Althouse: "What we see from the religious right is constantly is this projection, this shifting of responsibility..."

May 23, 2015

"What we see from the religious right is constantly is this projection, this shifting of responsibility..."

"You know... gay couples who want to marry present a threat to the institution of marriage. It's not straight couples committing adultery or telling each other lies about adultery... or divorcing that are a threat to the institution of marriage. It's same-sex couples who wish to marry that are the threat. And it absolves straight couples... of responsibility for what they're doing to marriage. In the same way, we see most abuse — most sexual molestation and abuse — happens within families...."

76 comments:

rhhardin said...: Adultery and lying and divorcing are covered by marriage already. It's how marriage can fail, and that's covered by marriage.

What isn't covered by marriage is same sex.

It's about protecting the word marriage, which is what protects the institution.; 5/23/15, 7:37 AM
Charlie said...: When did that little boy get his own TV show?; 5/23/15, 7:55 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: "It's same-sex couples who wish to marry that are the threat.

That perhaps counter-intuitive claim is valid upon the understanding that getting married confers a prestigious status, like making Eagle Scout and getting a picture of yourself in the local paper.

When Betty found out that Don was boinking Bobby Barrett, her response was indignation: "Her? She's so old."

Same thing, sort of.; 5/23/15, 7:55 AM
dbp said...: It is a straw man argument: Nobody has proposed some special place of societal honor for people who cheat on their spouse or get divorced.; 5/23/15, 7:56 AM
traditionalguy said...: It amazes me how quickly Arkansas high ranking evangelical legalistic pulpiteers get others in the ranks to circle the wagons and assert total forgiveness of sin to the extent that the ones exposing him are called out as the bad ones doing the bad thing.

It is all so Clintonesque. And another Arkansas politician named Huckabee is doing it full bore for The Most Eminent Duggar Family.; 5/23/15, 8:00 AM
damikesc said...: The world will be endlessly better if Dan Savage died. A loathsome error in humanity.; 5/23/15, 8:03 AM
chickelit said...: Savage speaks in sweeping generalizations about families. Some of those families could even be like young Lena Dunham's family. And although no criminal charges were filed, there was a confession.; 5/23/15, 8:10 AM
chickelit said...: damikesc said...
The world will be endlessly better if Dan Savage died. A loathsome error in humanity.

The height of hypocrisy would be if he were to speak against the transmission of viral disease.; 5/23/15, 8:12 AM
traditionalguy said...: The Religious Right is fixated on Sin of the gays so they are fair game for Sin of the straights condemnation, such as incest and child molestation.

Why should a conservative feel the need to revert to the Clintonesque "everbody does it so it doesn't count" argument.

The Duggar family got clean away with it.; 5/23/15, 8:18 AM
robinintn said...: Huckabee has the unfortunate twist of mind which tells him that since he had a thought, it is thereby a correct thought. See his record of pardoning violent criminals. While this tendency to intellectual dishonesty is a natural human one, I look for people who at least try to resist it, rather than becoming combative when it's pointed out. McCain is also of this ilk. It's extremely off putting, and should completely disqualify them (and the toady Graham, who doesn't even use his own thoughts), from public "service".; 5/23/15, 8:18 AM
Farmer said...: dbp said...
It is a straw man argument: Nobody has proposed some special place of societal honor for people who cheat on their spouse or get divorced.

Not to mention, nobody's making the argument that the mere existence of SSM somehow mysteriously threatens the institution of marriage. They're making the argument that if marriage is expanded by the courts to include same sex couples, it's bound to open marriage to pretty much everyone. So from a legal standpoint, how do you justify stopping at SSM? And if marriage is open to everyone, it ceases to be marriage in any meaningful sense.

