The Gay Fray

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 28, 2004.

?

I am . . . .

  1. Homosexual

    25 vote(s)
    9.2%
  2. Heterosexual

    201 vote(s)
    73.6%
  3. Bisexual

    31 vote(s)
    11.4%
  4. Other (I would have complained if there wasn't an "other" option)

    16 vote(s)
    5.9%
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    Screeching Diva

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A friend's discussion of fuck-knuckles comes to mind, in large part because I'm convinced that in some cases, one might need more than one fuck-knuckle. Like, you know, maybe two or three.

    To the wrist.

    I won't try to describe the bit involving the elbow. Use your imagination. Or don't. Probably best if you don't.

    But the thing is that I'm starting to wonder if maybe Pastor Steven Anderson really is a neurotically devastated closet case:

    Pastor Steven Anderson of Arizona's Faithful Word Baptist Church takes a defiant stance against those conservative entrepreneurs, arguing that they are actually "being too nice" to the LGBT community and, as such, "are not standing for the word of God."

    In a fiery, somewhat convoluted sermon originally posted by The New Civil Rights Movement, the right-wing pastor pointed to Oregon's Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whose owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, were recently slapped with a fine of at least $135,000 for turning away a lesbian couple who sought a wedding cake in 2013.

    He said he didn't feel sorry that the Kleins had been fined and shuttered their business in the wake of the controversy, because he believes that "they are tools of the media to brainwash you."

    Arguing that the Kleins attend a "stupid, liberal church," Anderson notes, "[Melissa] is not taking a stand [against same-sex marriage] at all. It's weak, it's worthless. She is part of what is destroying America."

    He then adds, "Who thinks it's a hard decision if some faggot wants you to make them a wedding cake? Anyone struggling with that right now?"

    He also had harsh words for Indiana's Memories Pizza, which became the first business to publicly vow to reject gay weddings in the wake of the state's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

    "Nobody even asked them to cater a wedding with cheap, stupid pizza," he says.


    (Wong)

    The guy really hates women and wants them to be silent. He really hates gays and even calls for mass murder. And now he's hoping to out-hate his fellow hatemongers by being the hatiest hatehole in the bloc. In Jesus' name, at that, amen.

    Seriously, at some point this is so over the top that we need to take a moment to consider other possibilities. You know, like reaction formation symptomatic of denial.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Wong, Curtis M. "Arizona Pastor Steven Anderson Claims Anti-Gay Businesses Are 'Destroying America' By 'Being Too Nice' To LGBT Customers". The Huffington Post. 12 May 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 12 May 2015. http://huff.to/1IwXdqd
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If a homosexual or cross gender person can be who they are, and everyone is supposed to accept them, why are others, not in this group, expected to change, what they feel deep down, so they can pretend to accommodate? One group is allowed to act on unconscious impulse, while the other is expected to use willpower. Does this mean one side of the line is more pathological, since nobody expects willpower from it, including itself?

    For example, if one is gay, it is OK for them to be true to themselves. That is fine. There is no need to change anything. If a non-gay does not accept this, why is their lack of acceptance, which may be true to themselves, not acceptable? Why is one assumed to be natural and one assumed learned, when both passionately seek to persist? Why can't both be called natural or both be called learned and treated with one standard? Why the dual standard?

    Why is one group expected to change, to accommodate the other, while the other does not have to change? This dual standard hints of pathology, where one group is not fully in control of itself and lacks willpower and choice? The other group is considered more in control and able to change. Should lack of control and pathology be pampered or confronted?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    does being such a bigot come naturally to you or do you work at it? your just a seething mass of hatred.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    What exactly are you on about? Are you comparing homosexuality to pathogical bloodlust?
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    *Gasp*

    I remember Batshit Crazy Fuck-Knuckle Pastor Steven Anderson!

    He was the one who declared he found a cure for AIDS and said the cure is to round up all gays and lesbians and kill them all.

    The guy is a lunatic. In every single sense of the word. His hatred is probably why so few people had any pity or sympathy for him when the police used a taser on him.

    And his wife is just as bad. She has a blog that on the surface looks normal. Then you start to read some of the crap she writes and she is just as bad as batshit crazy as he is. For example, she does not believe women should vote, because that is a God sanctioned right for men only. She peppers her posts about homosexuals in the worst way possible. It is a horror.
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Sexual orientation is something people are born with. The only people who appear to be able to change their orientation are the bisexuals, who comprise no more than one percent of the population, and probably much less--and they, too, are born with it.

