Hmmm...never quite thought of it like that. Maybe he has a point, or maybe he's like a lot of internet bloggers (right and left) with an ideological axe to grind. I'm trying to figure out your point. Are you defensive about having a large family? Do you feel that, in a time of scarce resources, you need to justify the tremendous amounts you certainly must consume with such a large family?

I have noticed that you toss the word "Christian" in your comparing your family with the Duggars. I'm a Christian but I can't help but feel that in pointing that out, you're being a bit exclusive and condescending. In recent years, I've seen many similar behaviors among so-called "Christians". A good example is a "covenant marriage" where the message seems to be that a regular marriage just isn't good enough if your going to be a true Christian. Maybe the message some people get from a large family advertising how Christian they are, is that maybe a small family just isn't good enough. Personally, I'm happy (and busy) with only two kids.

Seems like there's a lot more divisiveness or petty issues any more. We compete about everything. Many people compete (live vicariously) through their children and it's generally frowned upon. I'm not so cynical as to think that's the reason for having a lot of kids but in moments of weakness, I do wonder about people like the Duggars.

As to "hate speech" there's more than enough of that to go around on both sides. A visit to FreeRepublic.com is a great example. Listen to the likes of Ann Coulter, Michael (Weiner) Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing talking heads. Before calling the "thought police" I suggest the right get it's own very large house in order.

Children are a blessing and I'm thankful for my own. You should stop looking for arguments. Seems to me you have your hands full. Congratulations on your family.

Posted by BillD on August 3, 2007 at 9:53 PM

I think upon reading the full article (thanks for the link) what you perceive as hate is really envy and jealousy:

"Hell, gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.

No, no one says that. That would be mean."

Envy and jealousy that it's "okay" and "not mean" (often sold as 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' which in my book is right in line with folks who claim 'I'm not a racist, but...') for the religious right to cast aspersions about the fitness of gay parents because they fall outside the bounds of 'normal'.

Not that I agree with his language, but after reading the article in its entirety I understand his point of view:

I'm not into big families, so I don't have one. Likewise I'm not into gay marriages, so I don't have one of those either. But if YOU want to have a big gay family, then it's none of my or anyone else's business. Commenting on someone's family/personal life such as the SF Gate Columnist did to the Duggar's because it's not for you and you don't understand it, well, that would be mean.

And the religious right do that to Gay folk/families all the time. It's just mean.

Posted by dw on August 6, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Okay, wait just a minute. While having 17 kids is a bit out there, okay maybe it's quite a ways out there, but here are a couple things to keep in mind.

One, this is not the average "large family." When Americans say large family they usually mean 4 or more children.

Two, it does say in the Bible to be fruitful and multiply. However, the number of children a family has should be limited to how many they can be good and responsible parents to.

Three, seriously? What is the purpose of pretending this is an attack on the American family? It's the same thing as putting Paris Hilton on the local news. It's cheap.

Posted by McBloggy on August 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM

@McBloggy:

"However, the number of children a family has should be limited to how many they can be good and responsible parents to."

In China, that has been determined by the government to be exactly one. The effect on society has been to murder the female children as they will not be able to support the parents when they get old, and now the Chinese young men vastly outnumber the young women. They also executed the head of their equivalent to our FDA presumably due to the recent recalls of poorly produced Chinese goods. While I'm all for personal accountability in government (I think ALL Senators & Representatives as well as the VP and P should be required to enlist at least one close family member to the armed services anytime they vote to send others' children to war), both of these examples from China are pretty over the top -- much more over the top than a 17 member household.

I knew kids from two families that had 6 and 10 children respectively. They knew how to get along better, take care of babies/children better and were in general nicer folks and able to put themselves in other peoples' shoes -- well, 'cuz quite often they were wearing their older brother/sister's shoes. They also tended to be very frugal.

They also had a heck of a support system later on when they were adults. I asked one of them (one of the younger siblings) when we were both first out of college what she thought of it and she said it was an awesome experience and she would like to have a big family as well if it were financially possible. The siblings in both families are still very close today as adults with their own children.

Here again, _I_ may not want a big family but I'll defend YOUR right to live your life as you please without Government interference right up until the point where you try to use the government to impose your family values on me.

Scientologist doesn't want his kid to get medical care? Sucks to be him from my perspective, but I've also seen cases where corrective surgery is performed first on one limb (club foot) and the other foot which is also clubbed 'self corrects' before they can get it under the knife. And the friend that this happened to walks with a permanent limp -- from the one that was surgically corrected. So hey, back off.

There's a lot of weird stuff out there, and that's what makes the US of A the US of A. We've a right to be weird and that right is especially strong when it comes to religion -- be it Calvinist, Catholic, Wiccan or all-out Satanist.

I'm all for teaching religion in school -- as long as you cover them all (or the majors, or the major ones in your area) in a critical comparative format. It'd do an immense amount of good for our children as world citizens to understand the motivation behind the rest of the world. Heck, it'd've been nice to know more about the Amish when I was in highschool If only I knew then what I know about rumspringa! Now there's a religious tenement I could've gotten into. Problem is, most of the time folks don't want religion taught in school, they want THEIR religion taught.

Oh, and I always thought God wanted me to get plenty of fiber and know my times tables. I'm for strict literal interpretation, you see. Kinda silly. Kinda like reading that article and strictly interpreting it as the gay dude hating on the large family, when in fact he's saying that criticizing others for their choice of family 'would be mean' and using the hate rhetoric to drive the point home that 'all of those ugly things he's saying about the large family are said to gay families all the time' usually by the same folks who defend large god-fearing families. Fine rhetoric wasted on literalists.

Interesting reading on what was defined as a family 40 odd years ago. Different players today, but the same nasty bigotry:

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html

Under the heading "I'm not a racist, but"

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Leon Brazile, Loving v. Virginia, expressing the majority viewpoint of the day.

Oh, and the purpose of pretending it's an attack on the American family? It's called a straw man. Set it up, knock it down, and accuse you of being a bad person.

Posted by dw on August 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Whoa little buddy,

1) My comment about limiting children was about personally evaluating how many kids you can raise well. That number is different for everyone and I absolutely believe that number can be as low as zero or as high as 25. It's about knowing yourself and your resources and living the life you want to live.

2) China is becoming a wealthier nation every day (I'm not getting into the safety issues with their exports because I'm still sorting through my daughter's toys right now). The one child rule is fast becoming a thing of the past. Many families are just paying the fine and moving on with their lives. Because of this change in family planning adopting children from China is becoming more difficult all the time because that really isn't a huge issue any longer.

3)Come on now? That article was not an attack on the "American family." Those were words. More than that they were the words of a guy trying to sell papers, not a politician discussing abolishing tax breaks for parents.

4)Relax a little bit. Some friendly banter is great. It can make people consider opinions they might never have otherwise, but yelling in type gets the same reaction as yelling in public. People tend to ignore what you have to say, avoid eye contact, and walk in the other direction. To misquote a wise man for purposes of humor "speak softly and keep your stick to yourself..."

Posted by McBloggy on September 5, 2007 at 12:51 PM