Michigan Senate republicans

[Spartanmack]

funny how the right spent the last week defending the duggars and lining up against Caitly Jenner. We'll back you if you molest kids but heaven forbid that you want to live as a woman.

was it just as funny when the left went after the duggars but vigorously defended Lena Dunham who actually bragged about molesting her younger sister in her autobiography?

 

[JScottWriter]

was it just as funny when the left went after the duggars but vigorously defended Lena Dunham who actually bragged about molesting her younger sister in her autobiography?

Sarah Palin, is that you?

 

[tinselwolverine]

if a religion has a specific law against homosexuality, then they have the right to not have a child be adopted by homosexuals the same way that, say, a Jewish agency has the right to deny a Jewish child from being adopted by Muslims.

you do not have the right to force a state's issue onto a religious group.

I get that you are anti-religion, but the lawyer in you should comprehend that a state cannot impose a law that forces a religion to go against their belief.

I think that discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation might be a violation of federal civil rights laws.

If that's the case, I don't see how it can be argued that these religious-based agencies have the right to discriminate against anyone in violation of federal law.


They don't have to be compelled to violate their religious beliefs, not at all.

If they can't process adoptions according to their religious beliefs without violating someone's federal civil rights, the government should be able to simply just just resend their adoption processing privilege.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sarah Palin, is that you?

What does that have to do with Sarah Palin?

 

[JScottWriter]

She is the only other person that I have heard to compare the two.

 

[Spartanmack]

She is the only other person that I have heard to compare the two.

I was not aware of her comments. But your post sorta highlights my point - one side sees no problem with one but they're banging the drum about the other. It's not a defense of Duggar or the media defending him, if they actually are. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Lena Dunham admits to molesting her sister in her autobiography, basically boasts about it and the media ignores it or even defends her because she's the left's favorite feminist hero at the moment.

 

[Michchamp]

I was not aware of her comments. But your post sorta highlights my point - one side sees no problem with one but they're banging the drum about the other. It's not a defense of Duggar or the media defending him, if they actually are. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Lena Dunham admits to molesting her sister in her autobiography, basically boasts about it and the media ignores it or even defends her because she's the left's favorite feminist hero at the moment.

this has got to be one of the worst arguments ever posted here.

You have to assume a lot here... namely that everyone on "the left" watched her stupid show, read her book, held her out as some sort of hero, and defended her admission. personally, I never did any of the three. I don't even know anything about her, other than she was in a TV show.

if she really did molest her sister... that's sick, twisted, and wrong.

but it doesn't have anything to do with anything anyone has written in this thread. sorry.

EDIT: I clicked an article on Salon, which is probably the most hacktastic left wing site these days (it has really declined over the years). It sounds debatable if the actions in lena dunham's writing, while disgusting and perverse, really constituted molestation. she would've been 7 at the time... which is a lot different than Josh Duggar - where the abuse started when he was 14, and continued for at least a couple years.

Lena Dunham's show was hardly "leftist"... it's not like her lifestyle has been made into some sort of idealistic thing "leftists" should aspire to. And if you think so, well, you're nuts. But you can compare and contrast this with the Duggar's and that crazy Quiverfull movement. Duggar was a board member of the Family Research Council (since resigned), and their family was actively involved in Right-wing politics. lena dunham made an ad for Barack Obama in 2012 on her own.

To be fair, some on the Right have come out and denounced the Duggars... astonishingly... Rick Santorum was one of them. Hopefully more do. And hopefully more come out and say "this lifestyle, well, it's not for everyone, and please don't have 19 kids and use birth control. If more people had that many kids, we'd be in serious trouble in a generation."

But until they do, initiatives like this one in Michigan ring like rank hypocrisy. Plus, how many more formerly "Family Values" preachers and GOP flacks need to be outed before voters on the Right stop believing this crap and pushing this agenda?

 

[Michchamp]

She is the only other person that I have heard to compare the two.

Actually, I could understand if you confused his writing with Sarah Palin's writing.

when he first started posting here, I thought the same thing: "Why is Sarah Palin posting as a guy named 'Spartanmack' on our board?"

 

[elrod817]

I was not aware of her comments. But your post sorta highlights my point - one side sees no problem with one but they're banging the drum about the other. It's not a defense of Duggar or the media defending him, if they actually are. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Lena Dunham admits to molesting her sister in her autobiography, basically boasts about it and the media ignores it or even defends her because she's the left's favorite feminist hero at the moment.

Before this thread I had no idea who Lena Dunham was, I kind of sort of knew of the Duggars. In my cursory efforts to learn a little more about both and their respective situations it doesn't seem like their situations are really that similar. It also seems as if she has her fair share of lefty feminist critics too.

 

[Spartanmack]

this has got to be one of the worst arguments ever posted here.

You have to assume a lot here... namely that everyone on "the left" watched her stupid show, read her book, held her out as some sort of hero, and defended her admission. personally, I never did any of the three. I don't even know anything about her, other than she was in a TV show.

if she really did molest her sister... that's sick, twisted, and wrong.

but it doesn't have anything to do with anything anyone has written in this thread. sorry.

EDIT: I clicked an article on Salon, which is probably the most hacktastic left wing site these days (it has really declined over the years). It sounds debatable if the actions in lena dunham's writing, while disgusting and perverse, really constituted molestation. she would've been 7 at the time... which is a lot different than Josh Duggar - where the abuse started when he was 14, and continued for at least a couple years.