    Lack of tolerance or respect for homosexuality, on the other hand, is a learned behavior--like racism, dishonesty, religious belief, bullying, laziness or vegetarianism.

    It's reasonable to expect people to be able to change (or even completely give up) learned behaviors. I loved riding motorcycles and rode one every day for almost 20 years. Yet after surviving two crashes on a busy freeway, I changed that behavior without any encouraging or coaching. My [previous] wife, in fact, wished we could still go riding, despite having spent three months with her foot in a cast.

    On the other hand, it is quite unreasonable (and in fact a textbook example of bullying) to expect people to change something they were born with.
     
  10. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Fixed it for you.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    We Cannot Say We Weren't Warned

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In late June, the Supreme Court will issue its ruling in Obergefell et al., and there seems widespread acknowledgment that the Justices will offer a majority ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. And while my side of the argument has been pretty confident, the opposition seems to know what's about to happen, too.

    The infamous Dr. James Dobson is telling his flock to prepare for Civil War; U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is talking up insurrection on the campaign trail. Pat Robertson is dispensing anal-bestial rape fantasies, telling his followers the government will force them to like it. Half of self-identifying Tea Party members and a third of Republicans generally, according to recent polling, believe Jade Helm 15 really is an invasion of Texas.

    They're doing it to themselves; they're setting themselves up for a revolt.

    The latest exhibit is pretty naked. Right Wing Watch reports on Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association:

    Declaring that states "have every moral and legal right to ignore the federal government," Fischer said that such a step was necessary to save America from tyranny and social chaos.

    "The Supreme Court can be slapped down through a deliberative and representative process," he said, "rather than through chaos and civil unrest which I and a lot of other pro-family leaders fear is the alternative. If the Supreme Court continues to overreach and they aren't checked, we are headed towards civil unrest, I don't think there is any other way around it. If it's not stopped and reversed, the tyrannical overreach of the Supreme Court, we are to have social dislocation and I believe we are going to have violence as a result. And that is simply because freedom is too deeply ingrained in the DNA of the American people to permit tyranny to continue unchecked forever"


    (Mantayla)

    If I say we need to take a moment to think about it, I'm overstating the complexity on a certain level. After all, who is going to revolt? It is the Christian social-conservative bloc that is so upset, such as Tony Perkins of Family Research Council suggesting that gay marriage will also legalize marriage between a person and a house, and claiming that Western Civilization itself hangs in the balance.

    In other words, if we look at the politicians and other advocates warning of insurrection, it is their followers who will revolt. They are not so much warning the rest of us that some sort of revolt will materialize; they are threatening to revolt.

    There will likely be some violence when the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Obergefell petitioners, and it is hard to call it small-scale if one is among those hurt by the outburst, but the real question is what kind of momentum the alleged deviations from the norm can actually build. Will those who resort to violence find open support? Mincing equivocation? Outright condemnation?

    But that's the thing. They're not really warning of a revolt; rather, they are threatening to revolt.

    To the one, we must remember that such threats are, up to a point, their proper American right under the First Amendment. At the same time, the amount of this terroristic chatter cannot be simply ignored.

    And when the expected violence comes, remember it is what these people want.

    Personally, I would expect it starts with an alleged deviation, the proverbial bad seed. The only question at that point is just how serious the rest of this talk actually is. Having stirred their flocks toward blind revolutionary frenzy, we can expect at least one or two wingnuts to resort to Second Amendment remedies, as such; it happens. But what comes next? Will these groups denounce violence? Will they simply try to say they told us so? Will their numbers fall in line and raise an actual insurrection?

    That last certainly seems doubtful; after everything else, this is what they would call off the Republic for?

    But we do need to observe: The social conservatives are advocating revolt.

    And it is a classic ego defense; in their minds, they are preserving the nation, preserving that precious equality by which their faction holds extraordinary supremacy under law and custom―if they cannot be superior, then their equality is violated. It is a classic trap of conservative thinking. They will revolt, but only because the government forced them to by violating their supremacy under law. They will revolt against the horror of equality under law.

    This is what we have to work with. This is what these people are saying. And over the next while we will find out just how serious they are about insurrection and Civil War.

    But if it really does come to violence, we should not forget who labored so diligently to make sure it happens.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Mantayla, Kyle. "Fischer: 'I Believe We Are Going To Have Violence' If SCOTUS Legalizes Gay Marriage". Right Wing Watch. 15 May 2015. RightWingWatch.org. 16 May 2015. http://bit.ly/1Pq1LTg
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    We're under attack, y'all. By online experts in things, apparently.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    Strangely, I can almost see what you're after, but that's the thing―I can't be certain, since it requires any number of rephrasings, and history reminds the odds are against any such adjustment being satisfactory to you.