It's starting to look like those religious crazies who thought this was all about wanting to destroy the institution of marriage were right all along.; 5/23/15, 8:22 AM
virgil xenophon said...: Farmer hits it square in the nuts..; 5/23/15, 8:29 AM
David Begley said...: If you want to know what the loony Left thinks, watch the insufferable Chris Hayes.; 5/23/15, 8:30 AM
Chuck said...: How many others had no idea who "the Duggars" were, until this story? The fact that the Duggars seem to have had a reality show on TLC (have I got that right?) makes me think, "Aha, THAT's why I'd never know about them. When have I ever wasted a moment watching any family-reality show, particularly one on TLC?"

I did, however, hear the story about WNBA players -- now a married couple thanks to a ruling of a federal court in Arizona overturning a popularly-voted provision of the state constitution -- who were suspended from league play for seven games when they were arrested for domestic violence a month before their court-mandated Arizona marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2015/05/16/wnba-suspends-brittney-griner-glory-johnson-7-games-for-domestic-violence/; 5/23/15, 8:31 AM
Chuck said...: I'm not clear, if Althouse is attempting to put Dan Savage ("@FakeDanSavage," "...mentally ill sodomite...") in a more favorable light in this Duggar scandal.

Because just checking out this NewsBusters page, I see that in addition to having a reasonable-sounding conversation with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, Savage also (and how many times has Savage done something like this?) also suggested that Josh Duggar "Go f--k yourself," and that he told Dr. Ben Carson to "Suck my d--k."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2015/03/04/gay-activist-dan-savage-ben-carson-suck-my-dk; 5/23/15, 8:42 AM
Paco Wové said...: How many others had no idea who "the Duggars" were, until this story?

<Raises hand>

I still have no idea who they are, as the explanation is in video format, which I reject along with all the Devil's other works.; 5/23/15, 8:44 AM
Jane the Actuary said...: Here's the question that this news article really poses:

What would you do if you found out that your 15 year old son was being a Josh Duggar?

His actions are now in the past. He's contrite. Would you report him to the police? Push, as parent to your daughter-victim, for your son-perpetrator to be thrown in the slammer as long as the court sees fit? Ban him from family support, kick him out onto the streets afterwards?

I don't know. Isn't it parental instinct to want to protect your guilty kid, too, even if that means convincing yourself that his sin wasn't really that bad?; 5/23/15, 8:52 AM
Sebastian said...: "What we see from the Religious Right"

What "we" see, yes; what they are, no.

"The Religious Right is fixated on Sin of the gays"

Umm, no. But if forced into a culture war by Progs stuffing "sin" down their throat, so to speak, some will fight back.

As long as Savage, Barry, et al., get to define what the RR is, it will keep losing.; 5/23/15, 8:54 AM
MayBee said...: I don't know. Isn't it parental instinct to want to protect your guilty kid, too, even if that means convincing yourself that his sin wasn't really that bad?

No way you put your kid in prison for that. You get him counseling.; 5/23/15, 8:57 AM
MayBee said...: I also have a really hard time accusing someone of molesting underage girls when he himself is underage.

Sure, if he's 14 groping a two year old, that's awful. But if he's 14 groping a 13 year old, that's groping but it is hardly *child* molestation.; 5/23/15, 9:09 AM
Big Mike said...: I've always believed, and still believe, that the whole point of the phrase "gay marriage" was to stick a thumb in the eye of conservative Christians. Progs love fighting culture wars. After gay marriage there will be another cause celebre, and another one after that.

For the record, Andrew Sullivan frequently made essentially the same case, i.e., that there are lots of dysfunctional marriages so gays ought to be allowed to marry, too.; 5/23/15, 9:10 AM
Titus said...: Duggar did his sisters. I never did my sisters.; 5/23/15, 9:23 AM
steve uhr said...: The IQ of the average Althouse commentator falls by 20 points when the issue is gay rights. Competition to see who can say the dumbest thing.

Farmer said
"Not to mention, nobody's making the argument that the mere existence of SSM somehow mysteriously threatens the institution of marriage."

