Congratulations to Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar on the birth of their 17th child and seventh daughter, Jennifer Danielle, yesterday morning.
This event has sparked a traffic spike on this blog unlike any ever seen, over 1500 visits today alone, with six hours yet to go in the day. It seems that the search engines have my several posts about the Duggars, and they come up anytime somebody searches on their name, which happens every time TLC runs another show about them. And even moreso today.
The Duggars are not poor, and they are not dependent on charity. They have no debt, live in a large house, and their children are happy, healthy and, not coincidentally, homeschooled. They are devout Christians.
And for the many people who've expressed concern on this blog about it, Michelle's health is just fine. It turns out that a woman's body is designed to be able to conceive, nourish and bear children. Even many of them.
For almost two years now, this post has been attracting comments, both pro and con, about this remarkable family. It's given me an interesting insight into what they mean to people.
Some people love the Duggars. Most of these either want or have children, and they're impressed that anyone can seem to do such a difficult job as childrearing so successfully on such a large scale. They're impressed that anyone can place such trust in God, and that anyone could have so much selfless love.
Others viscerally hate the Duggars. The comments on my several posts (approaching 200 comments total) about the Duggars betray an appalling contempt for Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar personally, and also for children, families, homeschooling and Christians in general, but most of all outrage at the idea that there might be someone out there not using artificial contraception.
I've had people make nearly obscene speculations about the effect of repeated childbirth on parts of Michelle's anatomy (people, God made women resilient. Look it up).
I've had people insist that's it horrid that the older children help watch the younger children, and otherwise help out around the house. They must not have children, because children raised in a loving home cannot be stopped from helping out with all manner of tasks, including the care of their younger siblings.
People who think nothing of the millions of children in this country left in daycare for 10 or 12 hours a day worry that the Duggar kids don't get enough time with their parents.
People who are happy to have 20 million Mexicans come here illegally are offended that an American family might have "too many" children.
It offends people who wear very little that the Duggar girls wear dresses.
Time was, being counter-cultural was trendy and approved of. But now that the counter-culture has become the dominant culture, it seems that its proponents will brook no alternatives.
The Duggars are the wave of the future. To the liberals who read this, let me ask you, how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren will Jim Bob and Michelle have by the end of this century? And how many will you have?
I highly doubt that this is the largest family in America. I strongly suspect that there is a subculture out there of families of 10-20 -- or more -- children, possibly thousands, or tens of thousands of such families. They just don't get media coverage.
But the children of large families are a growing demographic in America. I expect they're largely conservative and Christian, and they will be a dominant force in elections in the coming decades.
Keep an eye out. I'll just bet that the Duggars are the tip of the iceberg.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
92 comments:
What's GREAT for these religous nuts is that the MORE kids they have the greater likliehood that some of them will be GAY!! Not only is it statistically likely based on shear numbers, but the science suggests that each child after the first couple has an increasing likliehood of being gay (possibly due to hormornal changes in the womb). AND when the parents reject the homosexuality of some of their children, the rest of the children will more than likely come to the defense of their siblings, and the parents will be up s---ts creek with their anti-gay religous bigotry.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the author of this blog artical (Paul) would be singing a MUCH different tune if this story involved a black family, or worse a black muslim family!!!! Or.... how about a legally imigrated hispanic Christian family? Yep, Paul would either not care to mention or comment on it at all, and he'd very likely be secretly (or vocally) opposed to it.
And once again, we see the liberal visceral contempt reaction. Like C.S. Lewis' devils in The Screwtape Letters, these people cannot understand the relationship dynamics of a loving family.
And besides, homosexuality is a choice. No one is born that way.
The Duggars are irresponsible and should be forced sterilized because there is no way that all those kids are being supported equaly with attention and there is no way that family makes enough money to maintain that family without welfare or donner contributions and when they say it's another blessing from god it really bugs me because this dumb redneck just can't keep it in his pants.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the author of this blog artical (Paul) would be singing a MUCH different tune if this story involved a black family, or worse a black muslim family!!!! Or.... how about a legally imigrated hispanic Christian family?
You are both insulting, and mistaken. You must not know any conservatives.
The Duggars are irresponsible and should be forced sterilized...
Welcome to the liberal land of the free.
It's a common theme on this blog: liberalism leads to religious persecution and loss of freedom.
"Choice" doesn't mean the choice to have a family, it only means the choice to kill.
LOL. "And besides, homosexuality is a choice. No one is born that way."
Paul just exhibited his extraordinary ignorance. I guess I'm not surprised, facts, science, statistics, and reality never really played well with blokes like him.
May one or more of his children be gay. (No ill will toward the child that will have to deal with his/her ignorant parent(s).) Fortunately society though is become increasing educated, aware, tolerant, and respectful of people's differing sexual orientation.
Paul, you're RIGHT ON! Keep up the good work of sticking to the truth and the facts! As many have come to realize, homosexuality, being a choice, can be left behind. While not everyone choses to believe this is possible, it is a fact.
As for the Duggar's choice to continue to trust God for His providence, we say, "godspeed"!
Biblical teaching tells us, "They shall know the truth, and the truth shall set them free..."
Hi, fun blog, infuriating comments. As an interesting side note, in response to some who commented on orphans and children without families worldwide (from a related blog), there has been a growing trend of homeschooling, large, Christian families who are adopting (often multiple children)from poverty-striken areas. As one who has seen several of these families "in action," it is really wonderful. You don't just see a child who has a home; you see a child in a real family.
I have another comment for another post.
Also, I wanted to draw out our "host's" comment on childcare and whether or not these children get the parental interaction that they need.
We homeschool but have also used a private school, and I come from a public-school background as well as having taught in the "system." A child in the typical scenario is warehoused for most of its youth away from its parents. Since stay-a-home mothers are looked down upon, the average child is sent away at 6 months or earlier for the majority of the day. Once they enter school, many parents also use after-school programs to keep them even later. There are sports, clubs, activities, camps, that steal family time, not to mention that in our culture a "normal" child prefers to spend his "free" time either on the phone, tv, internet, or out with friends. And if a teen gets a job? Where is all this Parent-child bonding that the Duggars are missing-its a myth.
You could learn a lot from a Duggar.
Another comment that is going to be ignored. People are free to choose to kill their child if it is in any way inconvenient to them, and it appears that abortion would be praised by most here citing the sacrifice for old Mother-Earth, but what bigoted, ignorant, redneck, fundamentalist, terrorist, conservative, monogamous homeschooler would think that anyone should be able to choose to have a large family. How selfish of us...I mean them.
You make it sound like pregnancy is a breeze when you made that reference to Michelle's health. The truth is we don't know her medical history. She may have suffered serious, possibly life-threatening complications at some time in the past but it has never been released to the media. She is over the age of 40, after all, and has had one child after another with very little time in between. Also, since she is over 40, her chances of having a Down Syndrome child goes up considerably. That's one of the reasons why doctors ofen don't recommend older women having children. Pregnancy is not as safe as many people think anyway. It is a major killer of women in poorer countries and even in the US, many women suffer from serious complications such as preeclampsia, high blood pressure, stroke, and diabetes.
It just never ceases to amaze me -- and horrify me -- that there are people for whom the birth of a baby to a happily married couple into a loving self-sustaining family might be bad news.
The things such people say to justify their hatred of life is really impressive
her chances of having a Down Syndrome child goes up considerably
And so? In my experience I have found that people who have Down's Syndrome are far more happy, loving, lovable, and intelligent than "educated" leftists. Certainly a lot less dangerous...
There's a few things I find interesting.
1. The forced sterilization comment fulfills the prophecies of C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man.
2. None of the people who hate the Duggars have the guts to sign their names. If their opinions were respectable, why are they hiding behind the Anonymous tag?
