• Source: Facebook
  • Anti-Gay Duggar Family Asks Couples To Post Kissing Photos. Guess What Happens Next?

    Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, the parents starring in "19 Kids And Counting," posted a photo to Facebook of themselves kissing and asked other couples to do the same. Some same-sex couples obliged. Guess what happened next?

    God designed marriage to be a loving, dynamic ...

    The Duggar Family. If you're a fan of TLC's "19 Kids And Counting," you probably know all about former Arkansas lawmaker Jim Bob Duggar and his wife, Michelle. They had 19 kids and document their lives in their long-running reality show.

    The Duggars advocate for no sex before marriage, no abortion, no same-sex marriages, and profess to lead a very Christian lifestyle.

    Recently, Jessa Duggar married her beau, Ben Seewald, and rumor sites claimed they "shared a private first kiss away from the altar immediately after their enormous wedding ceremony last weekend. But according to a shocked guest, the newlyweds may have done more than just smooch— and their steamy tryst wasn’t so private after all!"

    So the Duggar parents took to Facebook to defend their good name.

    "Recently, Ben & Jessa received some criticism for posting a kissing picture. We are so grateful they waited to share their first kiss until after marriage," they wrote on their official Facebook page.

    God designed marriage to be a loving, dynamic relationship between a husband and wife for a lifetime. God loves marriage and it is supposed to be full of love, joy, fun and romance. Marriage is where romance belongs!

    We are so grateful they waited to share their first kiss until after marriage. We’ve been married 30 years and are still in love! We had fun trying to duplicate Ben and Jessa's happily married kissing picture. We challenge all married couples to take a happily married picture and post it here.

    So, naturally, some same-sex couples joined in the fun:

    1.jpg

    2.jpg

    3a.jpg

    4.jpg

    5a.jpg

    9.jpg

    7.jpg

    And guess what? These photos are still there. Not deleted - at least, not yet.

    Also, almost none had negative comments.

    Sadly, one photo was deleted.

    Bilerico Editor-in-Chief John Becker posted what happened to Facebook:

    8.jpg

     

    Image, top, via Facebook

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Support our work DONATE



    Register to VOTE

    Showing 39 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2015-08-30 19:43:36 -0400
      No, Susie, the Duggars’ message was “We challenge all married couples to take a happily married picture and post it here.”

      See that “all” in the middle of the sentence? “All” means “all.” So naturally same-sex couples would feel free to join in.

    • commented 2015-08-30 17:04:02 -0400
      “’Naturally” some same sex couples joined in the fun?""
      “Naturally?” When the heterosexual Duggars posted on their own site what they believe marriage to be (between a man and woman) why would it be natural for same sex couples to feel welcomed to join in? I see it as making a mockery of the Duggars beliefs ; not respecting the Duggars, and a blatant attempt to start crap. What else COULD it be? ….

    • commented 2014-11-13 14:43:05 -0500
      I see. I don’t see that being a significant problem in the US. There may be a few people getting by the system with multiple wives or their children, though it isn’t a pandemic problem. If a family is popping up above the radar with too many children, the IRS is going to “red-flag” it and check it out. They had better have a good excuse for having all those people on the tax form. ;-)

      The fathers I think, are serving time in jail for their crimes if I’m not mistaken. These families may have been split up by Child Services as well.

    • commented 2014-11-13 14:09:31 -0500
      @phillip: we get tax credits being married and having dependants. A spouse can be a dependant. Multiple spouses means multiple dependants and more tax credits. My example about the kids is that there are polygamist cults that exist. That almost completely shut out the outside world. These exist in the US. There have been numerous stories about them and people who have escaped to talk about them. In these cults underage children are married to adults. They then use these kids as means to get government aid. As I said, one of these cults call it bleeding the beast. (Jeff Warren, Goel Ratzon, et al.) That is what I was referencing.

    • commented 2014-11-13 13:49:50 -0500
      I never said that people who loved the same sex didn’t exist. They weren’t called homosexuals. There is a difference. Alexander the Great had both male and female lovers, but in battle many soldiers had male lovers they could trust with their lives. It turns out that Alexander the Great may have been mostly attracted to his own sex. We do not know. The cultures looked upon this differently than how we do. When boys turned into adults they were expected to stop having same sex and to marry a woman. If they continued having sex with another man instead of a boy then it was looked down upon in their society. It seemed to be okay if it was a man and a boy because he was instructing the boy and when the boy became a man he, too would do the same and so on. They were not thought to be gay like we think of it today. It would be looked down upon only if two men continued to do it. There is the difference.

      Eunuchs were considered sexless; therefore women and men could feel free to have sex with them without fear of society’s mores. It didn’t matter what the orientation was of the eunuch. You have to remember these were slaves and they had no say in the matter. You cannot call them a homosexual because their master decides to have sex with them. He owns them and can do what he wants with them. Ex: If someone enslaved you and decided they were going to force you to have sex with them (essentially it is rape) would that make you a homosexual? No, it would not.