Oh really? That is precisely the argument many are making. I have heard it hundreds of times. Glad to hear you don't think it holds water.

Chic. said
"The height of hypocrisy would be if he were to speak against the transmission of viral disease."

Please elaborate. Does/did Savage have a viral disease? If he did how does that make him a hypocrite? Okay for someone who has abused drugs to speak out against drug abuse?

Jane says "His actions are in the past. He is contrite"

And how do you know this? Child abusers often find it a lifelong occupation.

damikesc:
"The world will be endlessly better if Dan Savage died. A loathsome error in humanity."

What's sad is that you really believe this. Kill everyone who disagrees. Then I won't have to refute their arguments.; 5/23/15, 9:37 AM
Titus said...: My fave story this week is the minister in Michigan, who hated gays, and was a major grindr customer. His interests include getting fucked by a big black dick and showing pics of his ass spread wide open.

Oh and telling a gay kid in his congregration he should kill himself because he is fag.; 5/23/15, 9:39 AM
robinintn said...: But May, the victims are your children too. I don't know what I would do, but it's a much more complicated question in this case.; 5/23/15, 9:40 AM
narciso said...: savage's animus has been clear for a while now,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/04/29/savage-bully-gary-bauer/; 5/23/15, 9:40 AM
Titus said...: Dan Savage is good looking...of course-those gays always take care of themselves.

Have you seen his husband? 6 pack abs.; 5/23/15, 9:41 AM
MayBee said...: But May, the victims are your children too. I don't know what I would do, but it's a much more complicated question in this case.

I guess I would judge by how they are affected. I would get them counseling. But I wouldn't put my son in jail for what it sounds like he did. He sounds like a confused young teen in a house full of girls, a family with fairly repressive rules regarding interaction with the opposite gender, and parents who are *in your face* fertile and always having sex and babies.
Jail isn't going to help him or the girls.; 5/23/15, 9:44 AM
steve uhr said...: He molested five girls. His sisters according to published reports. If true that means when he was 14 he abused girls who were --- 12, 11, 9, 8, and 4. And now he has 3 kids of his own. But hey, he's contrite. That is I believe a complete defense to a rime.

Love the statement on the website of his Family Research Council -- "Today Josh Duggar made the decision to resign his position as a result of previously unknown information becoming public concerning events that occurred during his teenage years" What did he do? Scalp tickets? Smoke a joint? Talk about contrition.; 5/23/15, 9:55 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: That is the exact argument that changed my mind about gay marriage. If you want to fix heterosexual marriage, then fix heterosexual marriage. If all the people voting for amendments defining marriage would vote against no-fault divorce or for making adultery illegal I'd take them seriously about gay marriage eroding the institution. As it is, it's simply about gay people being gay.

Stop scapegoating gays.; 5/23/15, 9:57 AM
narciso said...: the same published reports, that had Michael Brown 'shot in the back' while his hands were up.; 5/23/15, 9:57 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Mona Charen, the conservative, has said the same thing for years.; 5/23/15, 9:57 AM
Chuck said...: @steve uhr:

I don't subscribe to any notion that any particular married couple's marriage is "threatened" by normalizing and institutionalizing same sex marriage. That's a strawman argument from the homosexual rights lobby.

Here is what I subscribe to, in terms of social objections to normalizing and institutionalizing same sex marriage. It comes from Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and the founder and editor of The Public Discourse (the publication of the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton University, where he was a Phi Beta Kappa and a Magna cum laude graduate), speaking in this YouTube video shot at the Anscombe Society at Stanford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWIhZ5xJJaQ; 5/23/15, 9:59 AM
MayBee said...: I can't find the reports that talk about it being his sisters or a 4 year old.; 5/23/15, 10:01 AM
Chuck said...: Much of what has gone badly for traditional marriage cannot possibly be blamed on conservatives or traditional marriage itself.

