The Gay Community's Contribution To Bringing Down The Duggars

Multiple | June 8, 2015

[Pinkbell]

In a minute, I will get to the two gay persons involved in exposing this and the porn history behind the magazine In Touch.

First, I of course want to say that Josh Duggar’s actions were inexcusable, lest anyone accuse me of supporting what he did. I realize the media would have had no “dirt” on them had this not happened. That said, I listened to the interview with his parents, and I listened to the interview with the victims. I do believe the parents tried to do the right thing. They ultimately did get him help and contact the authorities. Say what you will about the help that they got Josh, but it seemed to work. There has been no indication from even the media that he has ever done something since he was 15. If he has, then I take that back, but there is no proof that he has.

The thing that I am getting at is that this is bigger in the liberal media than I believe it would have been had this happened to a liberal family. When the news of this molestation scandal came out, the first thing that I thought is, "They finally got them." There are a couple different websites, one in particular, who have disliked the Duggars for years due to their conservative, Christian beliefs. The one thing the Duggars did which essentially "doomed" them was to speak out against the gay agenda. It's not that the Duggars have ever said they hate gay people. Michelle's sister happens to be a lesbian, and they still love her. The Duggars simply believe marriage is between one man and one woman and children need to have a mother and father. Michelle Duggar made a robocall against a transgender bill out of concern that a man could claim to "feel" he is a woman to be able to use the womens' room to prey on a woman or young girls. She never said that ALL or even a majority of transgender people are child molestors like the media is playing it off as.

That brings me to my point, one of the sites is a site where the majority of posters do not like the Duggars or "fundies" or conservatives in general. Anyway, this person was linked as the person who tipped off In Touch or at least helped. She and her partner are lesbians who gave the dirt to In Touch [no idea how she knew], but she has a history of not liking the Duggars. Michelle Duggar making a robocall arguing against transgenders in the bathrooms really set her and her partner off. They organized a gay "kiss in" in front of the Duggars home. She is very proud of herself, and here is a link to her claiming credit for the In Touch story:

http://imgur.com/QjT4Pwy

Second of all, the writer who broke the story for In Touch is a gay man who also broke the story of John Edwards with Rielle Hunter. I mention the latter because it does show he is willing to throw the other side under the bus for a good story, but I think he relished throwing the Duggars under the bus. He did an interview with The Advocate:

19 Questions With the Gay Journalist Who Brought Down the Duggars

Here are a few key questions I excerpted to illustrate my point:

The Advocate: Hi Rick. Congrats on the piece. How did you come to break this story?

Rick Egusquiza: Thank you. The rumors of Joshua Duggar being sexually inappropriate as a teenager were circulating for years, but no one could prove it until In Touch Weekly really started digging into it. My bosses received a tip and then sent me and a team to Springdale, Ark., to start digging around. One tipster led me to another, and then another. I have to say it was good old-fashioned reporting on the ground and a lot of door-knocking. Also a lot of leg work from our team of excellent reporters and editors. I'd love to take full credit, but it wasn't a one-man job.

Were you aware the family had a history of homophobia and transphobia?

I assumed they weren't fans of our community because they were such Bible-thumping conservative Christians, and I knew Josh Duggar worked for the Family Research Council. I learned a lot more about them when I was doing research for this story. I was disgusted by Michelle's robocall to the citizens of Fayetteville, Ark., regrading trans women and restrooms and comparing them to child molesters when she knew about her son’s actions.

Why do you think the Duggars are so popular?

Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country still have the same beliefs [as the Duggars] so they put the Duggars on a pedestal. On the other hand, I think a lot of the country and the world are very happy that their hypocrisy has been uncovered. Now, they’re more popular than ever though.

What's been your favorite response to the story?

When people thank me for doing God's work. Of course, now that the story is out, everyone I meet tells me the same thing, which is, "I knew it! I just knew something weird was going on in that family." Of course, "weird" is a major understatement; it was a crime.

Can't you dig up something good on that racist, antigay Duck Dynasty clan?

I’ll get on that, but I don’t think we’re done with the Duggars yet.

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/television/2015/06/04/19-questions-gay-journalist-who-brought-down-duggars

Here is some info regarding In Touch and its connection to porn as well:

The Wrap reported in 2013:

But an investigation by TheWrap has found that there is a darker side to the privately held company, including publication of at least one magazine appealing to neo-Nazis, as well as significant involvement in the distribution of pornography — including Nazi-themed porn movies.

These lend perspective to Bauer’s legal woes in the United States, including a $50 million defamation lawsuit by Tom Cruise, filed last October after two U.S.-based publications alleged he’d abandoned his daughter Suri. In fact, Bauer generates dozens of legal complaints worldwide each year about invasion of privacy or libel, according to a lawyer who has frequently opposed them.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/06/06/meet-the-terrible-porn-publisher-behind-the-outing-of-the-duggar-abuse-story/

The two sites mentioned have a lot of posters who have wanted the Duggars off the air for a long time, and the bottom line is because they are “fundies” or very conservative Christians. They were looking for something, anything to get them, and they got it. I saw one post from a poster who said they were disappointed this had to be this type of scandal because it involved molestation, but they wanted something, and others agreed. Another poster on the second forum who was a liberal was actually disgusted that some liberal friends on Facebook were rejoicing over this because they hate the Duggars.