3. "science, statistics, and reality never really played well with blokes like him."
This is amusing. Science has proven that homosexuality is not genetic and has of yet proven any other biological causes. Psychologically, there may be predispositions but this puts in the realm of a treatable case.
Additionally, if Anonymous thinks being homosexual is so swell, why does he seem to using it as a curse towards Paul's children. Even if he doesn't mean ill will towards the kids themselves, he certainly thinks it will hurt Paul from his tone. Methinks anonymous has betrayed himself.
4. Do liberals not have spell checks? "artical" in the second comment & "likliehood" in the first. For being so educated & wise, their spelling sucks.
If the Duggars can afford to care for the children they have and are willing to take on that responsibility - including Michelle taking on whatever possible health risks can occur - tain't nobody's business how many kids they have! More power to them! I love my kids but I for one disliked pregnancy.
Growing up, I knew an Irish waitress at the local Greek diner who was one of 22 children.
May one or more of his children be gay. (No ill will toward the child that will have to deal with his/her ignorant parent(s).) Fortunately society though is become increasing educated, aware, tolerant, and respectful of people's differing sexual orientation.
Is that a curse? Are you praying for that? To whom? Your moon goddess? Or are you "scientific" and hoping only that one of my children will "become" gay through evolution?
As to society's views of homosexuality, that is no doubt why every state that puts gay marriage on the ballot sees it go down in flames by large margins. Yeah, society is changing; everyone you know approves of homosexuals, contraception and abortion.
Fortunately for America, my kids, and the Duggar kids, and many others like them, will out-vote your kids. It's simple math.
What a great post, Paul!
If the first commenter was so firm in his/her beliefs, WHY comment anonymously then? I just had to add that in. Seems mighty weak to me. (as most anonymous comments do)
The amazing thing about trusting in God-He qualifies the called, not calls the qualified. If that family has more children, God will enable them to show each child love and provide for that child. They make it so clear that they have turned their lives to God. They seek HIS direction. He won't lead them to a place they can't handle being.
You make so many good points in your post here. If I commented on them all, this would be way too long!
I just wanted to say hello and that I enjoyed reading this. :)
I actually don't have any objection to people commenting anonymously.
I choose to allow anonymous comments; I could turn that off.
I myself also post under a pseudonym.
So I don't fault people for not wanting to leave their names; though I appreciate it when they do.
I also don't critique spelling. I have the occasional typo myself, and even, though rarely, misspell things.
But all the nonsensical hatred that gets posted here, unsigned or not, that's just amazing to me. To think that the birth of a healthy, wanted child could provoke all that!
They do get handouts by calling their house a "church" so they don't have to pay taxes. Also, per their website, the children do all the cooking, educating themselves/younger children, and laundry. What does the mom do all day (besides have sex and pop out kids.)
Hey, if you want a tax break too, you can do the same thing.
If you disapprove of giving tax breaks to places of worship, I suggest you take it up with your local taxing authority, and see how much traction that idea has in your community.
The hate continues.
"Also, per their website, the children do all the cooking, educating themselves/younger children, and laundry." Yeah, it's really too bad that all of these slave-driving aspects of their lives won't come in handy when they get older and on their own. For sure, it's just the parents being selfish and mean. I'd really love the generation my kids grow up in to be filled with lazy, lay-about, young adults with no sense of purpose or responsibility that have a healthy hate relationship with their siblings like it ought to be. I really hope that they wouldn't initiate their own education because I just love it when I have to force my kids to do their math under threat of punishment. I really think that the mother should be a slave to the household and the parents should both buy their children as many child-occupying tools like Nintendos, movies, cellphones, etc.. So they won't be left behind as far as society goes, you know? Heck, even though she doesn't need to, she should get a job so that they can get a proper education in daycare or a government run school (because they have such a good reputation of doing such a stellar job in that area). This unselfish, giving lifestyle the parents are supposedly teaching them by example to each other can only lead to a lifetime of mental damage for sure.
Ha! What Laura said!
The totalitarian undercurrents of leftist thought are on proud display in these threads. I'm particularly amused at the common refrain of "they won't get any individual time with the parents." Yes, I'm sure Muffy and Biff spend loads of time with their designer baby named Leaf, right between the hours of 8 and 9 every night.
In all seriousness, my hats off to this remarkable family.
While on a number of points Paul and I disagree, on this we are of one accord. There's nothing at all wrong with what these folks are doing.
I think there are probably both positives and negatives when it comes to the Duggars way of life.On the one hand, the world is already over-populated and people are always complaining about this problem when it occurs in poor countries, like Africa. Also, I liked the idea of assigning chores and such to children to taech them personal responibility, but I don't think they should be assigned a "buddy". The older children have basically become surragote parents to their brothers and sisters, and I don't think this is fair to them. Teenagers should not be responsible for little children, especially since the Mother said on the show, they do this because she doesn't have time to look after everyone.If you are ging to have multiple children, you should make sure you will be the one caring for them and not pawning it off on their teenage borthers and sisters. It has nothing to do with Left wing/right wing politics, even though politics often creep into the mix when other people's personal choices are being discussed. In the end, it is really a family's personal choice, and in merica we have that right, so no matter how irresponsible it may seem , it's not really up to any of us to decide what they should do.
oh yeah these people are fantastic parents. they keep a sign up sheet in the kitchen for when one of the children feels like they need one on one time. that's some good parenting. and they feel that society has "overemphasized the role of the parents". please stop glamourizing these people...they are trashy and have found a "15 minutes of fame" niche and they are riding it.--they don't care about their children, they care about their tv time.
i am the oldest of three and i had plenty of chores and watching the kids time, buti never felt like i was a surrogate parent and chores and child-rearing were not my life. i got to be A CHILD. what a novel concept.
Whether or not you like the Duggars, whether or not you are conservative or liberal, you will never convince anyone of you point of view with snide comments and low brow insults. If you truly believe what you are saying you should put forth your comments in an intelligent and respectful manner. No one truly listens to anyone who uses curses to make their points. It is uneducated and pathetic.
I am ONLY posting this as anonymous because I don't want anyone to be hurt by what I have to say, meaning that I will be sharing something private. There are gay people in my family. One of which I am very close too. Both of these people suffered deep emotional and physical abuse as children. I find it no surprise, given what they suffered that they have chosen that lifestyle. One of these people, who I love very much, told me as much. If she had not been molested as a child by a person she should have been able to trust implicitly, she would not be a lesbian. All the people I have known (and there have been quite a few) all suffered from physical or emotional abuse. And I am NOT saying that anyone who is abused will choose to be gay, either. Just that it is a fact. I used to believe that it had to be genetic, after all, who would schoose this lifestyle? But I have come to learn by looking closely and talking with my gay friends and family, that it is a choice… by many of their own admissions. And worse, it is sad to say, there are also people in this world who strive to be different. Who long to be a minority and will do what they can to achieve this tag.
I know this is not what the post was about, but I felt it necessary to share it.
Paul, I frequent your blog often and I think you are right on. As well as Laura. I don't agree with all the things the Duggars do, but compared to a lot of things going on in this world today, they should be the least of our worries. God bless them.
We may not choose our temptations, but we do choose whether to embrace them.
Funny that we keep thanking specific gods for having children. Not really required folks - nature has been taking care of this process for millions of years. Don't think rabbits thank their carrot god for their luck.
Funny that we keep thanking specific gods for having children. Not really required folks - nature has been taking care of this process for millions of years. Don't think rabbits thank their carrot god for their luck.
Just because rabbits don't thank God doesn't mean He doesn't bless them.
And maybe you think you don't have a soul, but I'm sure that God made me with one. And I'm very grateful for that.
Does god bless all the rabbits? Or only the chosen few?