      Speaking of cultural taboos: If we are to play the anthropologist, it is not up to us to view what is “right or wrong.” We are only here to observe. The minute we start attaching our opinions on the taboos we put the modern culture, our own upbringing, our own baggage and other things into the mix. If you only record what you see and nothing more without tainting it with opinion, then you have done your job.

      Being gay IS a taboo in many cultures only as a result of religion and what it has taught the people so many hundreds of years in many cultures.

      In this culture we have outlawed polygamy, though you can visit other cultures where this is still practiced. It depends upon the culture.

      The government collects money from us to grant us a license for marriage and not the other way around. I didn’t understand what you meant by this statement: (“If so will these start getting abused just so people can take the government for more money.”)

      Marriage licenses have to be paid for by us.

      The underage kids getting pregnant sounded like a ‘straw-man argument’. Do you really think teenagers plan ahead like that and get each other pregnant so they can “live off the government?” I think you are giving these kids too much credit when it’s their hormones that got in the way of smart thinking and planning. ;-)

      Gay marriage doesn’t fit in any of these categories. It’s two people who love each other who wish to marry. Some of them already have families and would like to protect them by having the spouses being married. That legal contract means a lot by law when one of the partners becomes ill and ends up in the emergency. No right-wing religious nurse can refuse the other spouse from seeing the other person by saying, “Only relatives or married persons can visit!” Believe me this has happened over and over. They feel the need to punish gays for what reason, I do not know, but they do enjoy doing this. We need ALL of the state to recognize the marriages of gays so this doesn’t happen.

    • commented 2014-11-13 12:22:17 -0500
      @phillip: One of the things that i disagree with is that homosexuals did not exist before they were called homosexuals or gay. Alexander the Great was known to have male lovers. Samurai’s often loved one another. Greeks, Romans etc., all have history of, what is now known, as homosexuality. So i do believe a eunach was capable of meaning more than just being castrated, as such as those who Jesus mentioned who swore off marriage to better serve God.

      And i wasnt saying that you were or should admit anything. i was just saying that IF you or I were to admit that the opposite of our belief was true, then it would put our whole perspective and lives on their heads because it is opposite of how we live or believe. That was just my intent on that.

      On cultural taboos, see that is what I am talking about. We view them as wrong, but those that do it may not. The LGBT communities argument at large seems to be that noone has a right to discriminate against people according to who they love. I mean, was being gay not a cultural taboo at some point? Again, i think the biggest, and mostly unspoken, argument against gay marriage is that its not that we care if you are gay and getting married, its that once the barrier is broken, at what point does it stop. Do we legalize polygany and polyandry? Do we legalize conjoint marriages? If so will these start getting abused just so people can take the government for more money. Much like those cult groups who marry underage kids and get them pregnant just so they can get government aid. Which they call bleeding the beast.

      I dont see how you can argue for gay marriage but then argue against all other types of ‘Love’, without coming across as hypocritical

    • commented 2014-11-13 11:28:13 -0500
      [ I put my comments into core of yours, Joshua; it made it much easier to answer.

      Phillip ]

      Phillip —

      Joshua Jobe just commented on Anti-Gay Duggar Family Asks Couples To Post Kissing Photos. Guess What Happens Next?:

      @phillip Mooney: What you describe is pretty horrible and shouldn’t happen. But what i am talking about is not the persecution by small groups but the odd looks and comments from the majority. Do you feel, where you live, that you would be more comfortable expressing yourself where you live, or someplace that does not have a large gay community. Where do you think you would receive more looks and comments?

      [ Seattle is actually a very progressive and very gay friendly place. These teens come from out-lying towns that tend to be more conservative and religious leaning to the right in their ideology. There is a Russian group that is especially anti-gay and rabidly hateful who have been known to come down to the gay district and look for people to beat up. When they are caught they are sent to jail for hate crimes. We find out that they are originally from Russia and this is what they are taught as well and it is continued here in the states. ] My guess is in a place that does not have the large community. People may still go to the Old testament, but they are wrong. In large part the Old testament is there for a history lesson and not what Jesus preached.

      [ This is your opinion. Remember, in the time of Jesus there was NO New Testament. Jesus was a Jew and he followed the laws of the Jews and the Torah. He did not vary from them. He was constantly questioned by the rabbis and they tried to get him to go against rabbinical law. He would not be tricked by their questioning. He just taught a new way of looking at things and never said he was the “Son of God” you have that wrong. That was one of the questions he was asked by Pilot. He never said he was, but others said he was. There is a big difference. None of these Gospels agree upon the “story” if you put them side by side and I’m sure you will agree. ] So basically the old testament has a lot of practices and beliefs that should no longer be followed and updated to the new testament.

      [ That’s quite a summary and leap to assume from what you have said. There certainly can be more debate on this, but I really didn’t want to turn this into a religious debate, Joshua. ] Where we disagree is the bibles origin. Which is in large part the one of the biggest arguments about it. Written by men or inspired by the Word of God? Its all in your opinion/belief so i cannot say that you are wrong. But neither can you say that you are 100% correct.