These people say they just care about the girls...all while bashing their family by calling them a cult, creepy, weird, etc. and then proudly calling for the show to be cancelled...what they've wanted for years but didn't have a valid reason to do so. This isn't primarily about the girls to them, and Jessa said so last night on Megyn Kelly. This is about taking this family down all the while trying to be sympathetic. Does this journalist care what he put those girls through? They say they feel worse now than when it happened? No. He's proud of himself, and he is still digging.

My final point is that people say the Duggars are getting more heat because they held themselves up as “moral arbitrators,” and therefore, they are hypocrites. Isn’t this always the spiel with the liberals regarding conservatives? If a conservative has sinned or has a bad past, does that mean that he/she can’t speak out for conservative, Christian issues today? Josh, by all accounts so far, has turned his life around, so it’s not as if he is saying one thing and doing another. If he was still doing it or it was done as an adult and covered up, I would agree with them. Do they ever so severely call out their own who act as “moral arbitrators” for the modern, secular humanist agenda that rules today’s society?

[DrewsMum]

Casting out the evildoer refers to an unrepentant SAINT in the church. One who wishes to continue in sin. And it entails more than just the sexual immoral person....it lists several sins, including the drunkard, etc. (I can’t remember them all.)

As far as stoning, I’ll let Jesus address that for you.....
John 8
 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[DrewsMum]

I’m not sure what referring to as “pure religion”...

I’m don’t care what a particular RELIGION says. ... my spiritual concerns revolve around Jesus and the Word of God.

[jimbo807]

I am familiar with all of that, but here’s the thing.

This is not a religious site. There are people here who are conservative, but not necessarily religious (me included). So I react against anyone who tells me that the proper way to respond to anything is via bible verses and pious cliches. I respect your world view, but I don’t subscribe to it.

Call me what you will based on this, but that is my view.

[jimbo807]

James 1:27English Standard Version (ESV)

27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

[jimbo807]

Isaiah 1:17 English Standard Version

learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

[RginTN]

I know...

[DrewsMum]

I won’t call you anything. Your choices are not my business. I had already figured as much, anyways. Unfortunately for you though, many of our laws and even the foundation of our nation is rooted in the Biblical scripture that you don’t subscribe to.

Freerepublic is a site dedicated to protecting or freedoms, rights, etc. ... those would be our GOD GIVEN rights and freedoms.

FR has never shied away from a Biblical worldview. So while it’s not inherently a religious site, responding to issues in light of the Word of God certainly isn’t discouraged.

However, I now understand why Josh Duggar doesn’t stand a chance with you.

[Ann Archy]

Well, if you are a SEX offender, I have NO sympathy for you.

[jimbo807]

“foundation of our nation is rooted in the Biblical scripture that you don’t subscribe to.”

Rooted in, yes, but not dictated by. That is why we have a first amendment

God given rights and freedoms. Agreed, also covered by the first amendment - specifically worshipping the way you choose and thinking and saying what you want to think and say.

People can respond anyway they want and I respect that right, but when they say that you can’t have the opinion that the pervert Josh got off easy because the bible says so, and then consign you the class of gay lovin’, porn supportin’, going to hell hater of all things God. Well... I have an issue with that intolerant approach to dialog in a free society.

[DrewsMum]

No. Not hardly. Your comments were a lot more than just you think he got off easy.

I’m all for free speech. I’m not one of the ones trying to get a tv show shut down.

That SCREAMS of anti free speech.

[jimbo807]

I can sling just as much as anyone else.

[Tired of Taxes]

There is NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY that thinks they can get away with releasing information about juveniles, with or without a judge's order.

I'm surprised by the release of information, too. The girls themselves were juveniles. The two daughters said they felt secure in talking to the authorities because they believed the information would be kept confidential. And, yet, the reports were released with enough information to reveal their identities.

Wouldn't law enforcement and/or child protection have assured the girls that they could speak freely without fear of their info being released?

If releasing the info was legal, then, apparently, victims who are minors cannot trust law enforcement to keep their personal info confidential.

How many victims out there have been watching this story unfold? Now they're probably thinking that they can't trust the authorities. I wouldn't blame them.

I had a friend who was victimized at age 8 by an adult. There was a trial, and because everyone in the community knew who the victim was, the other kids (especially the boys) were brutal toward her year after year.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm surprised by the release of information, too. The girls themselves were juveniles. The two daughters said they felt secure in talking to the authorities because they believed the information would be kept confidential. And, yet, the reports were released with enough information to reveal their identities.

Wouldn't law enforcement and/or child protection have assured the girls that they could speak freely without fear of their info being released?

Exactly right. In a sane world, this is a no-brainer, and I shall not be surprised if certain officials are not held accountable for this breach of trust which has now made future juvenile cases more difficult.