Does god bless all the rabbits? Or only the chosen few?
Which only goes to prove C.S. Lewis' point that nonsense is still nonsense even when you say it about God.
That's a great argument (okay - not really). But it doesn't answer the question.
What question? About whether all bunnies go to heaven? I haven't researched it. May I refer you to the Franciscans?
And what on Earth makes you think that just because rabbits have no religion means there's no God (which was the thrust of your earlier comment)? You can't really think that that's a good argument, can you?
It means there is no rabbit god... but that's a different god than the one you chose... which is the one and only true god... right?
That's right, one God (as my profile clearly says, I'm devoutly Roman Catholic; try not to waste time with stupid questions).
Why? How many do you have? And do you not believe that they're true?
But if rabbits' lack of religion isn't relevant to human reproduction, why did you bring it up?
Anyone who is that interested in populaton growth NEEDS to read Mark Steyn's latest book "America Alone." It will sober you up and makke you stop whining about people like the Duggers. With the media darlings of NARAL and NOW and their "culture of death, abortion mills, and contraception courtesy of Planned Parenthood, the West is getting itself closer than ever to zero population. Guess who is having all the babies? Read the jacket teaser on Steyn's book to find out.
Quite right! It's not a question of whether people will have large families, but of who will have them.
A gay person doesn't choose to be gay, any more than a straight person chooses to be straight.
It's that simple, you delusional, narrow-minded, intolerant hypocrites.
A gay person doesn't choose to be gay, any more than a straight person chooses to be straight.
It's that simple, you delusional, narrow-minded, intolerant hypocrites.
Who you callin' intolerant? You cowardly, anonymous, unnatural liberal.
There's no one in the world who's been prevented from being gay by my disapproval.
As I said before, no one chooses their temptations, but everyone chooses which temptations to embrace.
A gay person doesn't choose to be gay, any more than a straight person chooses to be straight.
I am signing as annonymous because I do not have an account with Google or whatever. I am a conservative Christian and know many gay/bi people. All of them were sexually abused. The only one I haven’t asked about abuse is not around anymore. I was sexually abused as young child and teen. BECAUSE of this abuse, I chose unhealthy lifestyles (Lesbian), but in my early twenties, I met God. He forgave me and I turned my life around with help from God and Mercy Ministries of America. If not for God, I am not sure where I would be. A few years ago, I would have given anything to exchange places with any of the Dugger children, now I realize that what was meant for evil is now used for good.
Paul, I am not a Catholic but your site is cool :) Thanks for making sense of ignorance. If not for God’s grace that could be me vomiting drivel on you site.
Above
I'm not agreeing with born gay theories, just choices.
Thanks again.
"A gay person doesn't choose to be gay, any more than a straight person chooses to be straight.
It's that simple, you delusional, narrow-minded, intolerant hypocrites."
I am the writer of the above comment, and not having a blogger username and password does not make me a "coward"...without signing up, which I don't care to do, anonymous is the only option.
And Paul, who said I was liberal, and who said I was gay? Those are some pretty big assumptions...is that what you meant by calling me "unnatural"? What an ass....but typical for those of your mindset, so I am not surprised.
Believing that people should be free to be who they are, and follow their hearts without judgement, does not make one a liberal, it makes one human.
I find it amazing that people who so vehemently claim to be "of God" hold such intolerant beliefs.
Actually, there is another option to being anonymous: You can simply include your name in your post. You can even include a name without having a blogger account. People do it all the time.
I believe it was me who said you were liberal, as evidenced by your spouting of the liberal lie that homosexuality is inborn and, later, part of "who you are". No credible scientific study has found that homosexuality is inborn.
I called you unnatural because of your evident approval of homosexuality.
And if, fool, you don't like being called names, don't come to my blog and call me names like some self-centered jackass.
And I defy you to find anywhere in my posts or comments on this or any blog where I claim to be "of God".
But hey, I do follow my heart, so why are you here judging me? Are you inhuman, too?
Dumbass.
I've posted on this forum and on others about the Duggar family. I'm clearly one of the NON-supporters of their irresponsible breeding and I won't rehash some of my previous comments about them.
However, before you stick me into the extreme left-wing bias of "liberalism", let me state some of my other beliefs, which are not at all liberal or even a platform that the democratic party supports. For starters, I'm ALL for sealing the border. I have not ever voiced an opinion that I think the U.S. should be a free-for-all country. In fact, I have a lot of problems with the Mexican government because they are basically doing NOTHING to keep their people in Mexico. Illegal immigration is a BIG problem in this country. So now you know I'm not an extremist whatsoever when it comes to politics.
I'm also pro-choice (but do not advocate abortion) and I believe in the death penalty as some crimes are too heinous to give any other sentence.
I also believe in God and attend church regularly. I very much believe that God helps those who help themselves. The Duggar's do not show what most people would consider as "responsible Christians". Their excess in the number of children they have is appalling and shocking to a lot of people (Christian or not).
So let's not assume that every poster who posts against this strange family are extreme left-wing zealots who speak from a politically slanted viewpoint. I'm an independent thinker and I pretty much speak what I believe irregardless of what the Democrat or Republican party might support.
So, then, by what standard do you call the number of their children "irresponsible" and excessive?
This implies a "right" number of children for a family to have. It also implies not only that you know that number, but that they ought to know that number.
What's the number?
Paul,
I admire the courage you have to speak out. I find it ironic that we live in a society that finds something wrong with most everything. From what I see, these kids have clothes on their backs, they are fed, they have a nice home and they are taught responsibility. Heaven forbid a kid this day and age have to do that.
I remember as a kid doing the same things for my little brother that the older kids do for the little ones. I think many other people out there probably did the same thing with their siblings at some point in time regardless of how few or how many siblings they had. Maybe big numbers whig out some people this day and age... I don't know.
But they do things as a family. They try to organize their time and I think they do it well. I don't see anything indicative of neglect here. Someone even said all they cared about was being on TV. Ok, they are doing what families normally do and the problem is....what? Perhaps they feel good about what they are doing. I can't see why they wouldn't. I know people that are riding the "fame train" for far more deplorable behavior than the Duggars ever hoped to display.
People can assume the worst about them all they want.. But that's all it is... assumption. We all know what is said about the word assume, don't we? We truly only know what we see. I see a big family that is well adjusted. Nothing more.
I've seen some mention the risks involved in Michelle giving birth so many times.Folks, with every pregnancy there is risk. No matter how old or young, there is risk. She appears healthy and happy. As long as she is, then good for her.
People, I know you've seen folks out there with 1 or 2 kids who don't provide as well for their kids as this family does theirs.
I know some folks can't help their circumstances, but others see their kids as inconvenience and will use them to get whatever they can from government entities. That's what we should be upset about. Not a family that's independent of that and doing well.
Just some food for thought folks. So their family isn't like yours. At least they are a family in the "true" sense of the word.
Paul, keep up the good work brother. Press on.
Take Care,
Vicky
The counter-culture liberals who have the audacity to dictate when and how the Duggars can procreate and raise a family are just as much a danger to this country as any Al-Qaeda cell. I'm not trying to be sensationalistic, I'm simply being honest. It's becoming very scary as the political left continues to invade the lives of all Americans, attempting to dictate every aspect of how we live. I only hope enough Americans can wake up to this fact and have the guts to stand up for what is right and fight the liberal left. More power to the Duggars, and their right to bear children!
I HATE THE DUGGERS!
They should be treated as criminals for having so many kids. There are too many people on this earth and we should encourage people to have less than 2 kids. Christians and other religions who think this way are terribly selfish with no regard to the environment or other animals on this planet. Every human aside from aborigines uses far too many resources during their stay, especially Americans and we're all getting fatter.