      [ I do have a bit more proof than what you think. Man did write these books and I will show you. First I would like you to look up the Epic of Gilgamesh. (you can easily find it for free on the Internet and read its story) This was written 1000 years before the Torah or the Jewish religion was invented and Jehovah, their god. (this is the only way I can describe it and I do not mean to be offensive) One-thousand years before the Torah was written. In it, you will find stories that were ‘lifted’ out of it and put into the present bible. As you know, the New Testament was written much later than the Old Testament. One of the Gospels was written approximately 150 years after the death of Jesus. So, there was no one actually alive to witness the account of his death! (if it happened at all. That is another argument for another time.) These gospels were written by monks of the early church. There were more gospels than just the four, but they didn’t agree as closely as these four did so they were not canonized into what became the bible. The first New Testament was in Old Greek. Don’t you find that interesting considering that Jesus spoke Aramaic? Why weren’t his first words written down in his native tongue? Perhaps they were and we haven’t found them yet. There have been so many translations of this bible and each one changes a little because of the translator’s prejudices and skills or lack thereof. When you find that many of the events and stories named in the bible “happened” much earlier and came from a book written thousands of years earlier, it should make you question whether this was “divinely” written or did man just copy some stories from an earlier work and pass it on as something their new “god” did? The virgin birth happened in an earlier Egyptian religion. A Messiah dying and rising from the dead in three days also happened in another earlier religion. These are not knew happenings, but just warmed over events started with a new religion and a new Messiah. This one seems to have taken and lasted a bit longer than the others. Please take time to read the Epic of Gilgamesh; it isn’t very long, though it is enlightening. ] By ackowledging the opposite we therefore fundamentally change the way we live our life in accordance to our views. Ie. I acknowledge that it was written by man and not God therefore getting rid of the belief there is a God while you would be admitting there is a God and the bible is God’s law and therefore living a life of sin.

      [ I don’t admit that at all. If you wish to, that is okay with me, but I have done a lot of reading on this and I cannot believe in that anymore so, If I take religion out of the equation, I think people do not really have a good reason to be bigoted against gays. I’ve taken away their main reason to be if they want to trust the evidence and not dismiss it. Our history reveals all this for us if we only study it. ] It goes against how we perceive we should live our lives. There is no right or wrong in this, and any argument cannot be won. So going into the argument of which came first, men creating marriage and later blessed or vice versa, is like saying which came first, the chicken or the egg. Cause in my belief God created man and woman first so since he created us and existed first, then Gods intent was marriage before man.

      [ You are thinking that is what god wants. Never in Genesis does he mention marriage. Man must feel uncomfortable about Adam and Eve cohabiting without being “hitched” so they need to have it “sanctioned” officially by a church. This is their “god by proxy.” They can say “god said this and that” and the congregation has to abide by their decisions. This is how the catholic church works and has worked for so many years. If you don’t do as I say you will be excommunicated! Like they have that power to stand in between people and their diety. ] Goes back to it is his designed plan for redemption of the human race. And having to go to a state to get a marriage license has no impact on which came first.

      [ Actually, this DID come first. I think you need to read up on your history on this one, Joshua. Women were never equals, in fact they were chattel, just above cattle and other items a man could own. He would barter with another man’s family for a daughter and essentially “buy” her with a dowry, an euphemism for payment for her. They would sign a paper to seal the deal and that was that. She had no say in this matter. Later in history, these were recorded with the city to show they had been done. There was no church involved in these contracts. It wasn’t until much later that the churches started blessing these unions which later became marriages. The “traditional marriage” in the bible is one depending upon how rich you were. If you could afford many wives, you had them and as many concubines as you wanted. The common man probably had one, perhaps two if he could afford that. What you see today is nonsense when the religious right claims it has always been “one man and one woman.” Even the Mormons were practicing polygamy one century or so ago in this country and Mitt Romney’s family scurried to Mexico to continue their life. There are still families that are living this way today under the radar in the states. If anyone is practicing “traditional” marriage, it is they. ] Certain laws were created long after marriage was conceived so you have to prove to the government that you are married to qualify for certain things, like during tax season. I think the argument against gay marriage is not that they dont want them to be equal, it is what is the nexty logical step afterwards. if you legalize Gay marraige because its equal rights, then you have to legalize Polygany, Polyandry, and conjoint marraiges. That in itself brings up more issues because a person, for tax purposes, will have issues with dependants and spousal incomes etc. Especially in conjoint marraiges. The question then becomes, not where to start, but where will it end. If love is love (to quote an earlier poster) and it doesn’t matter, do you then legalize bestiality, or incest?

      [ These are cultural taboos and shouldn’t be legalized. Let me say there are at least twenty-eight states where you can marry your first-cousin. Many of them are in the South. ] Its love, and who are you (being devils advocate) to decide what love means or how it should look? You may say, well thats just crazy and wrong and could never happen. But look at where we are now. That kind of view was thought about gay marriage not too long ago, but we are breaking that barrier and opening up to gay marriages. You would then become in the same position as those against gay marriage, if you disagree with the examples above. Seeing as you are fighting for the right to have gay marriages, you would have no legs to stand on. If you are going to talk about Jesus’ views. Get them right. When the Pharisees ask, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?‘’ Jesus answers by pointing them to God’s purposes for marriage: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:3-9) He is asked, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” Jesus then answers, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:7-9). So…wiggle wiggle. And Jesus did mention Homosexuality and marriage.