No-fault divorce; declining social norms; the welfare state that diminishes the position and the responsibility of parents and substitutes the state in loco parentis.; 5/23/15, 10:02 AM
steve uhr said...: FRC statement -- he resigned not because of what he did but because what he did becoming public. He got caught. The contrition is overwhelming.; 5/23/15, 10:04 AM
rhhardin said...: We Are the Millers (Meg Ryan)

Explainer: yeah we was treating like it was real baby you know its for her summer project extra credit it teaches the student that nothing ruin your life more than having children

Religious guy: yeah its also sent messages to teen to just stick to the big "a"

Expaliner: yeah anal

Religious guy: abstinence, yeah abstinence neither makes a baby

(attributions as remembered speculatively having seen it only once); 5/23/15, 10:08 AM
Birches said...: So nice of Dan Savage to knock down that strawman. It follows the same logic as Christians spending all their money and time on SSM and abortion protests instead of the poor.

I didn't know of the Duggars either. Very complicated situation. The kid was 14 for heaven's sake! Now does it make me comfortable that he has girls of his own now? Not especially. Give him a few years on 14 and I'd have less sympathy.; 5/23/15, 10:14 AM
Titus said...: Breaking News! Huck just got off the phone with God and God is a-ok with Josh buggering his sisters!

End of story.

God has spoken...through Huckabee.; 5/23/15, 10:14 AM
Birches said...: @ Steven Uhr

But he told his family and his future wife before they married. He wasn't hiding it from the people that count.

Now you could say that he was being hypocritical working for FRC with his past, but that's an entirely different argument that he wasn't contrite. It sounds like he informed the people that mattered most.; 5/23/15, 10:18 AM
Birches said...: And really, all you people bringing Huckabee into this is just silly.

I don't think any of us hear give a flying raccoon about Mike Huckabee.; 5/23/15, 10:19 AM
rhhardin said...: The religious right is against gay marriage but misconstruing why they are.

They're not against civil unions.

At least most of the religious right isn't.

The meddlers still are, but the majority are live-and-let-live types.

The usual hetero reaction to gay sexual practices is either amusement or indifference or both.

If you call marriage what gay unions are, though, that's close to home. My marriage is not that, is the reaction.

That's what's being defended, and why florists and pizza parlors and bakeries are going to the mat even at the price of losing their business.

Against gay enforcers.

Somebody has to draw the lines in the battle more clearly before any peace will happen.; 5/23/15, 10:21 AM
buwaya said...: Better said above.
Gay marriage and all its baggage is just a symptom and a symbol.
The people pushing it though have the purpose of denying entirely the concept of personal obligation - that the individual does not have complete freedom to indulge his whims, and that his purpose is to fulfill his natural obligations. That fellow Savage, and his friends, live their lives for the sake of pleasure and diversion. They are aggressive in insisting on that. It is an empty and useless existence, but for some reason it must be regarded by all as the highest possible personal achievement. That is the general assumption these days, that the pursuit of momentary pleasure or transient whim is the highest good. Savage and co. are leaders of this tendency. That is the perfect example of actual moral perversity, not the particulars of their desires.; 5/23/15, 10:27 AM
Etienne said...: Bottom line, there is no good reason for States to be in the Marriage business.

License dogs, not people.; 5/23/15, 10:34 AM
Birches said...: And I'll just leave this essay from gawker here: Born this Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex With Children

Dugger hasn't revealed himself to be like these guys.