There are now over 6 billion large animals (humans) on earth, and many times more human domestic animals. We are chopping down forests at an alarming rate to grow soy, corn and cattle and much of the world's fish stocks are now dangerously low. And if you think we're not causing climate change, think again dummy.
We should not help humans at all. There are only 350 Siberian Tigers left on this planet - we should be helping them!
The only line that makes sense in the bible is when God says he will DESTROY those who destroy the Earth. So if you own a car or eat burgers, or have too many kids for that matter, too late sucker, you're going to hell.
Ah, well, in the immortal words of Robert Heinlein:
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" — but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race — i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women — it strikes me as a fine arrangement — and perfectly "natural."
Fuck the Duggars. Oops, someone already has, at least Michelle.
Ah, more liberal love an tolerance. Let me guess: you're an Obama supporter, right?
Hi Paul!
I'm also going to use a pseudonym. My name is Belle. I agree with most of what you say in your actual article.
The only things I disagree with are "I've had people make nearly obscene speculations about the effect of repeated childbirth on parts of Michelle's anatomy (people, God made women resilient. Look it up). "
I decided to look it up. God actually decided that woman over 35 have more of a chance of having premature or low weight babies. However, as age increases the chances of having children with Down syndrome are higher. There is also more of a chance for having another chromosome problem. There is also more of a chance of losing the baby (through miscarriage and the like) and that can be hard on the family. Michelle Duggar is in this age range now, and has already had a child in this age range.
However I have a problem with many of your responses to comments. Many of the comments were uncalled for, but you don't have to stoop to their level by writing mean or uncalled for responses.
The first: "And once again, we see the liberal visceral contempt reaction. Like C.S. Lewis' devils in The Screwtape Letters, these people cannot understand the relationship dynamics of a loving family."
Although when someone wrote a nasty comment about if it were a different racial family you wouldn't agree (I do not agree with this comment in any way), you wrote "You are both insulting, and mistaken. You must not know any conservatives." You must not know any liberals. I have a large family, and I am a die heart liberal. I have two brothers and three sisters (I am the fourth sister). I love my family and understand the relationship dynamics. If you don't like to be stereotyped and generalized, don't stereotype and generalize others.
You also wrote, "And besides, homosexuality is a choice. No one is born that way."
Actually, people are born that way. The American Psychological Association (apa.org), religioustolerance.org, Your Family , Friends, and Neighbors (yffn.org), the majority of psychiatrists and psychologist and other mental health proffesionals all agree that people ARE born homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and asexual.
You also wrote something on the lines of that you can resists your temptations. They're many people who do this, actually. Who lead so called "normal" lives and have spouses and children. But they hate themselves. Is self loathing better than being gay?
However, I don't want to judge you. You probably think that I'm a lesbian liberal, as you've called other comment writers gay and liberal as well. Well I've told you I'm liberal and I've had a boyfriend for a year now and I love him very much and we are waiting to have sex until we're married (I'm a devout Christian) and then have children (but only enough that we can afford health care and proper lives to all of them - props to the Duggars for being able to do that!).
Also, your last comment.
"Ah, more liberal love an tolerance. Let me guess: you're an Obama supporter, right?"
Woah, there. I'm an Obama supporter. Although what anonymous said "F*ck the Duggars. Oops, someone already has, at least Michelle." was completely uncalled for. Why do you have to assume and generalize.
For someone who, from there posts I have gathered to be a rather intelligent man (though a bit stubborn), you like to generalize and are quick to call people names.
I agree that people should not be angry at the Duggars. They seem like they have a strong family life and connection with faith.
Surprise, surprise. I'm a liberal! I believe in God, I don't have anything against the Duggars, and *gasp* I have a soul!
I wonder how you're going to respond to this one.
Major respect to Belle, because she said exactly what I was thinking. I'm rather disappointed to see how much people polarize beliefs, where either you love God and vote Republican or you hate Him and vote Democratic.
I, too, come from a large, close knit family (7 kids, the largest age gap being only 11 years). I am also very religious. As soon as I heard about the Duggars, I just had to Google them because I was so eager to see how Michelle Dugar's mothering tactics compared to my own mother's (They are very similar, only we were not homeschooled).
But guess what? I'm not Christian, and I'm a liberal! And I think the Duggars are awesome!
Please don't generalize, it makes the case against the Duggars and people of faith only stronger.
Belle, I suggest you re-review the APA studies on the origin of homosexuality.
I don't prescribe self-loathing. That's not the result of resisting temptation, as you should well know, seeing as you are saving yourself for marriage (as we used to say), I'm in spite of much temptation.
You don't sound like a lesbian to me, you sound like a nice young Christian person, and I predict you will eventually find that your support for candidates like Obama is wholly incompatible with your faith.
But thanks for chiming in!
Sarah, thanks for commenting, and I hope you'll point out to your fellow liberals that their contempt for happy families like the Duggars only makes the case against liberalism stronger.
I stumbled across this blog after reading about the Duggars, from a news clip on my cell phone. The family captivated my interest so I just had to find out more. So of course I got online and googled them.
I reviewed their website and I was just amazed and I commend them for having a large, happy, and loving family. All these people getting online casting judgement on the family for doing what is natural between a man and a woman...........(REPRODUCTION).
Then you have people on here talking about the posibilities that some of the children will be gay..WHAT? Is my question to that comment. Sure its possible but it has nothing to do with anything. Since it has been brought up and consistantly commented about I will add my 2 cents into the pot.
Especially to address your comments Paul about being homosexual is a choice....."Yea Right!!!"
Being a Lesbian myself.. I can definately tell you its not a choice. Who in there right mind would choose to be constantly ridiculed and hated by society, to be judged for something they can not control, To have hate crimes committed against them because of who they love, to possibly loose the only people whos love should matter to them (Your Parents), to Hate themself because society tells them they are not Normal and a disgrace. Your answer is (NO ONE)
The only choices you have in this world is to either let the views of society consume you to the point that you are trying to fit its mold despite of who you are and be unhappy for the rest of your life because you can not please anybody except for yourself or say, "To hell with what society may think about me. I am who I am and I love myself despite what others may think of me". Thats a choice for everyone in life to make im not just talking about homosexual people!
The only person that has a right to judge anybody is "GOD"...
Who cares how many children this couple will have... its their family and the kids are coming out healthy and they are provided for emotionally and financially.
True enough I could never imagine giving birth to that many children the pain that you hear other pregnant women talk about and how miserable they are during the pregnancy alone....However woman still announce its there greatest joy
So to Mrs. Duggar I commend you, for persuing and mastering the art of child birth.
society alwasys has something negative to say about EVERYTHING!!!
and Fear what it does not know.
Then you attack the peoples finances.... Hell they are doing better than more than half this country and doing it with 17 children soon to be 18 and the biggest kicker is this NO FINANCLE DEBT!!!!!
so instead of mocking them on that why don't you ask them about advise on how to budget because they have a darn good one going on in their house hold.
There is nothing wrong with those children's welfare.They are not neglected, They are Educated and taught music... not just one or two... all of them play an instrument, they are fed meals everyday, they have clothes on there back.. yes they may do chores around the house but thats what you do in a family... help each other out. These kids probably have better work ethics and time managenment skills than most people. Trust this if nothing else each one of those kids knows 1 thing if nothing else, and that is that Their Mother and Their Father loves them and BOTH of their parents are there for them.
Im not judging anybody nor am I trying to take away from anyones opinon... My thoughts on this is that, just because you think its unheard of and just because you wouldn't do it or you feel its not normal.. don't spew that onto others about a family who is actually doing it and making it work.