      [ He was answering questions put forth to him about rabbinical law like I mentioned before. You see, he did teach from the Torah (Old Testament). He was only answering their question. Is it what he thought? That is another question. I think he solves it with “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” ] “Not everyone can accept this teaching (on marriage), but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

      [ You are approaching this from a modern mind. The word homosexual and the concept did not exist back in Jesus’ time. You and I are putting concepts on him. An eunuch is NOT a homosexual. It is a person who has been castrated, either completely or just his testicles. Or, at birth his testicles did not drop or some other anomaly which may have been an intersexed person or just one that was not capable of having sex with women for whatever reason. In that culture, they would not be allowed to marry. They were not allowed to do any functions in the temples because they were considered impure. So were cripples, the blind, people with poor eyesight, etc. What they weren’t were homosexuals. It was thought that, because of their impediment this disqualified them from entering heaven. Jesus didn’t think so. It was man who invented this homosexual nonsense. It is the same thing about Sodom and Gomorrah. Most right wing preachers do not know this story at all. Miscalling gays “sodomites.” Read Ezekiel 16: 49-50 for the true meaning of what provoked god. It wasn’t gays like those ignorant homophobic ministers say. ] (Matthew 19:11-12) He is saying that everyone should marry that can, and the only ones that cant are these three categories. Those who foreswore marriage to better serve God, those who were castrated, and those who were BORN EUNACHS. Now typically speaking a Eunach is someone who has no testicles but back in that time (and today) it was very very very rare to be born that way but be male. Plus in this time frame eunuch was used and meant in different ways, they were associated with stereo-typically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men).

      [ These men were used to guard harems. Many of them were huge and very powerful. They all weren’t castrated before puberty. Many had reached adulthood and became slaves. They were muscular and very powerful. Some were castrated before puberty and retained their boyish features; it just depends where they were from. Some were part of one of the other religions at the time where sex was performed during were service. Male prostitutes were involved as well. Many of these eunuchs were slaves. That did what was commanded of them. To define them as being homosexual when the word didn’t exist until the 19th century ( I think it was ) would not be correct. ] Moreover, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.

      [ You are mixing many cultures here. They would have been put to death. Although, the eunuch was considered a neutral sex throughout Europe during the age of Bel Canto when the castrato was at his height in singing. He wasn’t allowed to marry still during the 1700s and 1800s. It was still against the law to castrate a boy. ] So the bible here, by Jesus’ own words, is admitting that Homosexuals are created by God, and was a norm and known even in his time

      [ No, you are interpreting that to be “god’s word.” Eunuchs just castrated boys or men. That doesn’t make them homosexuals. ]

      . My view of it is more a 60/40 split of scientific reasoning and religious reasoning. As i earlier stated, Humans are the only known species (Asexuals excluded) to mate with another of its own gener. That is my angle. And you hit the nail on the head with the anti-gay/ non-feeling description. Exact same position that i have. If someone were to hit on me, i probably would become really embarrassed, not angry, and feel bad for the person because i have to tell them no. In the same instance that i have been hit on by a woman who did not see my ring and i felt embarrassed.

      [ One just has to smile and thank them, but say, “ no thank you, I’m married.” ;-) ] Excellent discussion points by the way. I thank you very much for not taking this down an insulting path. Props to you Phillip.

      [ I agree. You are most welcome. I don’t like to go down that path of calling people names, etc. What does it accomplish? I’m not here really to do that, I like a good conversation and we may never agree on everything; that’s okay with me, but it does get the minds thinking about things. ]

    • commented 2014-11-13 01:36:15 -0500
      This is just publisity if you actually watch the show the Facebook account isn’t even them its fan made page the dougars don’t do social media…on another note Christians are taught not to judge so love who want its no ones place to tell you otherwise

    • commented 2014-11-12 22:20:44 -0500
      Someone needs to let Michelle know that it’s a vagina, not a clown car.

    • commented 2014-11-12 16:51:15 -0500
      @phillip Mooney: Here is some more insight on Jesus’ view of homosexuals.

      Jesus feels no need to “cure” these born eunuchs. He speaks no words of condemnation. Rather he lists people born gay alongside another honored class (eunuchs for the kingdom), and accepts them as a natural part of God’s creation order.

      Thus, when Matthew 19 is read as a whole, we see Jesus teaches that most people are created for heterosexual marriage. (God’s predominant creation paradigm.) But, unlike some modern Christians, Jesus does not see this as the only honorable way to live. He acknowledges that some human beings have been created by God to follow a less common, but equally legitimate path. There are some who have been eunuchs from birth — made that way by God.

