent society if that were the case….but I guess its a chicken/egg thing. 50% of Americans don’t believe in evolution! With that level of stupidy, how can I expect people to have the maturity to realize sex is good and natural and stop giggling about it?

Of course you can have an opinion. Just keep it to yourself. Do you know Sam Adams? I do, I see him about town a lot.
Do you know Portland politics? No I don’t think so. Maybe you visited here once. Does that give you the soap box to tell us we should “Let Sam Adams get back to work”? I think not!

Maybe you should educate yourself more about the city’s whose politics you try so hard to influence before you make a fool of yourself in print. THe next time you are in our fair city, spend a little time talking to the gay community. you will find we are not a bunch of mindless queers who support someone just because they are gay. We ask more form our elected officials.

Oh, and if you manage to get a little free time from the bars, stop in at Mother’s and meet the educated part of the gay community.

In the meantime, go back to reporting what you know best, whatever that is.

Of course I respect other’s disagreements with me when they actually do manage to disagree. You haven’t really measured up to actual disagreement. This is another hopeless strawman you’re burning; to characterize me as somehow intolerant of your opinions (and there are too many to count, honestly). Instead, I’ve provided arguments. On the other hand, you have provided no ethical reasoning of which to speak of and have relied almost exclusively on bare assertion. You’ve got no argument. You haven’t addressed any of mind and just repeat your assertions ad nauseam as if that somehow matters to the “discussion”.

I don’t have to listen to NOR RESPECT an unprincipled disagreement for the sake of it anymore than I need to respect the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms presented as a “scientific” alternative to evolution.

Please excuse me if I ignore your posts in future – life’s simply too short to waste time on trivialities.

Thank you for signing your last comments so honestly. I feel no more needs to be said.

Isaac

He lied. He is a politician. What in the world do think that career choice entails? We have a congress filled with people who make statements that are probably vague interpretations of the truth, and these are the people handling our livelihoods.

Sam Adams lied about having sex with a legal adult. Good for him. I really didn’t want to know about his sex life.

Am I the only on in Oregon who views this controversy as being vastly hypocritical.

Get over it. There is so much more to worry about in this day and age.

“I DO believe that people are entitled
to a private life.”

Just not when asked about it. Even if the question itself is wrong or inappropriate.

” I DO believe that this question should not have been asked of Sam Adams.”

But it was, and then what?

” And as you have twice failed to grasp what I’ve said, let me make this perfectly clear – I do NOT believe that a person should be compelled to answer a question about their private life unless they break the law or that private life coincides with the public interest.”

But Sam Adams was compelled to answer this career breaking question as he was running for office. However, no laws were broken (that will ever be proven, anyway), and the public’s interests do not involve this relationship. Full stop. Anything else is baseless speculation and even more baseless moralizing.

“Sam Adams should NOT have been,”

But he was. So journalists shouldn’t ask questions that sell newspapers? Oh, you’re so old fashioned! It’s disgusting. Gram.

“and was NOT, compelled to answer a question about his private life.”

Not compelled? I strongly disagree. QUestions like this make or break a person’s political career and send people to prison, and that is compulsion enough.

But it doesn’t matter if he was compelled or not. That is an irrelevant distinction you’re making. There was simply no obligation to be truthful about a legal relationship in which no harm was caused. He couldn’t have broken a trust with the public which simply did not exist to begin with, i.e., they didn’t have a right to know, and lying (preventing someone from knowing) is ethically acceptable if no harm can come from it, and in which there was no obligation to tell the truth from the outset about this matter.

“He CHOSE to answer the question, and he CHOSE to answer by lying.”

And his choice and action were ethically permissable. YOu have failed to address why it isn’t, and I have suggested–and you have provided ample evidence in support of that suggestion–that you simply find lying wrong because it’s wrong and a person does not, then have any claim to a personal life if asked–illegitimately as you note–a question about it…then they are required to tell the truth for some peculiar victorian moral quirk of yours. There is nothing more to this simple mindedness on your part. Sorry, but no, lying isn’t wrong because it’s wrong.