When it all boils down to it. Its their Family not yours... They go home to their house, you go home to yours, you probably will never see them, what they do on a day to day does not affect you, they are not thinking about you when they close their eyes at night and you are not thinking about them when you close yours. True their life is Interesting but "ITS THEIR LIFE"
Anonymous, the number of gays I know personally who have chosen it is greater than zero.
But thanks for your comments on the Duggar family, which I agree with completely.
I met Michelle many many years ago...she was such a blessing to my life. I was a very young mother...one at 19, two at 20 and had just found out I was pregnant with my fourth...my pastors wife sugested that I call Michelle for some support...I said "Michelle, I'm pregnant" and instead of the "wow, what are you going to do now" responce...she said "ME TOO!"...We got to know eachother better thru out our pregnancys...when she found out I didn't have a cordless phone she got several ladies together and they all gave me one as a shower gift. We ended up giving birth six days apart...and I have to tell you, even now my Amie and her Jinger are good friends that email eachother often.
Anyway...after giving birth she invited me over for some fellowship time. From there Michelle discovered that I didn't have a washing machine and invited me to wash my families clothes once a week at her house. What a sweet time of fellowship we had. Michelle mentored me as a mother, wife and showed what a Godly woman should look like. She has been my Titus 2 friend for years and I love her very much.
My husband is in the military and wasn't at home to take our girls to a Father/ Daughter campout...Jim Bob asked me if they would like to go with him and his girls. It made such an impression to my girls...that somone was willing to step up to the plate while their Daddy was gone.
I guess all this to say...the Duggar's are real people that love the Lord...they aren't asking any of you to have large families, just being a testamony to the world that children are a blessing from the Lord...and the fruit of the womb is His reward!!!
I am a mother of nine and I didn't know there were so many people out there who hated children until I read the blogs about the Duggars. I love every one of my children and I can't imagine life without any of them.
I am 45 and I just had an almost nine pound baby. I usually have 10 pound babies so i guess this baby has the low birth weight a previous person warned about.
About the concern over downs babies, the chances of downs is just below 1% before a woman is 40 and just over 1% after she's 40. That's not too bad.
About over-population, if you do the math you would be able to fit every man, woman, and child into Texas and give them each 1000 sq. feet. That would make for a pretty crowded Texas but Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, Los Angeles and the rest of the world would be empty. Maybe our problem is more about population density and greed and avarice that is killing our love for one another.
Reading these angry comments makes me want to hug all my kids, feed them a good meal, and tell them I love them because it sounds like there are many who don't want them to exist.
And about Obama, he considers an unplanned child to be "an unhappy burden." Unhappy? They are the happiest burden I have and I wouldn't want it any other way.
So many issues coming out of these posts. My local moms group just discussed the Duggers, and from ladies who want everyone to be accepted they did nothing but put this family down, calling them crazy. I spoke up and am sure now a "religous zealot" and "outcast" (incase I wasn't before).
This family is an amazing family and I think a lot of people could learn a lot from them. They are raising respectable, responsible citizens who understand life isn't all about having fun, but also about doing work just to live. Would it be better that they leave home not knowing how to take care of children, do laundry, cook, etc like most young people today? I would say those parents are the irresponsible ones.
Some say the Duggers are "selfish" and "irresponsible" for bringing more people into this world when there are so many orphans. Who said it's the Duggers responsibility to take care of other's children? I believe God gives us each our "role" in this world. Apparantly it's not the Dugger's role to adopt, but there are many other's out there who do fill that role.
Now to the gay issue. I believe homosexuality is a sin. You can argue all you want, but the Bible is pretty clear. Now, that doesn't mean I won't love the person. That doesn't mean I don't think a homosexual can be a Christian- I do. But I also believe that like all sins a relationship with Jesus will help. Is it a choice? People will argue that alcoholism isn't a choice either, but it is a sin. Alcoholics struggle daily to stay sober. I view it as similar. I am sure recovering homosexuals do as well. Just because we are born into sin, doesn't mean we have to be slaves to it. Again though, this is between the individual and God. All I can do is love that person. However, I will not promote any sin (alcoholism, homosexuality, etc) by condoning and/or participating in activities that accept them.
The idea that the "chances they'll have a gay kid" are higher is ludicrous.
I'm sure my comment will get some flaming. That's fine. Anyone who stands for anything does.
Thanks for a couple of nicely thoughtful comments, ladies.
Paul,
Been browsing your blog and decided to get caught up is this thread, especially regarding the issue of homosexuality. Are you familiar with the Courage Ministry for Catholics that experience same-sex attraction?
"Priests with Courage are committed to the following five goals:
Supporting Courage, the Catholic Church's only pontifically approved ministry which is specifically committed to providing spiritual support for persons with same-sex attractions who are striving to live chastely. Direct those who are seeking help to Courage, and their families and friends to EnCourage. Show your support by getting involved in a Courage or EnCourage group, and if there aren't any groups in your areas, consider starting them.
Praying for those who experience homosexual temptations, whether they live an actively homosexual lifestyle or are striving to live chastely, and offering Mass as often as you can for all who struggle with homosexuality.
Treating men, women and youth who experience same-sex attractions with "respect, compassion and sensitivity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2358). This involves accepting them for who they really are - men and women, sons and daughters of God, and not referring to them as "gays", "lesbians" or other reductionist terms.
Getting informed about the issue of homosexuality. The number of men and women dealing with homosexuality in your parishes and in your cities is not negligible. The Church cannot ignore them or the issue. The spiritual and physical lives of too many are at stake. Know what the Church really teaches from the Scripture, the Catechism, and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (see the Teachings section on this website for more information).
Speaking up about this issue publicly and privately. Speaking up does require Courage - not everyone will be glad to hear the truth, but everyone needs to hear it. Fear not, as Pope John Paul II so often admonishes. And know that the men and women at Courage are praying for you!"
Also...
Taken from Rev. Gabriel B O’Donnell, OP Columbia Magazine publication of the Knights of Columbus/ January 2007 p. 24
“The Church does not condemn homosexuals or homosexuality. Every person, created in the image and likeness of God, possesses a dignity and worth that demands respect and compassion from one’s brothers and sisters in the human family. While the origins of same-sex attraction are not yet scientifically clear, most of those who are oriented do no choose this sexual attraction. A man or woman cannot be blamed or condemned merely because he or she experiences such an attraction….
The Church must condemn homosexual acts because they are contrary to God’s plan expressed in natural law and in divine revelation. The complementarity of man and woman as male and female is inherent in God’s creative design for human race. “Precisely because man and woman are different, yet complimentary, they can come together in union that is open to the possibility of life.”
Most important was this paragraph.
“Same-sex attraction is a source of great suffering for many men and women who call themselves ‘gay.’ Often misunderstood and rejected by their families and friends, they fear they will not be able to live normal, productive lives. As they retreat into enclaves of like-minded persons, the homosexual subculture provides an apparent safe haven, but it does not really solve the problem.”
Ok now on large families and possible emotional neglect, if the concerns of individuals of large families is true they should also be very well concerned of the fatherlessness (or motherlessness) that is created when a married couple divorces or when an unmarried couple breaks up. Millions of children can easily go for weeks, months, even years without having contact with a biological parent.
Maybe they should look at the breakdown of the family and it's connection of children seeking out attention and affection in inappropriate situations, if they have concern with the emotional neglect of children. I mean if we could just cut the divorce rate in half, and double the marriage rates in children born out-of-wedlock to have both biological parents work as one parental unit in the same home it could do a lot for the well being of the children in our communities.
For children who have lost a biological parent(s), whether is may be from abandonment (legal divorce, just leaving, or a valid breakup due to an abusive situation), adoption, or even a bio-parent being a sperm/egg donor(anonymous or otherwise) ultimately all of these children ask sooner or later ask "Why did you leave me?", "Why did you choose not to be apart of my life?" or "Why did you not care about me?"
