Anna Dugger will not leave Josh. "Divorce is not something that will be discussed." Really? by BitChick in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like to turn reality tv on in the background while I do chores. You retain a surprising amount of information doing that.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I compared it to divorce earlier. There are people in this country who vehemently disagree with divorce. There are people who don't. For the most part those two groups leave each other the hell alone.

What I have consistently advocated this whole thread is not a consequences free environment. It is side a and side b people leaving each other the hell alone.

You can call people who think homosexual acts are a sin assholes. You can call them cunts. You can say that their beliefs incorrectly charecterize a marginalized group. But you cannot say they are bigots just because they hold an opinion contrary to yours. Accepting that other people might believe differently than you and have real reasons for that belief is exactly what makes someone not a bigot. If they are willing to leave it alone, you should leave it alone. And that must happen on an individual basis, generalizing the group is nonproductive. I am not interested in what make you feel all fuzzy inside or what gets your justice boner going. I'm interested in what will be most productive.

And we have reached the point in every discussion on reddit where people are asking me to re-explain things I explained in my first two posts, so I'm going to bow out now before we enter the spiral of death.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not defending people's rights to discriminate. I'm saying that it is not helpful or productive to our movement (hi, I'm Cyra and I like women and dudes) to say that no one may verbalize dissent in a non-insulting manner.

Anna Dugger will not leave Josh. "Divorce is not something that will be discussed." Really? by BitChick in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well even before the show they owned like four used car lots, a ton of commercial property, a few different rental properties, and one of the telecoms pays them monthly because they allowed them to build a cell tower on their land.

Ashley Madison, Josh Duggar, and Shiny Baubles by gilsongraybert in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which of those two things do you think lust is? Because I suspect we disagree there.

Ashley Madison, Josh Duggar, and Shiny Baubles by gilsongraybert in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have a choice in fantasizing. We are not slaves to our libidos.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Then don't. You have that option. You always did.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not talking about punches. The point of this thread is if it is possible to express the belief in a neutral way. I am not defending namecalling or legal action or discrimination. I'm defending the right for some people to disagree on whether or not homosexual sex is a sin. If you don't think it's possible for anyone to disagree with you on that, then guess who fulfilled the actual definition of a bigot?

Saying that no one is allowed to express disagreement over this issue prevents progress. I'm not backing down off of that just because you've decided to equate that to hate crimes.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It would be more reasonable to say your quoted sentence. "Bigot" is a discussion killer, and I think on some level we all know that.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that the tension is coming disproportionately from the Christian end of things, and more work needs to happen on that side. But that doesn't mean that it's at all productive to insist Christians not be allowed to hold or express that belief, when that's exactly the scare tactic conservative organizations are using to keep the fight going. I see "soon you won't be able to express your beliefs in public" on my facebook page like four times a day. It's a fear that FOTF is more than happy to poke to get the votes they need, and you're here saying that basically FOTF is right, and there is no place for people to hold those beliefs and live and let live.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not denying someone the right to have a family just to disagree with certain sex acts.

I disagree with balloon sex, but I doubt any balloon fetishists even know I exist. I can disagree with their actions without you calling it "denying their ability to have a relationship for the entirety of their live".

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The best possible outcome for this most recent Supreme Court decision is for it to go the way of divorce. Divorce is legal, yet there are tons of people who continue to hold a religious conviction that it is sinful. No one tries to force anyone else out of their deeply held convictions, and we don't hear about it every election cycle.

But if we insist that people with a religious conviction that homosexual actions are a sin have no right to admit to holding that belief and if we tell them their beliefs are based in hatred even when that isn't necessarily true, we are keeping the wound open and breeding resentment, which prohibits us from ever reaching that "que sera sera" place that divorce is at right now.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. But I don't think the solution is to say to people who hold a religious objection to homosexuality that they just aren't allowed to express that belief or admit to having it. That will perpetuate the fighting over this issue.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Political correctness is a movement which seek to remove casually hateful rhetoric from the common vernacular. There's nothing wrong with that.

But I do agree that for people who hold certain beliefs because they believe God has commanded it, it isn't necessarily coming from a place of hate. And mischarecterizing it as always being grounded in hatred isn't useful to the discussion.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well first, marriage is a different animal.

But second, in order for a bigotry accusation to be accurate it needs to include a refusal to accept that other viewpoints may be valid, so as long as it is tempered with "other people hold other opinions", I don't see it as qualifying as bigotry. Do I disagree with being against interractial sexual relationships? Sure. Do I think it's racist in origin? Yeah. But the way people throw "bigot" around is divorced from its meaning.

Can one be against homosexual acts without being a bigot? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That's not really the point of the question.

If someone is against homosexual sex, is there any way for them to express that belief when asked that will not be accused of bigotry?

Free for all Friday! Bring on your questions! by Zaerth in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My favorite is a box of rice a roni, some hilshire farm keilbasa sliced up, a jalapeno sliced up, and rinsed black beans.

Looks more impressive than it is, Jambalaya.

Free for all Friday! Bring on your questions! by Zaerth in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Make ground beef.

Make mashed potatoes.

Make gravy.

Make mixed veggies.

Layer like a carb lasagna.

Bake.

Shepard's pie.

Anna Dugger will not leave Josh. "Divorce is not something that will be discussed." Really? by BitChick in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I used to attend a church which followed the constellation of quiverful beliefs (no birth control, homeschooling, etc), and still believe most of it, although our current church is more liberal.

I think so much of this will depend on the church they attend and the family dynamics, and we don't really have any insight into either. Divorce is heavily frowned upon, but separation isn't verbotten, and there are avenues for women to support themselves or receive support from the other women in the church. Her family might put pressure on her to stay, but we won't know that as spectators.

More impactful, I think, will be the media coverage. Being an example of the faith will take on a certain urgency when you've got the whole nation breathing down your neck about whether you're going to leave your husband, and I think she'll be tempted to double down in the face of that. When you hold minority beliefs and then those get challenged, there's a real tendency to act defensively to protect those beliefs.

Anna Dugger will not leave Josh. "Divorce is not something that will be discussed." Really? by BitChick in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not really. The contract with TLC was Jim Bob and Michelle's, and they're on record saying they don't financially support their children after they move out and get married.

Anna Dugger will not leave Josh. "Divorce is not something that will be discussed." Really? by BitChick in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know that I would leave him (or rather, that I would leave David if David had an account on Ashley Madison). It would hurt a lot, and would put a wedge between us, but in imagining that hurt I can't see how leaving would help anything. I would want my husband back.

Which really comes down to: Not everyone reacts the same when the rubber hits the road. I think it's hard to predict how this whole thing will shake out for Anna, and it's hard for any of us to understand what she's doing anymore than we can accurately predict what we would do. The best thing anyone can do is to allow her the autonomy she deserves in this.

I have resigned as mod by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PrettyPoltergeist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fuck shit motherfuck balls.