The real problem all these people have with the Duggers is their political beliefs.; 5/23/15, 10:37 AM
Swifty Quick said...: Homos don't get it. Marriage is not and never has been a "right." It can't be grokked that way. Marriage is first and foremost an obligation, and a hard one at that, which is why so many heteros fail at it. When I hear homos talking about it in those terms, I'll know they're serious about the concept.; 5/23/15, 11:00 AM
buwaya said...: Marriage is indeed an obligation. All healthy, functional, and mentally capable people are indeed obligated, through the weight of religious doctrine, biological nature, community, and honor towards their ancestors, to marry one of the opposite sex and produce the best possible heirs (healthy, sane, capable) they can manage.
There are no excuses here.
A person with homosexual tendencies is just as obligated to sincerely attempt to put them aside as is the loner who would rather live his life immersed in videogames and pornography.
Life is a challenge. There is no honor in refusing the challenge.; 5/23/15, 11:13 AM
Biff said...: Savage is a bully who runs an "anti-bullying" project.

A truly loathsome individual.; 5/23/15, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Paco: I still have no idea who they are, as the explanation is in video format, which I reject along with all the Devil's other works.

I'm with you, Paco, but from the comments I can discern that this involves 1) that vindictive degenerate Dan Savage, 2) some family that debases itself doing reality TV, and 3) Mike Huckabee.

So even without having viewed the video, I'm confident that "shoot 'em all, let God sort 'em out" is the correct position to take here.; 5/23/15, 11:31 AM
buwaya said...: Taking another tack, with respect to men (women are another matter) -
Marriage between men is all about formalizing an making it legally enforceable an obligation for one of them to support another. I.e., one of them must concede that they are the weaker party in this arrangement, and that he is living off the other. This can change from one to the other over time as circumstances change, I suppose, but at any given moment it must be the case.
It seems to me, that though honor can to a degree survive sex between men who are equals (honor can survive all sorts of sin and weakness), honor cannot survive living as what in earlier days would have been called a catamite, a kept man.
It would be like a man tolerating living off charity. This is intolerable to a man with proper self-respect.
I really can't understand the mind of a man who would do this.; 5/23/15, 11:36 AM
n.n said...: The irony is that they are not merely projecting their own moral failure, but are demonstrating the consequences of a pro-choice cult, science (e.g. post-normal), etc. The concern for dysfunctional behaviors did not begin with trans relationships (e.g. homosexual couplets), did not end with it, and was inclusive of aberrant heterosexual behaviors, including notable elective abortion.; 5/23/15, 11:38 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Savage is a stupid psycho, so of course he is a "go-to" guy to explain the progressive worldview.:
"You know... gay couples who want to marry present a threat to the institution of marriage. It's not straight couples committing adultery or telling each other lies about adultery... or divorcing that are a threat to the institution of marriage. It's same-sex couples who wish to marry that are the threat."
The institution of marriage would be threatened if there was no expectation of chastity and honesty within it.
Morons.; 5/23/15, 11:42 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Always interesting to see them project their weird feelings onto the religious right. Having spent a LOT of time listening to sermons over the last forty years I can attest to the fact that "adultery is ruining marriage" was way more common than Savage can imagine. If a pastor did mention gays it was just one more behavior that threatened marriage. That was always within the context of the myriad ways modern culture attacks The Traditional Family.

Lefties should stick to telling us their own feelings rather than trying to divine what lurks in the heart of Religious Righties.; 5/23/15, 11:45 AM
steve uhr said...: And even after they find out, instead of providing the necessary close supervision of their eldest, mommy and daddy Dugger continue to plop out more potential victims at record pace for higher ratings.; 5/23/15, 12:07 PM
rcocean said...: Yep, I'm in the same boat. Had no idea who Dugger was. Had to goggle him.

Too bad the left always has to Lie or be dishonest. "Child molester"? Good lord, from what I read he was a 14/15 year old kid who touched the breasts of girls more or less the same age. Remember lena Durham or whatever her name was? I guess she was a "child molester too".

OTOH, it must have been somewhat serious if the police were involved. Some boys at that age, don't know how to handle all the hormones and do weird crap. Looks like Dugger got straightened out in time.; 5/23/15, 12:13 PM
rcocean said...: Doc Savage - head of bronze.; 5/23/15, 12:14 PM
rcocean said...: I never did anything weird, but I can remember walking around at 14/15 with an almost permanent boner.; 5/23/15, 12:16 PM
Static Ping said...: Ann, the argument here is not a new one. It has been kicking around for decades. It has been debated ad nauseam by intelligent and well-meaning people from all sides of the issue. If you are so inclined it is not difficult to find such arguments online. In my opinion, the argument has some merit but is flawed to the point that it holds little weight.