A child from a large intact family never had their parent do that to them.
Not reading the loads of comments, and not giving the family a hard time for having so many children, it's their choice and their life - However, on one of their shows they were asked about individuality, and said it was not an issue, however, all boys dress exactly the same, and all girls do as well, how is it not possible that their individuality is not infringed upon when their wardrobe is dictated for them. Now I am not saying they need to take all clothes off and rebel, but for the girls - allow pants - for the boys - allow t-shirts and such, to help express their individuality. Thats all.
No doubt! Individuality, after all, is defined by boys wearing t-shirts and girls wearing pants. Only robots do otherwise.
And it would be so original! After all, no one else in the world would be doing it!
How many t-shirts do you own, Anonymous? And then, how many of them were not mass-produced? T-shirts come off assembly lines; they are not unique and individual items of clothing. Pants are even less so.
It's the Duggars who are counter-cultural. They're the ones who are unique. And if you knew them personally, I'm sure you'd find that they are quite different from each other.
these people have some deep dark secerets that need to be revealed.
All of that over innocence screams true evil to me. With all those kids and having an income how in the world do they find the time to touch all of them. These people need to wake up.
Get a life; people who are truly evil are never this happy.
You're the one who needs to wake up to the fact there are other lifestyles than yours. And they can be just as valid, and even moreso.
Wow, you're so right- this post has gotten a LOT of hits... (and some of the commenters shoud be hit! lol)
The Duggars are obviously happy with their family arrangement. Their children are well-behaved and are poised to become upstanding citizens. They are a loving family. They teach their children values and the worth of serving one another.
It's rather shocking to me that liberals would rather praise a single mother who works 40+ hours a week to make up for the lost breadwinner (or is on welfare) and sticks her kids in daycare, than praise a family who welcomes children into their lives with love and care, a family that cares enough about their children's wellbeing to raise them at home, teach them at home, and disciple them at home.
Hats off to the Duggars!
You keep pointing out gleefully that your mass production of Christian robots will "outvote" liberals. Breeding children for political reasons...Hmm, where have I heard that before? Radical religion really is frightening, both here and in the Middle East (don't you see that you are two sides of the same coin?) There's a complete denial of anyone else's freedom to live as they see fit and believe what they want to believe. Freedom of religion means for EVERYONE, not just for the Christians. The fact that you think that breeding masses of Christians to vote based on religion is fantastic, proves you really are no different than Islamic fundamentalists who want to make the world Muslim. Why can't you live and let live and not be so determined to change everyone else? In the same breath as you say you want people to give this family with 18 kids the freedom to live as they see fit, you say you want to stop gays or liberals or whoever from living their beliefs freely. Quite hypocritical.
Why can't you live and let live and not be so determined to change everyone else?
What a hypocrite! Who is it doing violent demonstrations, sending white powder to the Mormons and the Knights of Columbus, boycotting businesses, stamping on crosses, harassing little old ladies, all so they can -- not live their own lives in peace -- restructure society!
As for Muslims and Christians being the same, how many Christian suicide bombers have heard about lately? How many Christians have posted videos to the internet of themselves sawing people's heads off?
Liberals make all their arguments by pretending that unlike things are the same.
I freaking hate these people. For anyone who says having this many kids nowadays is okay, it is wrong. Its not the early 1900s, people don't need this many kids. What a bad reason to have all these kids, because they had a miscairage so they think its their fault. It happens, many people have miscairages and think they must repopulate the earth. Also, I don't like people who home school any kid. Do these kids play sports or have any outside friends or do anything at all besides run the house? And they freaking brainwashed all these kids with their religion, so close minded, no outside news, magazines, tv, internet. You wonder why we had the worst president ever elected twice. If you are gonna watch a tv family watch Jon and Kate, they are real and actually raise their kids like normal people, send their kids to public school, have fights kids and parents. But I do not like how Kate is focused on the whole organic scheme. What a waste of money for just a story of your food, if people only knew the shortcuts farmers get to become certified organic or free range. Anyway the Duggars are ignorant of today's society and I hope these kids turn out fine although and choose their own religion and find other view than what they are brainwashed into. And if any of who correct my grammer or spelling I dont care its an internet post, not a novel. And to the guy who said being gay is a choice is a freaking idiot. Im not gay but its the same reason why people are attracted to brunettes, redheads, or what tastes or smells they like. Its all how the brain interprets stimulants. Freaking idiots. Anyway she should get her tubes tied so these kids can start their way to living a normal life. Will they ever go to college or get a job like the one post said or will they all be preachers. Discovery stop paying these people to film them and maybe they wont have enough money to support any more kids. Anyway thats my rant.
I freaking hate these people.
Hey wait, don't go so soon, you forgot to mention how you feel about illiterate, intolerant, gullible, judgmental, anti-Christian, anti-life morons with short attention spans who feel qualified to spout their opinions whenever they feel like it.
I am a gay-supporting, liberal minded, God following, hard-working, family loving. pro-choice teenager who's listening to music that supports my ideals, all because I can.
Throw your bibles at me and see how well it works!
-Keir
Throw your bibles at me and see how well it works!
Why? Odds are, you'll grow out of the bad parts of that.
Paul,
There are no bad parts to what I am(and I don't mean that in the sense that I am flawless. Anyone who can talk to anyone I knew back in Jr. High can testify that), but by being exactly as I am, I can accept everyone else for who they are too. I grant them the respect of not shoving my ideas down their throats and in turn, they contain their beliefs. I don't desire to change anyone with a simple blog. It simply cant be done. However, I do wish to express how hypocritical it is of you to deem certain traits of my character as "bad parts" God is the only being who can judge me and judge what parts of me are bad. And I'm sure that when my final day comes, God will find it in his big heart to forgive me.
-Keir
P.S. Forgiveness is a left winged ideal. Food for thought
Keir, if I'm hypocritcal, your left-wing God will forgive me, so I don't need to worry about it.
As for the rest, well, you may think you're finished growing, but check back in 20 years or so, and let me know if you really did decide to keep every trait you mentioned above.
Paul,
I'm not saying that God wont forgive you for any injustices or prejudices you put against someone you deem "wrong" or "different" but just a thought, aren't those the exact people who crucified Jesus? Change is inevitable, history has proven this time and time again. Fascist and communist dictators, controlling every aspect of peoples lives, have their very citizens rebel against them. The very idea that you can control the sway of power by having ultra conservatives have multiple children is abserd. Each generation changes from their parents slightly. It's simply fact. My parents are both conservative, however, I have no intention of carrying around an anti-homosexual banner. I'm not putting down your beliefes and, once again, I'm not trying to change you. The other comments on this thread clearly say that.
Also, whos definition do you classify "grown up" by? When I'm eligible to vote. That's 3 months. When I'm graduated? 6 months. How about when I'm old enough to voice my opinion, take part in a protest, or fight for what i believe in? That's right now Paul, as I'm proving now and will continue to prove.
Also, simply a side note, this isn't a fight to me. It's an arguement that I'm really enjoying. Merry Christmas to you and your family.
-Keir
I'm not saying that God wont forgive you for any injustices or prejudices you put against someone you deem "wrong" or "different" but just a thought, aren't those the exact people who crucified Jesus?
What people are you referring to? I wasn't even born when Jesus was crucified; although, to be sure, he was crucified for my sins.
You want to know what parts of you I think are "wrong"? The "gay-supporting, liberal-minded," and "pro-choice" and listening to music that supports those values.
If you want to boast about supporting the destruction of the foundation of human society and call it "gay", or a supposed "right" to snuff out unborn innocents for any reason or no reason by the cruelest means imaginable and call it "choice", or a regime that takes the fruit of a man's labor by force and redistributes it to those who will not work and call it "liberal," well that's your right, but yes, I do pray that you will grow out of it, and that God will forgive you for it.
