Does anybody know where the Duggars attend church? So far I haven't seen anyone post this information.
My take:
I think ALL of these kinds of shows (the Duggars, the Gosselins, etc.) run on the ragged edge of child exploitation and should be stopped. Children - and I don't care how well-behaved or not they are - should not be forced to grow up and have every private and personal thing in their lives thrown out on TV for all the world to see. None of these children is ever going to have anything remotely resembling a normal life; any chance for anonymity is gone. Their lives have become a freak show.
For the record, I have not watched even ONE episode of ANY of these shows, as I will not endorse such exploitation.
Singermom said:ALL of these kinds of shows (the Duggars, the Gosselins, etc.) run on the ragged edge of child exploitation and should be stopped. Children - and I don't care how well-behaved or not they are - should not be forced to grow up and have every private and personal thing in their lives thrown out on TV for all the world to see.
For the record, I have not watched even ONE episode of ANY of these shows, as I will not endorse such exploitation.
idk, i definitely agree that a woman has the right to do whatever she has with her body, whether that means having one child or 12.. it's her prerogative, but it doesn't even look like she raises her own kids. I've seen the show regularly, and anytime one girl is old enough she gets put on the "buddy system" and raises her sibling. That doesn't seem like a life 15,16, or 17 year old girl should have, but that's just my opinion.
You must be awfully young because in my day, all older siblings were asked at some point to watch their younger brothers and sisters.
My older children watch their younger brothers and sisters all the time.
Why do you think that having responsibilities within a family isn't "a life a 15, 16, or 17 year old girl should have"? At what point do you believe they should be given responsibilities within the family?
i think those kids will be great parents when theyre older because theyre repeatedly exposed to the process of raising children and all the little things that go into it as well.
i think kids should have responsibilities when theyre about 5. not to take care of other children, but the other things that go into running a household. i was at least drying dishes at that age.
You must be awfully young because in my day, all older siblings were asked at some point to watch their younger brothers and sisters.
My older children watch their younger brothers and sisters all the time.
Why do you think that having responsibilities within a family isn't "a life a 15, 16, or 17 year old girl should have"? At what point do you believe they should be given responsibilities within the family?
As do I. How do we expect girls to know how to be mothers when we don't allow them any interaction with young children?
Same here. I was given a small piece of our family's garden and I was told that that plot was my responsibility. Six or seven years old and I grew tomatoes, squash, okra, etc. At dinner, we would go around the table and our parents would tell who grew what.
The point was that we were made to understand that we had a part to play in the family and that others depended on us to carry out our responsibilities.
therex said:Teenagers should have time to just do kid things, like go to the mall or date.
It makes me very sad to think the only goal in life they have is to be mothers, because that's all they've been indoctrinated to believe.
I mean, being a mother and wife is a wonderful thing, but it shouldn't be the only identity of a woman (unless that's really what she wants) I do consider the duggars irresponsible parents, who are acting on selfish impulses based on some obscure bible passage.
As a general rule of thumb, if liberals hate something, the thing they hate is probably good.Liberals seem to hate them because they think they're having too many kids. I therefore have no reason to have any problem with them.
Because being a mother and wife is not the be all and end all of a woman's life. Her foremost concern should be whether she is a disciple of Christ, not whether she fills some 'role' or not. There is always a chance she might never get married or have kids, and if her upbringing only emphasizes that is what a woman's main 'purpose' is, then she will have felt like she has failed God.And why shouldn't girls be raised to fulfill the roll God has designed them for?
It doesn't make it any less true or authoritative, but it can be misapplied or removed from it's context. If it's removed from it's context and read in isolation, there are many things that can be read into it, which have been known to be potent fodder for cults and charlatans.And just out of curiousity, how is a Bible passage any less true or authoritative just because you consider it to be "obscure"?
Dark Rabbit said:Because being a mother and wife is not the be all and end all of a woman's life. Her foremost concern should be whether she is a disciple of Christ, not whether she fills some 'role' or not.
There is always a chance she might never get married or have kids, and if her upbringing only emphasizes that is what a woman's main 'purpose' is, then she will have felt like she has failed God.
It doesn't make it any less true or authoritative