Duggar scandal

[PhuturePriest]

I think it's uncharitable, immature, and unwise to assume anything. We don't know. That's the point: we don't KNOW. It's unfair to other victims of abuse for you to assume that no one struggled with their situation or the effects. It's grand that you've healed so miraculously from what was apparently a very traumatic situation, but that is not the case for all victims of abuse. You also don't know the extent or details of the abuse incurred by others. Further, every person is affected by and copes with abuse differently. So again I will say, you cannot take your experience and assume it's everyone's.

​

I don't think it is fair or prudent to assume the parents did anything. I know the Duggars are a family-meeting style family, but Michelle and Jim Bob seem to be the kind of parents who pray about what's best for their family, make a decision, and then tell the family what's going to happen. If I wanted to play the speculation game (I don't), I would guess they probably asked for everyone's input (after giving them some reflection time), prayed about it, made a decision, and went forward.

But like I said, we don't know. It's not fair to decide (or assume) either way.

​I'm in full agreement on all accounts of this post. I never said the victims probably were in a good state, I merely said that we don't know and it's unfair to assume either way. We can hope that they were healed by that time, but as we don't know, it's unfair to assume that they weren't, as so many are doing. We don't know, so it's not fair to make any judgments on the matter. And honestly, it's not our place to make a judgment on the matter, which I'm sure you would agree with. 

[CrossCuT]

The thing with homosexual relationships is that there's an additional error of thought: not only does the child get the idea that "marriage doesn`t matter``, but that `you can marry anyone` - not just someone you can have a child with, with is according to natural law.

​This I find quite offensive. I am sure if you ask any homosexual person in a committed relationship with their partner they would tell you that they did not just marry "anyone". They are humans with the capacity to think, feel, and make choices. Just because they are homosexual doesnt mean they turn into mindless droids that they simply settle down with the first person they see. 

[superblue]

Actually, I disagree.  The viewing audience SHOULD morally poliece the content their viewing.  We'd be alot better if we did that.  Considering the allegations against the dad from 7th heaven and Bill Cosby, I think we'd all be a bit more careful in our viewing habits.

Actually, it was far worse.  The girls were exploited by their own parents.  This is not some creepster in a dungeon that they chose.  Their parents forced them to be "actors" in a happy family when they were dealing with abuse.  Thats horrid.

At this point it's not about gossip.  It should be a big warning.  If you have children who are molested (no matter who the molester) and you place them on television you SHOULD be made to pay for it.  You should be treated as a somewhat dangerous person, willing to place your children's well being on the alter of fame.

The parents should be shamed into anonomity

The Duggars were adimant that they did this show to show that big families worked and that the quiverfull movement was great.  They did this knowingly and willingly at the expense of their daughters.  In non-personhood it should be treated as something that is a warning sign.  Don't put children on the air when they are dealing with trauma.

​This concept you are posing doesn't really add up, if we were to beaver dam every scandal a person has on TV then by the standard you are posing, no one should ever watch another episode of the Brady Bunch because the actor Robert Reed who played Mike Brady was a homosexual ( who kept that private for a very long part of his life ) that show alone with its good values shaped society to a degree in a positive manner, but running with this train of thought, no one should from here on out not watch that show because now we know that Robert Reed was gay. Same goes for Bill Cosby in the context of his scandal .  We don't support what they do off screen, but we can appreciate what they have brought to our society as actors. That is different though with " reality tv " and the debate seems to now be on did these parents purposefully put their children through the lime light for their own personal gain. If one can prove that then i would be fine with not watching the show on those grounds alone, but with the context of coulda, woulda,shoulda in regards to Josh and what he did to his sisters and who knows else, yes it is horrible, but i go back to my previous statements, an if it remained on the air it wouldn't be some kind of signal that TLC is fine with what happened.

IF TLC really wanted to keep things as a reality tv program, and not some scripted BS then they should have kept the show on, just based on the sheer wow factor that people love drama. They shot themselves in the foot is what they did, so TLC feeling embarressed instead of owning the croutons they made pulled it. The blame for the Duggars' embaressment though rests with three people, the mother, father, and Josh .

 

But you are wanting to blame the Parents for basically using their  children, if we are going to go down that road, then we have to look at TLC and their culpability for putting it on the air and going along with the idea, and then we have to also blame society or the fans of the show for the so called exploitation of the children in this family on air.

These kids, have strong bonds, and stronger faith in Christ, they probably have a lot of issues but who doesn't ; i do not doubt their faith and believe in the end they will be fine.

Edited May 28, 2015 by superblue

[MarysLittleFlower]

​This I find quite offensive. I am sure if you ask any homosexual person in a committed relationship with their partner they would tell you that they did not just marry "anyone". They are humans with the capacity to think, feel, and make choices. Just because they are homosexual doesnt mean they turn into mindless droids that they simply settle down with the first person they see. 

​I didn't mean anyone in that way. I meant: not person of the opposite gender. Like the view "you decide what marriage is" - rather than God deciding what marriage is... ie: the very definition of marriage is altered and it's no longer based on natural law. That's what I meant. It's the whole view that "marriage is anything you want provided you love each other" - but the basic requirements of natural law need to be there for it to be valid. It's not up to us.