But you're the one who's supporting selfishness, oppression and death, not me; you might consider that the next time you want to contemplate just who it was that crucified Our Lord.
Change is inevitable, history has proven this time and time again.
Change may be inevitable, but change for the better is not. This is a period of history in which there are contending forces willfully striving to change the world in contradictory directions, and there real lives at stake, and I'm on the side that opposes the wholesale killing and that advocates mercy for the innocent.
Fascist and communist dictators, controlling every aspect of peoples lives, have their very citizens rebel against them.
Don't I know it. As an intelligence analyst during the Cold War, serving in West Berlin -- that was behind the Iron Curtain -- I've worked to help make that happen.
The very idea that you can control the sway of power by having ultra conservatives have multiple children is abserd. Each generation changes from their parents slightly.
It's already happening. Studies show that about 70% of kids grow up to share their parents' political views. Which side do you suppose are having more kids? Which side do you suppose has more abortions?
Do you realize that the number of likely Democrat voters who were lost to abortion in Florida alone between 1973 and 1982 would have tipped the balance of the 2000 election to Al Gore?
It's simply fact. My parents are both conservative, however, I have no intention of carrying around an anti-homosexual banner.
I used to feel the same way. I grew out of it, sometime during the 30 years since I was your age. I came to understand that homosexual attraction is disordered, and that homosexual relationships are predicated on the pleasure of the participants. In a free society, there should be room for that, but it's a different kind of thing than a marriage, which is ordered towards bearing and raising children. I came to realize that people have human rights just because they're human and that an unborn baby is no less human than her mother. I came to realize that people know better what to do with their money than government does, that people love their children more than government can, and that private charity can be far, far more efficient and effective than public charity.
I'm not putting down your beliefes and, once again, I'm not trying to change you. The other comments on this thread clearly say that. Also, whos definition do you classify "grown up" by? When I'm eligible to vote. That's 3 months. When I'm graduated? 6 months. How about when I'm old enough to voice my opinion, take part in a protest, or fight for what i believe in? That's right now Paul, as I'm proving now and will continue to prove.
Oh, I thought I'd let you define when you're grown up for your purposes. For my purposes, you'll be grown up when you can speak sensibly. That might be soon; it might take years.
Also, simply a side note, this isn't a fight to me. It's an arguement that I'm really enjoying.
No? Your involvement came with the challenge for others to "Throw your bibles at me and see how well it works!" You set up your banner and threw down your gauntlet in a most defiant manner. Not that that's a bad thing.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Thanks, and to you and yours.
BTW, "Keir"? Male or female? I'm guessing male.
Paul,
First off, male indeed. Birth certificate says so. Also, if you don't mind, I'll take up your method of response in order to keep my thoughts well ordered.
What people are you referring to? I wasn't even born when Jesus was crucified; although, to be sure, he was crucified for my sins.
I refer to the people who couldn't accept change or a shift of power.
If you want to boast about supporting the destruction of the foundation of human society and call it "gay", or a supposed "right" to snuff out unborn innocents for any reason or no reason by the cruelest means imaginable and call it "choice", or a regime that takes the fruit of a man's labor by force and redistributes it to those who will not work and call it "liberal," well that's your right
I call gay the ability for a person to follow their personal being to whatever path this leads them to, even if some feel it necessary to intervene, believing that they know what's best for them, I call choice, the chance for one to choose how they will spend the rest of their life. Whether they would rather be labeled a "murderer" or "irresponsible" and I call a society where people work, not for themselve, but for the collective good, unselfishly, utopia.
Change may be inevitable, but change for the better is not. This is a period of history in which there are contending forces willfully striving to change the world in contradictory directions, and there real lives at stake, and I'm on the side that opposes the wholesale killing and that advocates mercy for the innocent.
We both fight for mercy and peace, but one of us fights for chosen peace, and the other, imposed peace.
Don't I know it. As an intelligence analyst during the Cold War, serving in West Berlin -- that was behind the Iron Curtain -- I've worked to help make that happen.
Thank you
It's already happening. Studies show that about 70% of kids grow up to share their parents' political views. Which side do you suppose are having more kids? Which side do you suppose has more abortions?
Then I'll remain on the side of the 30% minority. The 30% that will have the new idea. That saves lives with newly created technologies. The 30% that will support the 70% despite their opposition
I came to understand that homosexual attraction is disordered, and that homosexual relationships are predicated on the pleasure of the participants. In a free society, there should be room for that, but it's a different kind of thing than a marriage, which is ordered towards bearing and raising children.
I didn't state that homosexuality should be considered marriage. However, I feel it wrong to urge people the change because society has tabooed them.
I came to realize that people know better what to do with their money than government does...
Perhaps people know what to do with their money better than their governments. That's why some people can wear Banana Republic, Guchi and D&G while 5 to 6 hundred thousand are left homeless in the cold.
...that people love their children more than government can...
I, also, absolutely agree that a mother can love her child far more than a daycare ever could. In socialist Sweden, a newborn mother can recieve 100% payed maternity leave for a year. Better than working two part time jobs to put your kid in day care because you have no time because of your two jobs. Infinite loop?
...and that private charity can be far, far more efficient and effective than public charity.
In an absolutely no government senario, the buisness fat cats will strive for personal gain, cutting the number of employees and their pay, leaving fewer and fewer donors to give to private charity. The only reason private can work better is because of government intervention.
For my purposes, you'll be grown up when you can speak sensibly. That might be soon; it might take years.
Does speaking sensibly mean supporting your beliefs? You, I'm sure, are well aware of the first amendment. You protected it in Berlin. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" I strongly believe in the ideals I support. If one cannot take me seriously until I grow up, then you better wait a long time. We'll see how many elections I can get in before I choose to "grow up"
No? Your involvement came with the challenge for others to "Throw your bibles at me and see how well it works!" You set up your banner and threw down your gauntlet in a most defiant manner. Not that that's a bad thing.
In retrospect, I did invite this discussion in, but I meant for that to be interpreted as "Nothing serious. Just saying"
-Keir
P.S. Matt 25: 35-40. I'm sure you have a bible kicking about. Leftist beliefs.
Does speaking sensibly mean supporting your beliefs?
No, Keir, speaking sensibly means addressing such a serious topic as abortion in a less cavalier manner than to say, "...I call choice, the chance for one to choose how they will spend the rest of their life. Whether they would rather be labeled a "murderer" or "irresponsible"..."
You see, if there's a possibility that abortion involves the purposeful killing of an innocent person, a sensible grownup addresses that possibility, and does not dismiss it so casually.
Do you know what happens in an abortion? Do you know many abortions happen every day? How many legal abortions have happened in America since Roe v. Wade?
So you call it "choice" do you, when a person decides to take innocent lives in order to live as she likes? Do you have the slightest clue how despicable that is?
Oh, and by the way, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, and they were great at change. They imposed change -- their change -- on societies all across their world. And almost always without regard to the traditional religious faith of the lands they conquered.
Who is it today that is trying to forcibly impose change on American society, without regard to the traditional religious mores of our society?
It's you liberals.
Oh, and Matt 25:35-40? If he were speaking today, Our Lord might well have included, "I was defenseless in your womb, and you took my life." I fail to see, though, where Our Lord, in recommending all these charitable actions, suggests that we should coercively take others' money to do our charitable acts. The research has repeatedly shown that far, far more charitable giving, relative to income, is done by political conservatives than by political liberals, and far, far more volunteer hours to charitable (rather than political) causes are worked by conservatives than by liberals. This is simply because liberals believe charity is the government's job, and conservatives believe it's theirs.
Come back when you can address serious issues in a substantive manner, and when you sound less like one of the president-elect's stump speeches.