“I have said repeatedly that ignoring the question, saying “no comment” or refusing to answer in some other way would have been perfectly acceptable.”

And why is it that lying isn’t given no obligation to be truthful if one has a claim to one’s personal life? Given that that would have been the equivalent of a full blown confession and cost him his bid for office, it seems even more justified in the absence of any wrongdoing on his or anyone else’s part in lying to begin with. It’s just the lying for lying’s sake hogwash.

“Instead he elected to provide an answer, and the answer he provided was not truthful. He deceived the press, he deceived the voters and he compelled others to do the same.”

Whether or not he compelled others to do the same is questionable. They chose to lie. But the point is that the deception, as you call it, can be applied to those who (I’ll invoke godwin’s law) hid anne frank from the nazis. Context doesn’t matter to your bologne quasi religious moralizing. There was SIMPLY no obligation for him to be truthful in this context to the press, the public, or anyone else–and the same goes for all who aided him–given that no harm was caused and no laws were broken, and that he, like everyone else, has an ethical claim to a private life which trumps the addle pated good for goodness sake you’re pawning off here as legitimate ethics.

IDIOT

TANK,

I’m not getting into a debate with you. I’ve learned from experience you lack the intellect or integrity to discuss matters civilly. I will therefore address this one point only.

I DO believe that people are entitled to a private life. I DO believe that this question should not have been asked of Sam Adams. And as you have twice failed to grasp what I’ve said, let me make this perfectly clear – I do NOT believe that a person should be compelled to answer a question about their private life unless they break the law or that private life coincides with the public interest.

Sam Adams should NOT have been, and was NOT, compelled to answer a question about his private life. He CHOSE to answer the question, and he CHOSE to answer by lying.

I have said repeatedly that ignoring the question, saying “no comment” or refusing to answer in some other way would have been perfectly acceptable. Instead he elected to provide an answer, and the answer he provided was not truthful. He deceived the press, he deceived the voters and he compelled others to do the same.

Now, I’m sorry if that’s not good enough for you, but I don’t answer to you and have no interest in engaging with you any further. So please, take that as my answer, disagree with it if you want, but leave me the hell alone.

NOw how are the public’s interests threatened by this lie? How is sam adams’ ability to serve them faithfully and honestly impacted by lying about a sex scandal which harmed no one and in which no laws were broken? It doesn’t. They didn’t have the right to know to begin with. Therefore, an overriding interest to lie is to protect one from embarrassment and irrational harm.

It doesn’t matter if we’re not politicians. I hold myself and everyone else to the same standard of ethical decency than I would a politician. Further, politicians like Sam Adams have a ethical right to keep the details of their personal lives secret by any means at their disposal so long as no one is harmed–as in this case.

And how can one be entitled to a private life and not be entitled to lie about it? Do you know what a private life is and what one being so entitled would entail?

“On the grounds that he stood for public office and as a public representative he has an obligation to be truthful.”

And why is that? You’ve already said he has a right to a private life. Once again, you think lying is wrong because lying is wrong as no harm was done by the fact that he lied and even that others chose to lie for him (not the way in which he chose to do it).

“No. If you took the time to read what I said before pursuing this petty vendetta against me, you’d see that actually I said his private life should remain private unless he breaks the law or his private life interferes with his public duties.”

Again, you’re contradicting yourself. This did not interfere with his public duties–and cannot–and it certainly does not violate any laws. You also do not believe that people are entitled to their private lives in any substantive way. If asked, you feel that one is compelled to answer. Further, you somehow think that politicians should be held to a higher ethical standard than anyone else…which is hopelessly naive and old fashioned. So, once again, we get back to lying’s bad because, for you, isaac, lying’s bad. Silly child. Grow up.