    Would you be so kind, please, as to restate your point in some manner that actually makes sense, so people don't have to guess after what you're on about?

    Thank you.
     
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I am comparing will power and choice, to unconscious impulse. The gay fray is about one group, gays, who have a particular unconscious impulse. The opposing group, has an unconscious impulse to resist this choice. This mutual unconsciousness leads to the irrationality on both sides. The problem is one of the two groups is required to control their unconsciousness. This resistant group, is assumed to have the willpower to do this, while the gay group is not assumed to have such will power, because only the resistant group is expected to change. Should unconscious compulsion trump those expected to have willpower?

    As an analogy, say a child eats only sugary cereal in the yellow box. This narrow range of adaptation is because of an unconscious compulsion, that they can't control. You, as an adult, can suggest that they eat broccoli or green beans, because this is better for them. But this is called mean and hurtful, because the underlying assumption is they can't control themselves and giving them this as an option, is being mean. The liberal solution is the adult who can use willpower, is required to except the child's compulsion, with that compulsion trumping any attempt at teaching him willpower.

    If a person has sex one hour a day, each day of the week, their sexuality accounts for 5% of their time. The other 95% of the time they are just a regular person. The unconscious compulsion appears to distort the internal math, with 5% being thought of a 95% and 95% being thought of as 5%. If I tell the child to eat green beans, I am not yelling or hating the 95% child, but only fine tuning the 5%. The unconscious compulsion, if allowed to fester, distorts the math until they think 5% is 95% and they take it way to personally as attacking all they are,and not a tiny fraction of who they are.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2015
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Basic human impulses are inherent. Refined religious impulses are chosen; if they are not chosen, they are inflicted. In either case, those impulses are deliberately conditioned.

    Bigoted equivocations such as the one you have offered necessarily discard the difference.

    Remember how the Christian supremacists have long argued that homosexuality is a choice? Well, they were wrong, of course, but what they were covering for was their own choice to believe in a fantasy and use that fantasy as an excuse to treat their fellow human beings poorly; the irony of this occasion being one in which that poor treatment occurs in defiance of the actual fantasy is not lost, either.

    And it's more subconscious for the Christians than unconscious. This is, admittedly, only a minor difference in the present context; it becomes much more important when one wishes to elevate the acquired ego defense complex to inherent behavior, which is generally required if one wishes, say, to justify that their "inherent" (i.e., "acquired and reinforced") behavior demands, under equality, that they can force people into re-education camps for being insufficiently Christian. And, yes, this is a fight that is coming. Texas fired a warning shot last week.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Liebelson, Dana. "Texas Bill Could Protect Welfare Providers Who Force Kids Into Gay Conversion Therapy". The Huffington Post. 13 May 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 16 May 2015. http://huff.to/1RUM6ds
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So much for separation of Church and State.

    How exactly are they getting away with funding organisations that impose religious belief on, effectively, wards of the State? Isn't the State supposed to be without religion? So why is the State imposing fundamentalist Christian dogma and religion, on members of the public and members who are legally in their care?
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Technically speaking, the state isn't imposing religious belief; rather, it is protecting private citizens who do. It's not quite a distinction without difference, but I would simply note a trend: Conservatives want to lose at home in order to rally the base.

    The recent debacle in Indiana, for instance. You know, it's not like we're asking for erotic cakes. And, you know, we did in fact have an erotic bakery in Seattle for nearly thirty years:

    "We're not sure how many cakes we've done, but we like to say we've served over 20 million inches," Barnett joked. "You name it. If it is any kind of an entity, we've probably made it in the shape of this guy right here," she added, gesturing to a male-themed cake.

    (Cohen)

    Really. "Congratulations Heather and Soraya"? That's a problem? Seriously? How about a fifteen inch tall, eight inch wide chocolate lava phallus? What they're arguing over in Indiana, Arkansas, Oregon, Louisiana, and other states is a matter of censorship, whether or not one can refuse non-obscene speech for purely supremacist reasons. And they will lose. And that's the point. They know they're going to lose.