The fact that you decided to introduce said argument now by way of Dan Savage, one of the most unusually hateful persons in public life, is most disappointing.; 5/23/15, 12:27 PM
acm said...: I can't find the reports that talk about it being his sisters or a 4 year old.

5/23/15, 10:01 AM

---

Here's the report. It says the alleged victims live with their parents, JimBob and Michelle. It's alleged that there were four victims. The Duggars had five girls at the time, and the youngest was 4 at that point, the eldest 12. So the fact that they were his sisters is established, but the "4 year old" thing is just a reasonable possibility.

http://m.imgur.com/a/zqPMi#; 5/23/15, 12:30 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Ann, the argument here is not a new one. It has been kicking around for decades... The fact that you decided to introduce said argument now by way of Dan Savage, one of the most unusually hateful persons in public life, is most disappointing."

My reason for using this is not that I think the framework of the argument is new but that I wanted to put something up about the Duggars.

I've never paid any attention to the Duggars and don't feel much call to start now, but I thought the Savage clip was worth watching. I've often blogged about Savage and think he has a way with words and some useful points to make, which he does very quickly in this video.; 5/23/15, 12:33 PM
acm said...: Too bad the left always has to Lie or be dishonest. "Child molester"? Good lord, from what I read he was a 14/15 year old kid who touched the breasts of girls more or less the same age. Remember lena Durham or whatever her name was? I guess she was a "child molester too".

---

Josh Duggar did more than just touch the breasts of a girl his age. The report says he molested four girls who "live with their parents JimBob and Michelle*" and the Duggars had five daughters at the time, aged 12, 10, 8, 6 and 4. Even if you assume he didn't touch the youngest, that still leaves him molesting a 6 year old, which is pretty significant.

*JimBob and Michelle Duggar are Josh's parents. All the other clues to the victims' identities are redacted.

Lena Dunham did molest her sister, too, if she's describing her teen years accurately. Neither Josh Duggar or Lena Dunham should be assumed to still be doing anything inappropriate with children, but what they did does fit the definition of child-on-child sex abuse, should be recognized as such and should have been dealt with at the time.; 5/23/15, 1:01 PM
Static Ping said...: Ann, since you were good enough to respond, I will too.

I'm sure that Dan Savage is good in his role as a talking head, given that he is given the opportunity so often. This does not change the fact that he is objectively a hateful person to the point that his own supporters think he is a hateful person but like him anyway since they agree with him. Given past acts he almost certainly hates the Duggars, though he is trying very hard to pretend that he doesn't, which makes it most odd to have him comment on the issue. Or at least it would be odd if you wanted some sort of objective, useful commentary.

As to the hypocrisy angle, it is the tired and useless trope as it usually is. Hypocrisy can be useful to judge the trustworthiness of a person, but it means little to nothing to almost everything discussed in the clip. The gay marriage angle is so forced as to be completely absurd, but Dan is a smooth talker and it makes the square peg seem to fit the round hole just perfectly. When broken down the argument is essentially "if you do not live up to all your principles sufficiently, then I win all the arguments." Lazy thinking.

I also find his accusation that the Duggars are "demagoguing" and "demonizing" to be ironically hilarious.

As to the Duggars, from what has been revealed so far the son molested his sisters, the family took action to correct his behavior, the son corrected his behavior, and the situation was resolved as best as could be hoped. Not exactly sure what else could be done better than that. Of course if the son did not correct his behavior, then we have a serious problem.; 5/23/15, 2:01 PM
Seeing Red said...: Planet Fitness has a No Judgment rule. If you feel like the opposite sex, you can use the opposite sex changing room. There might be children there, but so what? Now there's a college in NC? Which has unisex bathrooms, so so what?