Lena Dunham's show was hardly "leftist"... it's not like her lifestyle has been made into some sort of idealistic thing "leftists" should aspire to. And if you think so, well, you're nuts. But you can compare and contrast this with the Duggar's and that crazy Quiverfull movement. Duggar was a board member of the Family Research Council (since resigned), and their family was actively involved in Right-wing politics. lena dunham made an ad for Barack Obama in 2012 on her own.

To be fair, some on the Right have come out and denounced the Duggars... astonishingly... Rick Santorum was one of them. Hopefully more do. And hopefully more come out and say "this lifestyle, well, it's not for everyone, and please don't have 19 kids and use birth control. If more people had that many kids, we'd be in serious trouble in a generation."

But until they do, initiatives like this one in Michigan ring like rank hypocrisy. Plus, how many more formerly "Family Values" preachers and GOP flacks need to be outed before voters on the Right stop believing this crap and pushing this agenda?

You don't have to assume any of that. Her book was a NYT bestseller and was named one of the ten best books of the year by a NYT book critic. Then when you consider her fame and popularity, despite the fact that nobody watches her show, which keeps getting renewed despite the fact that nobody watches, it's pretty easy to see that she's a leftist, feminist hero. No doubt you have a poster of her next to your Indigo Girls poster in your home office. So once you realize you don't have to assume any of that, your argument basically falls apart.

Funny how in the very post we're talking about the hypocrisy of the left, you attempt to whitewash Dunham's molestation as mere childhood curiosity (using a Salon.com article, which you even admit is a lefty propaganda site - you make it too easy sometimes). That pig made her sister lay in bed and make out with her while she masterbated, bribing her w/ rewards like some pedophile. That's child molesting. And that's just what she's admitted to doing.

By the way, I never said her show was uber left or political - I've only seen about 10 minutes of it because it is unwatchable. That said, it's subject matter has nothing to do with whether or not it's hypocritical to ignore/defend her while make a huge deal out of someone who also appears in a show that nobody watches for something similar.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Before this thread I had no idea who Lena Dunham was, I kind of sort of knew of the Duggars. In my cursory efforts to learn a little more about both and their respective situations it doesn't seem like their situations are really that similar. It also seems as if she has her fair share of lefty feminist critics too.

I hadn't heard of Lena Dunham nor the HBO series "Girls" either, which is a little surprising to me because I would have thought I would have known of the existence of an HBO series whether I had ever watched it or knew anything about it.

All I know about "Girls" is that it's probably about girls.

I guess she's made some art house type of films.

I only heard of the Duggars since this story about the Josh kid came out.

My recommendation to any minor children, regardless of what your parents political persuasions are, or what you think your own political persuasions are going to be, if you have designs on any kind of sexual experimentation with your younger siblings, don't do it.

No good shit is going to come of it, and really, bad shit probably will happen.

Instead, let your parent or guardian know what's going in your developing noggin, and tell them Tinsel said that your parents should get you some professional emotional counseling.

 

[Spartanmack]

Actually, I could understand if you confused his writing with Sarah Palin's writing.

when he first started posting here, I thought the same thing: "Why is Sarah Palin posting as a guy named 'Spartanmack' on our board?"

After reading your posts I never thought twice or asked myself "why is a leftist idiot from uofm posting moronic lefty commentary here?" It just made sense to me.

 

[hailhail]

not sure why you are grouping me in with them. I'm all for homosexual couples adopting and have several homosexual friends who have adopted. I'm not being a bigot, i just don't believe the state should force a religious group to violate their religious laws.

the fact these groups have received state funding is completely unacceptable. if they want to use the religious right defense for their bigotry, then they cannot be receiving state funds. THAT i have extreme issue with.

So you also disagree with the law? Because that's exactly what the law in Michigan is doing.

 

[Michchamp]

So you also disagree with the law? Because that's exactly what the law in Michigan is doing.

not holding my breath waiting for him to admit he defended the law before knowing all the facts.

 

[biggunsbob]

I have heard of the Duggars but I have not heard of the other girl Lena Dunham.. Fuck them both for molesting kids... Screw all religions who are tax exempt, and try to jam their outdated crap down people's throats.. I could care less who adopts who as long as the background checks by the state in question are run and done right with no discrimination at all..

 

[zyxt9]

So you also disagree with the law? Because that's exactly what the law in Michigan is doing.

yes, I disagree with allowing state money to fund supposedly religious institutions/agencies/etc. if a group wants to have immunity from state laws that would require them to violate a religious law, then they need to not take state money. that seems simple enough.

if a group is not taking state money though, they should have the right to redirect a homosexual couple looking to adopt toward an agency that will allow the adoption without themselves being forced to process the adoption.

it really should be that simple.

 

[SpartyNash]

What if I had a wacky faith in which being straight is a sin. Are the far right nut jobs going to defend me for protecting my religious beliefs? Doubtful.

 

[tinselwolverine]

What if I had a wacky faith in which being straight is a sin. Are the far right nut jobs going to defend me for protecting my religious beliefs? Doubtful.

Haven't you ever heard of musical theater?

 

[jwlcosu]

I miss my home state and even my home town (village) but I'm not sure I'd want to raise my family there.

Sounds like an awful place. You're lucky to have survived and escaped. Well done!

 

[Sbee]

What if I had a wacky faith in which being straight is a sin. Are the far right nut jobs going to defend me for protecting my religious beliefs? Doubtful.

great point. the funny thing about this is that the supreme court is going to rule this summer and will likely invalidate all provisions that allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation.

in the meantime, there are 13,000 children in state care waiting for adoption, 50% of the states adoptions come from faith based agencies. Never mind the kids best interest, it's all about drawing this line in the sand about legalized bigotry