    • commented 2014-11-12 16:43:41 -0500
      @phillip Mooney: What you describe is pretty horrible and shouldnt happen. But what i am talking about is not the persecution by small groups but the odd looks and comments from the majority. Do you feel, where you live, that you would be more comfortable expressing yourself where you live, or someplace that does not have a large gay community. Where do you think you would receive more looks and comments? My guess is in a place that does not have the large community. People may still go to the Old testament, but they are wrong. In large part the Old testament is there for a history lesson and not what Jesus preached. So basically the old testament has a lot of practices and beliefs that should no longer be followed and updated to the new testament. Where we disagree is the bibles origin. Which is in large part the one of the biggest arguments about it. Written by men or inspired by the Word of God? Its all in your opinion/belief so i cannot say that you are wrong. But neither can you say that you are 100% correct. By ackowledging the opposite we therefore fundamentally change the way we live our life in accordance to our views. Ie. I acknowledge that it was written by man and not God therefore getting rid of the belief there is a God while you would be admitting there is a God and the bible is God’s law and therefore living a life of sin. It goes against how we perceive we should live our lives. There is no right or wrong in this, and any argumemt cannot be won. So going into the argument of which came first, men creating marriage and later blessed or vice versa, is like saying which came first, the chicken or the egg. Cause in my belief God created man and woman first so since he created us and existed first, then Gods intent was marriage before man. Goes back to it is his designed plan for redemption of the human race.

      And having to go to a state to get a marriage license has no impact on which came first. Certain laws were created long after marriage was conceived so you have to prove to the government that you are married to qualify for certain things, like during tax season.

      I think the argument against gay marriage is not that they dont want them to be equal, it is what is the nexty logical step afterwards. if you legalize Gay marraige because its equal rights, then you have to legalize Polygany, Polyandry, and conjoint marraiges. That in itself brings up more issues because a person, for tax purposes, will have issues with dependants and spousal incomes etc. Especially in conjoint marraiges. The question then becomes, not where to start, but where will it end. If love is love (to quote an earlier poster) and it doesnt matter, do you then legalize bestiality, or incest? Its love, and who are you (being devils advocate) to decide what love means or how it should look?

      You may say, well thats just crazy and wrong and could never happen. But look at where we are now. That kind of view was thought about gay marriage not too long ago, but we are breaking that barrier and opening up to gay marriages. You would then become in the same position as those against gay marriage, if you disagree with the examples above. Seeing as you are fighting for the right to have gay marriages, you would have no legs to stand on.

      If you are going to talk about Jesus’ views. Get them right.
      When the Pharisees ask, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?‘’ Jesus answers by pointing them to God’s purposes for marriage:

      And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:3-9)
      He is asked, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” Jesus then answers, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:7-9).

      So…wiggle wiggle. And Jesus did mention Homosexuality and marriage.
      “Not everyone can accept this teaching (on marriage), but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

      He is saying that everyone should marry that can, and the only ones that cant are these three categories. Those who foreswore marriage to better serve God, those who were castrated, and those who were BORN EUNACHS. Now typically speaking a Eunach is someone who has no testicles but back in that time (and today) it was very very very rare to be born that way but be male. Plus in this time frame eunach was used and meant in different ways, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men). Moreover, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.

      So the bible here, by Jesus’ own words, is admitting that Homosexuals are created by God, and was a norm and known even in his time.

      My view of it is more a 60/40 split of scientific reasoning and religious reasoning. As i earlier stated, Humans are the only known species (Asexuals excluded) to mate with another of its own gener. That is my angle.

      And you hit the nail on the head with the anti-gay/ non-feeling description. Exact same position that i have. If someone were to hit on me, i probably would become really embarrased, not angry, and feel bad for the person because i have to tell them no. In the same instance that i have been hit on by a woman who did not see my ring and i felt embarrassed.

      Excellent discussion points by the way. I thank you very much for not taking this down an insulting path. Props to you Phillip.

    • commented 2014-11-12 15:58:28 -0500
      @joshua JOBE: I live near Seattle which is considered a gay friendly city. There are still elements of groups of older teens and young adults ( rite of passage?) proving their manhood that they have to do in roving gangs who come from neighboring towns and cities, into the gay area of Seattle only to look for gays so they can harass and beat them up. Why? Because they still think it is okay to do this to this minority in this society. It is condoned behavior in many of the fundamental churches who teach them to hate gays and that the bible says gays should be “stoned and put to death.” These cowards only work in gangs to support and back their hate. It takes all of them to pick on one or two gays who were not bothering them in the first place. Sometimes they go after people they perceive to be gay who actually are not. They just didn’t look like a “football” player to them so they must be gay. It’s sad and no one should have to fear walking down the street in fear of these thugs.

