I was responding to all the hate directed at Josh because of his work with the Family Research Council. I don’t agree with them, but they have every right to lobby for what they believe in. The same rights that protect them, also protect all the rest of us.
I do understand hating Josh for what he did to those little girls. Especially since it didn’t get heard in a juvenile court and he didn’t get court recommended treatment.
Bull and shit. Come back with that happy horsecrap when you’re the one in the gunsights of those “personal religious beliefs” (how benign you make it sound…). People like the Duggars are horrible, awful people who try to make their “personal religious beliefs” into law and force the rest of us to live under them. Fuck. That.
Especially when you add in the utter hypocrisy of how they lend their name and fame to attempts to prevent LGBT rights under the lie that LGBT are sexual predators, when the list of ACTUAL sexual predators (one of which happens to be their own goddamn SON) that they’re connected to in one way or another is LOOOONG. Fucking hypocrites. The parents and the oldest spawn can go fuck off and die slow, painful deaths as far as I’m concerned.
All of this hoity-toity “But there’s no PROOF that they’re horrible, awful people” blah blah blah is bullshit. All of it. Both from you and Litigitron 2000.
Nobody to my knowledge has taken a stance against their right to believe what they believe or said that ‘exercising religious beliefs’ is what makes them ‘bad people.’
And religious fundamentalism isn’t 2000 years old. It’s actually a rather recent, and American, invention. http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24092
LGBT rights are very firmly entrenched in America. the Family Research Council has absolutely no chance of ever reversing LGBT. Let them huff and puff all they want. Waste tons of money. They’ll never get anywhere. There’s no way anyone can reset the clock back to 1950. Won’t happen. Guaranteed.
When those beliefs include destroying other peoples’ lives, it does make you a bad person.
Show me that they fall in line with everything else the Institute says, then, and I’ll grant you that this one point would be an unlikely outlier. For example, is there any evidence that the Duggars believe they are affected by the “sins of [their] forefathers?” (Gothard: “Looking back to our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, we can often trace our physical features, strengths, and weaknesses through the family line. In the same way, we can observe character traits and spiritual influences that span the generations.”) I admit I’m no expert on the Duggars, but it what ways do you believe they embrace this teaching?
Why do you believe you can excuse making unproven claims by labeling it “human reaction?”
If you can, then why do you deny me my human reaction: asking for evidence for your weak and unproven claims?
None of them go to school. They are home schooled by their older siblings.
Says a man who wouldn’t be affected one iota if a reversal DID happen. May I remind you that it’s only been 12 years since Lawrence v Texas, the SCOTUS case that made actual criminalization of homosexuality unconstitutional? There are still more states without non-discrimination protections than with. I can get married here in Pennsylvania but putting a wedding photo of my husband and me on my desk could still get me fired in the private sector. Housing discrimination is still legal in many places and most of the non-discrimination measures that currently exist only exist by statute or (even worse) local ordinance. And that’s only LGB. Don’t even get me started on T. That’s a whole other universe of disgusting personal and religious opinions that pass for legislative reasoning.
LGBT equality is NOT firmly entrenched except in the imaginations of people who have no real reason to try to keep up with the subject.
Correct, on both counts. I accept that teaching as true, and I agree that it’s a fair assumption to make of anyone who identifies as a devout Catholic.
I agree with everything you wrote above.
But the problem I’m attacking goes beyond what you wrote. Honey confidently asserted that the Duggars believe that in the case of sexual assault, the victim is at fault for stirring up desires in the male. That goes beyond the incitement of lust in a man. Sexual assault is not about lust, but about power. There is nothing I’m aware of in any Duggar comment or action that suggests that in the case of sexual assault, the victim is to blame.
So I’m not disagreeing with you that they believe the woman is to blame for arousing lust. I disagree with Honey that they believe the woman is to blame in the case of sexual assault.
Do you see the distinction now?
This is not an argument that is remarkable for its cogency.
I can only conclude that Bricker has pursued none of the provided links on the history of the Duggars and their involvement with ATI and is not interested in talking about the topic, only arguing his insane digressive point for purposes of derailing the thread.
I have read every link provided here.
My point is not contradicted by any link in this thread.
Is it?
Yes. yes it is actually. You’re like somebody trying to argue that being in the KKK didn’t necessarily make someone a racist.
Great. Then please provide the SPECIFIC link, and the SPECIFIC text therein that SPECIFICALLY contradicts my point.
A good clue as to the total lack of any argument is your tactic here, in which you indignantly insist that you’re correct and are too offended/busy/above-the-fray to provide any specifics about how I am wrong.
It’s just up there, somewhere, eh?
Bumping it up, am I just conjuring up a worst-case-scenario? Am I wrong in thinking this kind of stuff? These people were real, and they creeped me out. I felt so sorry for the kids. They practically ran away when you said anything to them.
Your point was terribly weak and digressive and has been thoroughly debunked. Now go back to whatever subway terminal you pretend to practice law.
I have not seen any evidence of them rejecting **any **tenet of the Gothard version of religion – it seems to me that you are making a claim that they do? What’s your **evidence **that they do? As I have pointed out, every point that they publicly embrace adds (slightly) to the weight that they do **fully **support the church they adhere to. That seems like an assertion that they, in defiance of reasonable assumption, as they very publicly align themselves with Gothard and his teachings, that they don’t align themselves with specific aspects of the church they follow, a rather extraordinary claim.
Why, given that they rather publicly endorse his teachings, we should assume that they eschew certain distasteful aspects? Show me an aspect that they have publicly denied the teaching of the religion they joyfully give speeches in **support **of?
YOU have stated you don’t agree with the SSM stance of your religion. Have the Duggars publicly broken with the Institute? Unless they have, it seems unreasonable to assume that they have.
(Honestly, I would be happy to hear of their religious breaking in this (or any) regard. I just haven’t seen any.)
Yes, yes … Debunked in that post you can’t be bothered to quote, eh?
ETA - I am also far from an expert on the family. Again, I welcome correction on this point. But the fact that their children tout the Gothard summer camps – ALERT and Journey to the Heart, makes me suspect that they FULLY embrace the teachings of the church.