Edited May 28, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[hotpink]

​This concept you are posing doesn't really add up, if we were to beaver dam every scandal a person has on TV then by the standard you are posing, no one should ever watch another episode of the Brady Bunch because the actor Robert Reed who played Mike Brady was a homosexual ( who kept that private for a very long part of his life ) that show alone with its good values shaped society to a degree in a positive manner, but running with this train of thought, no one should from here on out not watch that show because now we know that Robert Reed was gay. Same goes for Bill Cosby in the context of his scandal .  We don't support what they do off screen, but we can appreciate what they have brought to our society as actors. That is different though with " reality tv " and the debate seems to now be on did these parents purposefully put their children through the lime light for their own personal gain. If one can prove that then i would be fine with not watching the show on those grounds alone, but with the context of coulda, woulda,shoulda in regards to Josh and what he did to his sisters and who knows else, yes it is horrible, but i go back to my previous statements, an if it remained on the air it wouldn't be some kind of signal that TLC is fine with what happened.

IF TLC really wanted to keep things as a reality tv program, and not some scripted BS then they should have kept the show on, just based on the sheer wow factor that people love drama. They shot themselves in the foot is what they did, so TLC feeling embarressed instead of owning the croutons they made pulled it. The blame for the Duggars' embaressment though rests with three people, the mother, father, and Josh .

 

But you are wanting to blame the Parents for basically using their  children, if we are going to go down that road, then we have to look at TLC and their culpability for putting it on the air and going along with the idea, and then we have to also blame society or the fans of the show for the so called exploitation of the children in this family on air.

These kids, have strong bonds, and stronger faith in Christ, they probably have a lot of issues but who doesn't ; i do not doubt their faith and believe in the end they will be fine.

​"Being Gay" isn't wrong.  Molesting children...and in the case of Cosby raping women..is.

Oprah found out (quiet easily) that there was molestation and she chose not to proceed.  TLC magically didn't know.  I'm not saying Oprah is all wise, however, if even she determined that it wasn't best for them to be on a one-time episode how did anyone in their right mind think an entire televison show was a good idea?

[Yaatee]

I have heard about the Duggars only peripherally. I don't follow them on TV.  I find their huge family objectionable in many ways. I think he is abusing his wife. She has long ago past the threshold of being in serious danger when she delivers, even if she has managed to survive so far.  (I'm a physician.)  Father D is using his family for financial gain, understandable in view of their costs, but exploitative just the same.  I hope that the married children aren't expected to follow in his footsteps, with unrestricted childbearing.

However, all this is moot.  Unless the American TV audience doesn't take abuse of children or family abuse seriously, the Duggars' TV career is dead.

After the Cosby revelations appeared, his TV career and endorsements---vanished. 

[PhuturePriest]

And now we're back on the subject of not being able to judge peoples' intentions, not that some people care to listen, however. 

[Lilllabettt]

I think the point is that children are entitled to a mother and a father. Entitled. Period. 

 

Actually, ​children are entitled to their natural mother and father. Period. To intentionally take a child from its natural mother and father when it is avoidable is the work of monsters. Many gay and straight couples do this - they grow a child using IVF specifically for the purpose of taking it away from its natural mother. In a just society such people would be imprisoned for their crime.

 

[Credo in Deum]

How has this made it to page 7?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[PhuturePriest]

How has this made it to page 7?

​At last, someone gets to the real matter at hand. 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

How has this made it to page 7?

​Because somehow the conversation (mostly) turned away from the specific situation of the Duggars into a general discussion of adoption by homosexual couples (and some other related comments). On Phatmass, when the conversation turns to homosexuality, 7 pages is short. 

[Ark]

Duggar should have kept his hands to himself, he hurt those girls, and so I'm not excusing him when I say he was 14  years old and they were 12. There probably is a connection with the fact that the family is "devotely Christian" and opposes same-sex marriage and made comments that such relationships can cause harm to children. 

Edited May 29, 2015 by Ark

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Duggar should have kept his hands to himself, he hurt those girls, and so I'm not excusing him when I say he was 14  years old and they were 12. There probably is a connection with the fact that the family is "devotely Christian" and opposes same-sex marriage and made comments that such relationships can cause harm to children. 

​FYI--There were five victims reported, and four were Josh's sisters, so the victims could not all have been the same age. One of the victims went to court recently to have the reports destroyed, so that her name would have no chance to be released because she is still a minor. Since the reported molestations happened in 2002/2003, and the victim who went to court recently to request the destruction of the records is still a minor, this particular victim must have been much younger than 12 at the time of the molestations.

Your second sentence makes no sense at all.

[CrossCuT]

Actually, ​children are entitled to their natural mother and father. Period. To intentionally take a child from its natural mother and father when it is avoidable is the work of monsters. Many gay and straight couples do this - they grow a child using IVF specifically for the purpose of taking it away from its natural mother. In a just society such people would be imprisoned for their crime.

 

​We are getting closer to technologies that allow us to reprogram certain adult somatic cells into embryonic stem cells. From there we may potentially be able to create an embryo from two people of the same sex.

[hotpink]

Duggar should have kept his hands to himself, he hurt those girls, and so I'm not excusing him when I say he was 14  years old and they were 12. There probably is a connection with the fact that the family is "devotely Christian" and opposes same-sex marriage and made comments that such relationships can cause harm to children. 

​It's easy to look up the ages of the sisters.  When the oldest duggar was 14 they were 11, 10, 9, 8 and 3.  Some reports via the internet on Free Jinger say the oldest was not touched...so they were all 4+ years younger than him.

​FYI--There were five victims reported, and four were Josh's sisters, so the victims could not all have been the same age. One of the victims went to court recently to have the reports destroyed, so that her name would have no chance to be released because she is still a minor. Since the reported molestations happened in 2002/2003, and the victim who went to court recently to request the destruction of the records is still a minor, this particular victim must have been much younger than 12 at the time of the molestations.

Your second sentence makes no sense at all.

​You're right, even mathematically the youngest victim was either 8 or 3 just based on the birth order of the sisters.