      Actually, people still go to the Old Testament to use that old Chestnut from Leviticus about man lying with another man to justify their hatred of gays. You’ll notice it says nothing about lesbians because women were chattel and didn’t matter back then. (The bible was written by pious old Jewish men who ran the tribes and wanted to keep control of them.) Sorry, but that’s the truth. Man did create marriages because they were contracts between families. They only became a “church” function and blessed much later. Many people have this wrong. This is why you have to go to city hall today to get a marriage license so the state legally recognizes your marriage and this is why gays have wanted to be recognized legally so there would be NO question when a spouse died who would get the property. Many families have jumped in and pushed out the spouse and claimed that he (she) was only a “roommate” or just a good friend instead of the person’s partner. This is another reason why the anti-marriage folks do not want gays to have that right. They do not want them to be equal to them! ;-) Another point is that Jesus said in the New Testament that he was against divorce so there is no wiggle room around that one. ;-) He also didn’t say one word about homosexuality. Not one word. Paul have a few things to say about a lot of things, but not Jesus. I assume people of the Christian faith follow the Messiah and not Paul. Enough said about religion with only one question.

      You mentioned that it wasn’t religion that you are basing your opinion about gays upon. I’m not sure whether you specified if it was political either. If it is political, will you explain how politics plays into having an anti-gay opinion? If there is another reason I would be curious to read what it could be. Usually, religion is behind this prejudice. What else could make a person view it another way? If you have no feelings sexually for the same sex that shouldn’t make you have anti-gay feelings; it should just be non-feelings. A homophobe would have feelings of anger or anti-gay feelings.

      Example: If a person is comfortable with their orientation and they are male and straight and a gay person were to hit on them all they would have to do is take it as a compliment and politely refuse the offer by saying that they were straight. The gay person would not be offended and would move on. A homophobic straight person would take offence, act insulted about their manhood being questioned and either tell the person off or attack them. Do you see the difference?

    • commented 2014-11-12 14:14:20 -0500
      Oh no, gay couples posting photos of each other kissing?! The horror… what fiends! But honestly—beautiful couples, and I’m so happy for each of them. I yearn for the day that these kinds of photos can be posted without such controversy and that all people, including the Duggar family, acknowledge that love is love. Perhaps some day!

    • commented 2014-11-12 14:11:39 -0500
      @rob Tisinai: Thats exactly my point, you are assuming they are anti gay instead of just them being ok with you being gay but not agreeing with it, because they are religious. You are assuming they are anti-gay, so you go to their page to intentionally put a picture of yourselves on there to just throw it in their face. You are therefore being contentious, basically trolling, and trying to start something. It is their blog and they have a right to moderate it as they see fit to avoid it from turning it into an argument about Gay rights etc. rather than it being about their original purpose. You can disagree with someone without being Anti- (put topic here). As i stated myself. I am not Anti-gay, as i am not actively going against it, but i also do not agree with it and will not actively support it. This is a subject that is not just pro-gay and anti-gay. There is a middle ground. I see no reason going to their blog and post the picture, when you know prior too, their position on the LGBT community. The only thing that can be assumed from that is that you are intentionally trying to get a reaction. I think that is a little unfair and would take offense to it if i were them. Instead of respecting their beliefs and views (which is something you in the LGBT community want for yourselves) you purposefully flaunt it in their face and then attack them when they take it down. You start the fight and then cry Hate when someone retaliates. What do you expect?

    • commented 2014-11-12 13:39:52 -0500
      Joshua, one more point. You can see my photo in the article above. The only way that counts as “instigation” is if the Duggars are anti-gay. If they’re not anti-gay then there would be nothing instigated. So your idea that the fault lies with same-sex couples who put photos as instigation? That idea rests on the assumption the Duggars are anti-gay.

    • commented 2014-11-12 13:36:14 -0500
      I don’t compare the Duggars to Westboro Baptist, but what does that matter? Just because WBC is anti-gay doesn’t mean that the Duggars are not..

      It’s funny that you ask your question about pictures of Jesus, because I was thinking something along those lines just now but came to the opposite conclusion. I was thinking that if I asked people to post inspirational quotes and then deleted EVERY reference that involved Christianity, then yes, that would make me anti-Christian — that’s a step beyond mere disagreement.

      And that is essentially what the Duggars have done.

      I’m not sure what your point is with this: " i am fine with that because they have that right to believe what they want. Equal rights remember?" No one is saying — and I’m certainly not saying — that the Duggars have no right to take down the pics. That’s a straw man. No, I’m saying exercising that right makes them anti-gay.

    • commented 2014-11-12 13:34:05 -0500
      @phillip Mooney: For clarification, when referring to doing what they want in their home, it is in reference to sexual acts. As far as kissing and holding hands, thats nothing. I think the issue people have and why they may be uncomfortable, in part, is because it is something that they are not use to seeing or being around. Those that grow up in San Francisco who are straight are probably more use to it and doesnt bother them as much as someone in some rural Indiana town. I cannot deny that there are those that just straight hate for the sake of hating, Westboro for example, and take their beliefs to an extreme. Now when it comes to speaking religiously, then people can only really live by what God says. And we know the bibles view on homosexual relations. Myself am religious, but that is not where i pull my views from. I try to keep my religious beliefs separate from political positions and try to look at things more outside of the religious box at times. For example, my previous comment about being the only species. But again could care less if someone is. Had a bisexual friend as well who i hung out with and played games with. He knew that as long as he didnt hit on me, we were good. Because then it would just get weird lol.
      As far as the cafeteria religion, Kosher laws were old testament and went away after the new testament. Much like making sacrifices. And God hates divorce because it goes against His redemptive plan for the world. However, Divorce was something created by man and not God and there should be only two reasons you divorce, consistent and unrepentive immorality, and when a “non-believer” deserts and "believer.’ But we both know people divorce all the time for no real reason at all instead of working it out. But now we’re getting way off topic and partly my fault.