Welcome slippery slope. This is what Americans want so they can be "tolerant." Kids are being exposed to strangers' privates whether or not the parent wants it.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Don't teenagers explore?

The country is choosing to let it all hang out.; 5/23/15, 2:38 PM
chickelit said...: @steve uhr: I was referring to Savage's stunt at the 2000 Iowa Caucuses. If you want to defend something as puerile as licking doorknobs, go right ahead.

Dan Savage is not good for your cause.

I tend to shut out and discount anything he says.; 5/23/15, 2:46 PM
chickelit said...: Titus's anecdote about the Michigan goatse minister can be countered by noting that "bug-chasers" represent gay values.; 5/23/15, 2:50 PM
chickelit said...: I suspect that Althouse likes and approves of Savage because (1) he's a rude gay and (2) because he used to live in Madison.; 5/23/15, 2:54 PM
chickelit said...: Savage probably reads here. Probably comments too under an alias.; 5/23/15, 2:56 PM
MayBee said...: acm-
thanks for the report.

If I'm not mistaken, this report was written due to a call received by someone accusing him of molesting his sisters. During this investigation, the family admitted he had touched *other* people when he was younger.
That's what he seems to have admitted to now as well.

We don't know who reported him touching his family, but it seems to have been someone who also contacted the Oprah show.; 5/23/15, 3:06 PM
Bilwick said...: I'm a libertarian RINO (trying to infiltrate the GOP and move it in a pro-freedom direction the way the socialists in the early 20th century infiltrated and took over the Democratic Party and moved it in a even-more statist direction), not a real "conservative." And I'd Justas soon the State get out of the marriage business altogethedr. But a "liberal" (and by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellator") accusing a conservative of "projection" is probably a good example of projection himself. It's what State-cultists do in lieu of rational arguments.; 5/23/15, 3:25 PM
Bilwick said...: Re the whole Gay thing, see

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2015/05/moral-dilemma/; 5/23/15, 4:11 PM
rcocean said...: I'm shocked the police report didn't get destroyed sooner since everyone involved was a minor and no arrest was made. All this stuff happened 12 years ago.

Looks like Josh had a problem, was forgiven, and corrected the behavior.

Of course, who knows? Maybe we'll get a "Mommie Dearest" book from one of the Daughters.; 5/23/15, 5:56 PM
Jason said...: Those kind of files only stay sealed for liberals. If they're on conservatives, libtards can have them opened at will.

Especially on days people like Hillary Clinton have a major doc dump.; 5/23/15, 6:28 PM
Rusty said...: Are they in any way related to the Kardashians?
Whoever thy are.; 5/23/15, 7:23 PM
Leora said...: I'm sorry, but 1) how did a sex crime committed by a juvenile (15 years old) 12 years ago become public. Aren't those records supposed to be sealed? 2) how does this reflect on his parents who were unknowing and cooperated with law enforcement once they learned of the event? Would it have been helpful to either their son or his victim to make this a public matter? Is there any reason to believe that the legal disposition was improper?; 5/23/15, 7:37 PM
Birches said...: We don't know who reported him touching his family, but it seems to have been someone who also contacted the Oprah show.

Wait, someone's gone to Oprah now?; 5/23/15, 9:38 PM
Trashhauler said...: Those who misbehave in marriage
do not do so in an attempt to redefine the institution. Gay marriage does.

Ultimately, gay marriage weakens marriage by questioning its essential nature. Gay marriage means that the practice is no longer about having children. It is about securing certain advantages. So, one might ask, why limit it to two people? Why mention sexual nature at all? Why can't two or more friends get married without there being an assumption that they sleep together or love one another?

What advantage does gay marriage bring to society?; 5/24/15, 12:05 AM