Paul,
I know perfectly well what happens in abortion. That's why I feel it would be better if the women seeking it would be educated on the topic then allowed to make their own decision, rather than greeted with constant redicule, consistant of "innocent lives" and "needless murder". Perhaps instead of mocking these women, you should go to the cause of this and teach them about safe sex rather then leaving it to your conservative charities which still believe that nothing is wrong. If you want to stop abortion then educate them instead of guilt tripping women into keeping what will weigh them down for the rest of their lives.
Oh, and by the way, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, and they were great at change
The romans were just the trigger men. The pharasies put it all into play, because they couldn't relinquish their hold on the world which they built to suit them. The ways of those that can't keep up with change are savage.
Who is it today that is trying to forcibly impose change on American society, without regard to the traditional religious mores of our society?
It's you liberals.
Actually, I don't know if you've noticed, but to be a liberal is to give freedom of religion and beliefs to all. We aren't forcibly imposing change on you in anyway. Has a democrat recently come to your door, held a gun to you and said "spread the wealth and help the needy"?
The research has repeatedly shown that far, far more charitable giving, relative to income, is done by political conservatives than by political liberals, and far, far more volunteer hours to charitable (rather than political) causes are worked by conservatives than by liberals. This is simply because liberals believe charity is the government's job, and conservatives believe it's theirs.
Can you supply a link to statistics?
Come back when you can address serious issues in a substantive manner, and when you sound less like one of the president-elect's stump speeches.
Keep in mind he is the one who won. I guess in the end it came down to stump speeches and ignorant, alaskin stump speeches.
Sarah Palin '12! Vote the woman who didn't even know of the Bush doctrine!
-Keir
[[Some people love the Duggars...
Others viscerally hate the Duggars.]]
Wow. So there's no middle ground. Every last person who has emailed you about the Duggars either love them, or "viscerally hate" them. Viscerally, yet! Viscerally! Well, I'm ashamed of those people. And I'm surprised that you've never received even one comment, up to now, from anyone who falls in between those two extreme areas.
But now you have. I don't love the Duggars; I don't know them. I don't hate them either. Why would I? I guess you could say I'm ambivalent about the Duggars.
But I have a feeling this is not something you'll be able to comprehend and I'll be lumped with all those who have shown "an appalling contempt for Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar personally, and also for children, families, homeschooling and Christians in general, but most of all outrage at the idea that there might be someone out there not using artificial contraception."
But honestly, that's not the case. Truly: I just don't care about the Duggars. The opposite of love is not hate; it's indifference. And the opposite of hate is not love; it too is indifference. I'm indifferent to the Duggars. I don't hate them or love them.
I've just blown your mind, Regular Guy. I know it.
Gee, Ted, have you read the comments on my Duggar posts? Do you honestly feel that, after that, I have mischaracterized those comments?
As for you, I had always presumed that there must be people who were indifferent to them, but I never heard from them because they were... indifferent. That is, not interested, not informed, nothing to say.
Perhaps you're not as indifferent to the Duggars as you claim.
Or, perhaps, you're one of those people whose buttons are pushed when they see someone like me dividing people into two sorts.
(There are two sorts of people. Those who divide people into two sorts, and those who do not.)
The essence of indifference is not caring enough to comment. You obviously care about something. Maybe you're just a troll who thinks it would be fun if he can blow my mind, like that poor android Norman in the Star Trek episode, "I, Mudd." But smoke doesn't come out of my ears just because you feed me logically conflicting data. I can tell when I'm being lied to.
I come from a similar family and so glad to have reached age of majority. My individuality was suppressed by my father, and I can see the same thing with the Duggar girls, all with the same hair and the same clothes. You wouldn't be able to tell from pictures how depressed I was, how much hate brewed in me. I honestly feel like a liberated slave now that I do not have to submit to a megalomaniac's will.
Most people don't care what the children are experiencing, in small or large families. I for one don't care how many children you have as long as they are happy. I wouldn't expect these kids to be honest until they are not dependent on their parents. I know the eldest one is married now but he is a man, and like in my case (stated above) it was much worse for the girls than for the boys. It will be really interesting to see these girls express themselves once they are on their own, I suspect we'll be able to find some similarities with girls' experience in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. There is just so much that you can do to crush and suppress an individual's personality and natural yearnings.
I honestly feel like a liberated slave now that I do not have to submit to a megalomaniac's will.
I hate to break it to you, but I think most teenagers feel like that when they leave home. I know I did.
I understand that you believe people choose to be homosexual. I also understand that this is your opinion only.
My question for you, Paul, is this:
If YOU were attracted to men, and you couldn't define why, and this attraction wouldn't subside, what would you do? If you prayed and prayed that God would rid you of your 'sinful' attraction, and you were still gay, what would you do?
Would you just not have sex, ever?
You say that people choose their temptations. I whole-heartedly agree. However, if a man simply is not attracted to women, how do you expect that this will just change?
If you were gay, would YOU be celibate your entire life for fear of sinning, or would you engage in love and sex with someone, so that you might experience life?
Just curious.
I know it's easy for you to sit back in your judgement chair and spout off: "temptation is a choice!" but I seriously doubt you have ever put yourself in a homosexual's shoes. I doubt you've ever asked yourself, "Damn, if gay men are actually, deep down attracted to women, why would they choose to have sex with men?"
Is your sexual desire for women something you think you can change? Of course it isn't! You were born that way! Well Paul, don't you think it might just work both ways?
....oh yeah... and the Duggars are to be commended for their ability to raise so many kids and keep them in line. But I must question their motives if they feel they need to make a reality show. I think the consequences of their boundless breeding will catch up to them sooner or later. I don't think women were meant to be pregnant more than they aren't. But that's my opinion.
-Matt
Matt, if I found myself sexually attracted to men rather than women. I would remain chaste.
Just as, now, I resist the attraction I sometimes feel to other women than my wife.
I would look into things like the Courage ministry and others who offer orthodox spiritual counseling.
I would not mistake my temptation for my identity and go about saying I was gay, and claiming that that was the essence of who I am.
Is your sexual desire for women something you think you can change?My attraction to women is part of the natural order. If I were attracted to men, that would not be part of the natural order, and I would not indulge it, whether it were changeable or not.
There are many things people are tempted to do that are not tolerated in society.
You say gays are "born that way." Do you accept that some people are born with a desire to torture small animals, or to steal, or even to kill people? What about people who are born with what they find an irresistible urge to have sex with anyone they can? What about people who compulsively lie?
Is every behavior to tolerated and even celebrated, just because people claim to be "born that way"?
You probably think I'm a "homophobe." If I tell you I was "born that way" and can't change it, would that make it OK in your mind?
Interesting.
I can see your points about "natural order". For instance, if you're attracted to children, that doesn't make it right to have sex with them... it makes you a pedophile. I often think homosexuals simply have a chemical imbalance that causes their behavior. I guess I just don't have a problem with consenting adults living the way they choose. But that's another topic.
Understand, my point is not to argue over whether or not homosexuality is a 'natural order' but rather to make you admit that yes, some people are naturally attracted to the same sex. I think despite what you've said before in this thread, you can at least admit that.
I myself am very much attracted to the opposite sex, yet have many homosexual acquaintances and friends, and I often feel sorry for the struggle they must endure between sexual attraction (which is very powerful) and moral virtue.
Must be tough in their mind to see love in any form as sin.
I appreciate your feedback.
I guess I just don't have a problem with consenting adults living the way they choose.Nor do I. My objection is when they try force the rest of society to recognize their homosexual relationships as "marriages."
A free society ought to have room for people to form and live out the relationships they want, however much I may disapprove. But they have no right to my -- or society's -- approval.
Post a Comment