      I believe, like you, that the majority of people who do not agree with LGBT, do hate them and take it to an extreme instead of being reasonable and just living their lives and letting others live theirs as they see fit.

    • commented 2014-11-12 13:17:07 -0500
      @rob Tisinai: Would you really compare the Duggars to the Westboro Baptist Church? They are Anti-Gay. They didnt take action against being gay, they took action against people intentionally trying to instigate and issue because of their beliefs. If i an athiest blogger wanted people to post a picture of the person they love, and i posted a picture of say, Jesus. That would be instigating something, but if it gets removed then are they Anti-Christ? No. It is just being removed because it is not in line with their belief and to prevent any kind of arguments in the topic and prevent it from going in a direction it was not intended. I guarantee they posted it because they wanted to start something. They are taking the photos down because it is something they dont believe in, and i am fine with that because they have that right to believe what they want. Equal rights remember?

    • commented 2014-11-12 12:44:41 -0500
      Joshua, that’s an awfully narrow definition of “anti-gay.” You write, “Just because one may not agree with it and not want pictures of something they do not agree with on THEIR blog, doesn’t not mean they are anti-gay.”

      But of course it does. If you think being gay is wrong and take action based on that (which they did), then you are anti-gay. What else would you call it?

      Your Bush/Obama analysis doesn’t really work, because you aren’t critical of Obama just for being black. But if you criticized Obama PURELY because he was black, you WOULD be a racist — and the Duggars are taking these photos down purely because they are gay, which makes them anti-gay.

    • commented 2014-11-12 12:30:13 -0500
      @joshua JOBE: No worries. Dirty word would be going too far, but using the correct words would be better. I would not use that word at all since there is not one difference between a gay and a straight “lifestyle” save that one has sexual relations with the same sex and the other with a different sex. That is the only difference. Unfortunately, homophobes are obsessed on that part of gays. It makes me wonder about them and why their obsession? ;-)

      I’m a little concerned about gays having to essentially “hide” their relationships from everyone else in society. (e.g. It’s okay for them to do what ever they like in their own homes as long as “we” don’t have to see it." ) That bothers me because it puts you and others in judgment of gays and you “authorize” and give them permission to do what they will, but just don’t kiss, hold hands or show any outward signs of affection to each other “like we do” all the time in public, on the TV, in movies, and you get the general picture or “we” will be upset at you. What kind of life is that for a gay person to have to live? It isn’t. They should feel as free as a straight person to be able to spontaneously reach over and grab their lover’s hand or give them a kiss without the fear of someone attacking them or giving them ugly, hateful looks or calling them the “F”-word and the other expletives that come with hating gays. This has to stop and the sooner the better. We all deserve Equal rights. I know some people are not happy with that, but they really need to take a good look at the Constitution without trying to reference a bible through it. I am not saying that is what you are doing, but many hide their hate behind religion and use a few verses from it to substantiate their agenda. They forget that it also mentions divorce, and the Kosher Laws and many other things. I call it “Cafeteria Religion” where they pick and choose out of the bible what they want to follow and which ones they wish to ignore.

    • commented 2014-11-12 12:03:01 -0500
      @phillip mooney: I apologize, I was unaware it was such a dirty word. I would refer to straight people as a lifestyle too. I still do not get where you think I am trying to deny anything. I am not denying anything. I am just not going to actively support it. I am off the libertarian mindset that a person can do whatever they want in their homes and noone should say anything about it. My sister actually made a choice m was straight for over 30 years and had 2 kids. She’ll say she chose herself. I’ll grant you this may be a unique case and may more so fall in line with being bi. Bigoted and ignorant are two drastically different things by the way.

    • commented 2014-11-12 11:45:01 -0500
      @joshua JOBE: You do not have to use expletives to be angry, Joshua. The fact that you brought up " liberal" showed me where you stood on this from a political perspective. The subject shouldn’t be a political one and for a person who has a lesbian sister, I would think you would have a bit more compassion for this subject and know more about it than to call a person who happen to be gay to be following a “lifestyle.” That would mean that they could change it and that it is a choice. You know better than that, Josh. When did YOU choose to become a straight person if it is so easy to decide to change to be one or the other? And if you really think this, then try changing into a gay person for two weeks and start going to gay bars and dating people if it is that easy to be attracted to the same sex where you can turn it on and off like that. If you do not believe it, then you shouldn’t call it a “lifestyle.” If gay sex doesn’t do anything for you, then DON’T HAVE IT. It’s very simple, but don’t try and deny others who are gay the right to love the person they love and want to marry. It really isn’t up to you and it really isn’t any of your business, is it? They do not need your permission, do they? That seems to be the major problem in this country. Many homophobic people want to make decisions for gay people because they do not like gay sex. No, you didn’t mention this, though you think who we are is an ideology rather than an orientation just like yours. Perhaps if you read modern psychology books about gays to find out what the latest is being said about it you could open your mind and learn something rather than continue to harbor those anti-gay feelings you are embracing in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. One can be ignorant because they have not had a chance to read and learn about a subject and one can choose to remain stupid only because they refuse to want to learn. If your prejudices are holding you back then it is your choice to remain ignorant. Remember sexual orientation is NOT a choice; just like what makes you straight makes your sister a lesbian. There is no choice in the matter, but there is a choice to remain bigoted.