    As I noted elsewhere, in February:

    Right now, Republican social conservatives―the “culture warriors”, as such―find themselves in disarray; the first month of bicameral GOP majority in Congress resulted in a string of disasters, including yet another round of disgrace as conservatives hurt themselves talking about abortion and rape again. And, to be certain, the melodrama in Alabama this week is not helping the conservative image. Certes, such debacles rally the troops, but conservatives need to find something to sink their teeth into.

    So why not Brownback gay and transgendered Kansans?

    As fun as Brinker's characterization is, and acknowledging that one might wonder why Brownback hasn't gone after the Sebelius order before, the question of why now really does matter. And the leading suggestion might well be that Brownback is looking to rally the troops and bring the fight specifically to Kansas; after all, if you can't win, make yourself legendary in losing. That latter probably isn't fair. Brownback might well be a glory-seeking megalomaniac hatemonger, but we should not presume his political prowess indicates he is too intelligent to fall into the trap of believing he can, in fact, win. So, like the actions of Chief Justice Roy Moore in Alabama, there is an aspect of this that might simply be about building and affirming one's own folk legend.

    And if the Department of Justice decides this is the one to test, largely for its conspicuously monumental priggishness, Brownback will have brought the fight to Kansas so that he can lose in disgrace at home.

    But why now? Because this might be the last chance to rally the troops, bring the fight home, and make oneself a legend. As the Supreme Court prepares to make the point it was trying to let the states settle―a pursuit only interrupted by a strange federal court decision that seemed crafted such to force the Supreme Court to get involved―the social conservatives need to rally. They ... are ... about ... to ... lose.

    And all that overwhelming overload? All that quiet concern about the president's progress on transgender rights? It might well be too late for that, too.

    Which is why now. Marriage equality is about to be settled; the T in LGBT now has Department of Justice on board, and President Obama just culminated a cycle of masterful low-key politicking after a year that might go down in history as among―if not the―most significant for transgender rights in America.

    And while the fight may well be over before it starts, it looks like Kansas wants in, anyway. Social conservatives must do something, lest they appear to take three strikes standing on transgender rights. And nothing can happen until you swing the bat.

    And that's what they're trying now in Texas. It's pretty straightforward: Nobody has tested Barack Obama's commitment to protecting children against re-education camps.

    Texas wants to lead the way; they'll protect state agents who ship children off to be tortured.

    And they will, ultimately, lose. Which, in turn, is the point. If you lose in D.C., it sounds like some faraway Beltway thing. If you lose at home, the base will rally up harder. And that's what they're hoping for.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Cohen, Lindsay. "After 28 years of bawdy cakes, Seattle's Erotic Bakery closing". KOMO News. 3 September 2014. KOMONews.com. 17 May 2015. http://bit.ly/1bYp7gu

    b.d. "The Brownback Way". This Is. 12 February 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 17 May 2015. http://wp.me/pUgG0-UU

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That doctrine has been violated so many times that it's a joke.
    Both the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the U.S. Constitution refer to God. So the state is not only not without religion, but it is steeped in religion.
    Because, in addition to the reasons I just mentioned, the vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christians. And the vast majority of American Christians believe that "freedom of religion" only refers to Christianity and Judaism--the only religions that had a visible presence among the European colonists. Many people believe that freedom of religion does not apply to Islam--much less the non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism.

    They certainly do not believe that there is any protection for freedom FROM religion. Many Americans do not think that atheists are honorable people who should be allowed to hold public office.

    Or as one commentator recently put it, "You don't have to actually BE religious, but you have to SAY that you are."
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    Tell Me You're Surprised ... I Dare You

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    For now, I will only reiterate what I've already said on this matter:

    • When you get caught advertising for gay dates on Grindr, you have pretty much given up any claim to confidentiality.

    • When you are a church who employs an open bigot as a pastor, you do not get to complain about malicious internet posters pointing out hypocrisy. That is to say, when you are a malicious church, the malice you receive when you fuck up by being the very thing you preach hatred against is your own damnably bitter harvest.

    • Someday, sir, I hope you can tell us all what, exactly, you were thinking.

    • Just deal with the fact that you're gay. There is a community waiting for the chance to welcome you into the sunlight; they'll even reach out a hand. Your best amends for past hatred will be the genuine good you do; ritual apologies speak far less than observable goodness and kindness. And we all look forward to seeing your fabulosity shine.​

    No, really. So another viciously homophobic pastor turns out to be a closet case who gets busted by his own desperation.

    There's nothing surprising here.

    But it's still tragic.
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    Thank You!
    Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signs law banning conversion therapy against minors


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And here I didn't get anything for you ....

    Oregon Gov. Kate Brown made her state the third to outlaw the use of conversion therapy on minors on Monday, eliminating the controversial practice that President Barack Obama called to ban in early April. Oregon joins California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., in prohibiting licensed therapists from attempting to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a child.

    (Steinmetz)

    Thank you.

    Thank you so very, very much.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Steinmetz, Katy. "Oregon Becomes Third State to Ban Conversion Therapy on Minors". Time. 19 May 2015. Time.com. 20 May 2015. http://ti.me/1GqS2qf
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    If only the world would follow suit.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,888
    Everybody Say, "Hello, Avery!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    "But who cares about my body parts? I don't ask about what's in your underwear!"


    It really is too much pressure to put on a seven year-old, but, yeah, I look at Indiana and Louisiana and Texas, and I smirk. The new generation; bigots have no idea who they're dealing with.

    With her first “Avery Chat" video, Avery Jackson shared the story of her transition. In the video, she explains how she knew that she was a girl, the fear she had about telling her parents about her transgender identity, and then how she eventually shared her identity with her parents. In a four-minute video, Avery shares a personal story that echoes the pride she has in who she is. Viewers will be swept away by the bravery and wisdom that this little girl displays.

    † † †​

    Despite the fact that Debi Jackson, Avery's mother, had never heard of the term “transgender" before a Google search, she and her husband, Tom, have supported their daughter throughout her transition. They took Avery to a child psychologist when Avery announced her gender identity and then took the psychologist's advice: Let her be a girl.

    Their love and support has been unwavering toward their daughter and because of it they've lost friends and family members, but have made lasting friendships with people across six continents and have done so much for other trans children by just supporting and loving their own.


    (Temblador)

    This is exactly what is needed. And right now, you know, what is actually the most terrifying thing about the idea that one's child might be transgender is the elevated potential for self-harm. Setting aside all that superficial stuff about how boys shouldn't wear skirts and all that? Yeah, that's how you alleviate the potential for self-harm. And this new generation has a chance to grow up with a new relationship to the bigotry. Certes, the hatred will continue to exist, but it is so disempowered, now, and with voices like Avery Jackson's on the rise, bigots will continue to lose ground.

    "The one thing that I impart upon my daughter is very simple: Love yourself and show love to others. That is exactly what I intend to do. I love my daughter for who she is without preconditions, and I promise to help nurture her into a becoming a happy, healthy and productive member of society. After all, isn't that our job as parents?"


    As we all stand and cheer, amazed by the magnitude of love and hope before us, we must also remember that Tom and Debi Jackson, faced with what seems to so many an upending of reality, landed on their feet, and stood with their daughter. This is not the easiest thing to do.

    Thank you, Avery. Shine on.

    And thank you, Tom and Debi. It means more to us than we can express.

    #StandSpeakFightWin
    #StandSpeakWinLove
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Temblador, Alex. "Why We Love 7-Year-Old Transgender Activist, Avery Jackson, And Her Incredible Family". The Huffington Post. 21 May 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 21 May 2015. http://huff.to/1HxW0fl

    Jackson, Tom. "Avery Jackson". The New York Times. 2015. NYTimes.com. 21 May 2015. http://nyti.ms/1F5cDf8
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Suffer the little children..

    Josh Duggar, stalwart anti-gay activist and [now former] executive director of anti-gay group, the Family Research Council, and son of former politician, Jim Bob Duggar [yes, that Jim Duggar and his 19 children], has admitted to sexually molesting 5 young girls 12 years ago. Josh's sisters were reportedly also sexually molested by their older brother.

    If that was not bad enough, Jim Duggar's dealings with the whole affair became even more murky, because in effect, Jim and his wife chose to protect their son for sexually molesting 5 girls, including his own sisters.

    Parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar were aware of the molestations, but did not immediately report them to law enforcement. Instead, Jim Bob told police that he had referred Josh to a year-long program consisting of physical labor and counseling after consulting with his church's leadership. Michelle later revealed to police that Josh never received counseling, but was instead sent to stay with a family friend in the home remodeling business for several months. Upon Josh's return home, Jim Bob brought Josh to Arkansas State Trooper Jim Hutchens, whom Jim Bob knew personally. Hutchens did not take any official action, only giving Josh a "very stern talk".[28] Hutchens was later arrested and convicted on child pornography charges. Jim Bob Duggar only spoke officially to law enforcement in 2006, after the incidents were reported to authorities by an email from an outside source. The redacted police report, unsealed in 2015, reveals 'Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar covered up after eldest son Josh confessed to repeatedly fondling girls when he was a teen - and case only went to police and was investigated in 2006 because of Oprah Winfrey Show producers, who were interviewing the family, notified authorities after receiving an email detailing the allegations. Jim Bob Duggar, despite In Touch's reporting, did not turn Josh Duggar in to law enforcement. The elder Duggar refused to produce his son, and police could not pursue charges due to Arkansas' statute of limitations. [29] Because the three-year statute of limitations had passed once allegations were formally documented, Josh avoided charges.​


    The murkiness of this story did not end there.

    Following a Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Post for the police report published by In Touch, the Springdale Police Department responded by emailing a court document that ordered that the report “be destroyed and expunged from the public records…and that any and all copies of the same be destroyed.”

    The court order was the result of a motion to expunge filed by one of the alleged victims. It was signed by judge Stacey Zimmerman on May 21 — the same day The Post’s FOIA request was submitted.

    No, not dodgy at all..

    Josh Duggar has since resigned as executive director of the evangelical Christian Family Research Council, an organisation the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled as an anti-gay hate group.

    “I deeply regret that recent media reports about my long ago past has brought negative attention to FRC Action and its work to preserve and advance the interests of family, faith, and freedom in the political arena,” Duggar said in his resignation letter, which was published by People magazine.

    “In good faith I cannot allow Family Research Council to be impacted by mistakes I made as a teenager,” he wrote.


    Yes, heaven forbid that his sexually molesting little girls, including his own sisters, affect the FRC's work to discriminate against homosexuals. Discriminating against homosexuals is a family thing. Josh's mother, Michelle Duggar, went out of her way to do what she could to fight against a law that would have made discrimination illegal.

    In recent years, the Duggars have lent their large family presence to a number of causes, informed by their Christian faith. Recently, Michelle Duggar successfully helped a campaign to repeal a Fayetteville, Ark., ordinance that would have prohibited discrimination in the city on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Because you know, family values and what not. In doing so, Michelle Duggar also compared transgender people child molesters:

    Wednesday night, the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas will consider a new law that will protect citizens against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic background, marital status, or veteran status. The bill has prompted fierce opposition from conservatives, including at a meeting earlier this month, and now Michelle Duggar of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting is warning Fayetteville residents that transgender people are child predators and that the law will somehow protect that predatory behavior.

    In a new robocall obtained by the Fayetteville Flyer, Duggar claims that the bill will “allow men — yes I said men — to use womens’ and girls’ restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other areas that are designated for females only.” She goes onto describe “males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female” who would enter these private areas.

    Duggar also suggests that gender identity is the “preference of an adult” and that should never be placed over “the safety and innocence of a child.”

    The call claims to be paid for by FreeFayetteville, which is the name the Arkansas Family Council is using to campaign against the bill. On its website, the Council also suggests that the bill will somehow infringe on religious liberty because it will be possible “for businesses to face criminal prosecution if suspected of discrimination.”


    This, was last year.

    Michelle Duggar said this with the full knowledge that her own son had molested her own daughters, along with other (minor) girls.

    Josh Duggar, for his part, also lectured on family values and anti-gay and anti-marriage equality. Because you know, he's all about family..

    Prior to his admission on Thursday night, Duggar spent years crisscrossing the country as a spokesman for “traditional values.” Duggar took a job as executive director of the Family Research Council’s political arm in 2013. In that role, which he resigned on Thursday, Duggar argued that marriage equality and abortion rights — among other things — were destroying the values that he and his family embodied.

    Josh also argued, among other things:

    That the LGBT anti-discrimination measures in Arkansas endangered the safety of children, that marriage equality was risked destroying the "American family" - because molesting little girls does not, apparently.

    How doing evil things to children was just the "worst thing ever" (I suppose he is experienced there).

    Attacked Islam for treating women badly (apparently raping little girls and his little sisters didn't count here).

    Argued that marriage equality posed a danger to the American family..

    Josh also said that he and his family were the "epitome" of traditional family values.. I won't even bother commenting on that one..


    It would be easy to make fun of Josh Duggar, for his and his family's hypocrisy and hatred of LGBT.. However, we must remember that there are at least 5 young women, who were sexually molested by Josh 12 years ago, including his own sisters, who have had no justice and have instead been forced to watch Josh crow about family values and been forced to keep this secret. They say sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let the sun shine in on him and his disgusting parents.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015

Share This Page