    • commented 2014-11-12 11:25:22 -0500
      @ rob tisinai: anti-gay conveys ideas of actively pursuing actions against the LGBT community or constantly putting out comments or articles against it. Just because one may not agree with it and not want pictures of something they do not agree with on THEIR blog, doesn’t not mean they are anti-gay. They are not it there preaching against it fervently, or having rallies against it. They merely are quietly disagreeing with the LGBT community. I personally do not agree with it. But that doesn’t mean I hate all gay people or think they are abominations etc. Etc. Again I have a sister whom I love who is a lesbian and was recently married. Congrats to her. The LGBT community at large had the notion that if you aren’t completely for them, . Then you hate them and are a homophobe, which I find hilarious because that conveys fear and most are far from fearful. For some reason you think there can be no in between. It’s like the president. Somehow because I don’t agree with his policies I’m a racist. But I disagreed with bush too. It’s like you can’t win, like I can’t have my own views without it being drastically exaggerated and distorted to a point where I’m some sort of person who kills babies and am going to hell.

    • commented 2014-11-12 11:15:59 -0500
      Joshua, are you really trying to claim that the Duggars’ decision to remove pic of the gay married couples is NOT “anti-gay”?

      Really? Then what adjective would you use instead. I’m genuinely curious.

    • commented 2014-11-12 11:14:18 -0500
      @phillip mooney: wow guy, seriously? In no way did my message convey any amount of hate. There was no cursing or name calling. I was merely being facetious and responding in kind to those that we’re calling the Duggar pathetic when their own words and actions are hypocritical and “pathetic.” I grant you people within the LBGT can be conservative but I have never met one. My own sister is a lesbian and I love her. I just do not agree with the lifestyle. Doesn’t mean I have a “Problem” with them. Your response is exactly what I’m talking about. You completely ignore what I actuality said and then go on to make large assumptions about me and then attack me personally because you can’t argue the original point of the discussion. It’s not feelgood or personal feelings of being gay. It’s the fact that humans are the only species that mates with another of its own gender. Asexuals don’t count. Nothing of my post talked anything about my beliefs on allowing or denying gay marriage, or the constitution. Take your own advice and keep it out of the discussion. . Another largely idiotic assumption on your part. My original point and intent was discussing the hypocrisy of the LGBT community at large. You condemn those who disagree and attack them personally (as proven by you) but expect yourselves to be able to do the same without any contention of points. Please if you’re going to respond, stay on point and stop trolling.

    • commented 2014-11-12 10:57:39 -0500
      Apparently they forgot to include the in-breds for whom the page was created.

    • commented 2014-11-12 10:35:49 -0500
      @joshua JOBE: You mentioned “liberals” and this really has nothing to do with politics. Gays can be conservative as well, so you should not group all gays in a political arena. I would leave the politics out of this. I think you have a problem with gays and that makes me suspicious as to why? Is it religious or are you fighting some sexual feelings of your own and do not want to be around gays because it brings it out in you? There could be many reasons why you hate or dislike gays especially when they have done nothing to you. Perhaps you should look into yourself and find out why gays bring this anger out so quickly in you. This isn’t healthy. Everyone in this country is equal with equal rights under this Constitution. Straight people do not get more rights or because they believe a certain thing in the bible doesn’t mean they can change the Constitution and deny people their rights like has happened in so many states. Judges are ruling that it is unconstitutional to do this. You may not like it, but you are on the wrong side of history.

    • commented 2014-11-12 09:00:23 -0500
      You call the duggars pathetic even tho you are the ones going in their blog to instigate am issue? Pathetic. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you didn’t mean they hate you or are “anti-gay”. You Liberals are ask about freedom of speck and the right to do what you want, so long ad it falls in line with your ideology. If it doesn’t then you are the ones who go on the offensive and attack people in their beliefs and life style but yet that’s exactly what you guys want for yourselves and condemn those who do it to you! Pathetic hypocrisy.

    • commented 2014-11-12 08:30:48 -0500
      For those who have been deleted from the Dugger blog, please send me a jpg of your post/photo and I will put it on my blog (arthuride.com). send to arthur_ide@hotmail.com and they will be uploaded.

    • commented 2014-11-12 01:17:06 -0500
      Our pic was deleted as well (last time I checked it had about 50 likes) and they blocked me. How pathetic…

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: