Fundie Retreat to Marry Off Children ~ Vaughn Ohlman

[Cleopatra7]

10 minutes ago, foreign fundie said:

I have this Indian friend who wants to marry. So I asked him if he would find his own girl or if his family would make a match. He goes, 'well I tried it myself and it didn't work out, so I'll just let my parents choose.'

And I have other Indian friends who did not meet in person before their wedding and do not object to their arranged marriage. So I think if it is the cultural norm it is not necessarily bad. Everybody goes through the same akward period. Whole families are involved and support the couple and usually the young people are asked for their opinion and can veto. 

But in the West arranged marriages are the domain of the controlling creepy patriarchs, who just want to show how much authority they have. It is as natural as an American eating a thanksgiving turkey with chopsticks. 

 

I would also imagine that Indian American arranged marriages are happening between grown, educated adults, not barely educated SOTDRT teenagers. While child marriages do take place in India proper, as far as I know, it's not happening in the US, as Indian Americans are one of the most educated demographics, something that doesn't happen if you're marrying off thirteen year olds. 

[SweetFellowshipper]

8 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I would also imagine that Indian American arranged marriages are happening between grown, educated adults, not barely educated SOTDRT teenagers. While child marriages do take place in India proper, as far as I know, it's not happening in the US, as Indian Americans are one of the most educated demographics, something that doesn't happen if you're marrying off thirteen year olds. 

It is a far different process, somewhat like a far less religious, far less restrictive courtship, actually. Compatibility is measured on a variety of levels, and the families are just more involved than they would be in dating. And engagements are shorter. 

[smittykins]

26 minutes ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

Only New Hampshire (13 is minimum age with parental consent) and Virginia (under 16 only in cases of pregnancy, which wouldn't apply here) have minimum ages under 15. I assume that's why they claimed the "ideal" age was 15-18. 

In New York, 14-15 year olds can marry with parental and judicial consent(16-17 just need parental consent).

[devoe364]

26 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I would also imagine that Indian American arranged marriages are happening between grown, educated adults, not barely educated SOTDRT teenagers. While child marriages do take place in India proper, as far as I know, it's not happening in the US, as Indian Americans are one of the most educated demographics, something that doesn't happen if you're marrying off thirteen year olds. 

I will definitely agree whole heartedly with this. One of my friends considering an arranged match speaks 11 Indian dialects, English and Madrin Chinese. She has two University degrees. If she and the guy who here parents pick out end up dating for awhile and it doesn't work out it isn't a HUGE deal - although if she agreed to marry him and backed out, it would be.

Edited for clarity

[SweetFellowshipper]

2 minutes ago, smittykins said:

In New York, 14-15 year olds can marry with parental and judicial consent(16-17 just need parental consent).

Oh yeah, I should have remembered that from the Duggars SVU episode. 

[docmom]

35 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

I would also imagine that Indian American arranged marriages are happening between grown, educated adults, not barely educated SOTDRT teenagers.

There is a world of difference between arranged Indian American marriages in which educated, ADULTS are included in the decision and have absolute veto power and the sale of children who have no input and no right to say no as advocated by this lunatic.

What is it  that makes your average underachieving "reformed" blowhard feel that they have discovered the only true way and that this knowledge gives them unlimited power over all the rest of humanity? 

You know, kind of like they were gods themselves.  Wonder if they've read the first commandment?

[FundieFarmer]

Say what you want about Reformers and Reformed beliefs, but it's worth saying this is not normal. It seems to be some weird, off-shoot thing. Reformed beliefs have their flaws, like every other belief system, but I wouldn't say this is something everyone would condone. I've never heard of anyone setting up a marriage even remotely like this in Reformed circles. Everyone I know in the Reformed community would be horrified and appalled to hear that someone was claiming that to be a justification for this sort of human trafficking. 

ETA: 

6 hours ago, uber frau said:

(although it's not very common,and the mere fact that ppl identify w 'Reformed' label is a red flag, IME.)

Um, you could put anything else in there and it wouldn't read as PC, but Reformed is okay? Does this read alright? 

Quote

(although it's not very common,and the mere fact that ppl identify w 'Muslim/Catholic/Pagan/whathaveyou' label is a red flag, IME.)

Just pointing out that no matter what you put in there, it's kind of a closed-minded statement. There are people past their religion, and a person's religion doesn't have to be a red flag if you don't let it.

[Jucifer]

I just read on Raw Story that the 'let them marry' get together, or whatever they were calling it, has been cancelled.

The Salvation Army owns the campground where it was to happen. When they heard more details about the event they pulled the plug.

I would post a link but I'm on my phone and IDK how...

[devoe364]

34 minutes ago, Jucifer said:

I just read on Raw Story that the 'let them marry' get together, or whatever they were calling it, has been cancelled.

The Salvation Army owns the campground where it was to happen. When they heard more details about the event they pulled the plug.

I would post a link but I'm on my phone and IDK how...

The event has been cancelled - they just no longer have that venue. 

[SilverBeach]

1 hour ago, FundieFarmer said:

Say what you want about Reformers and Reformed beliefs, but it's worth saying this is not normal. It seems to be some weird, off-shoot thing. Reformed beliefs have their flaws, like every other belief system, but I wouldn't say this is something everyone would condone. I've never heard of anyone setting up a marriage even remotely like this in Reformed circles. Everyone I know in the Reformed community would be horrified and appalled to hear that someone was claiming that to be a justification for this sort of human trafficking. 

ETA: 

Um, you could put anything else in there and it wouldn't read as PC, but Reformed is okay? Does this read alright? 

Just pointing out that no matter what you put in there, it's kind of a closed-minded statement. There are people past their religion, and a person's religion doesn't have to be a red flag.

I am a member of a reformed denomination that carries none of the beliefs and practices of this whack job, the Duggars, and/or the Bates. I don't know why they are deemed reformed, as they do no associate with reformed congregations.

[slickcat79]

1 hour ago, FundieFarmer said:

ETA: 

6 hours ago, uber frau said:

(although it's not very common,and the mere fact that ppl identify w 'Reformed' label is a red flag, IME.)

Um, you could put anything else in there and it wouldn't read as PC, but Reformed is okay? Does this read alright? 

Quote

(although it's not very common,and the mere fact that ppl identify w 'Muslim' label is a red flag, IME.)

Just pointing out that no matter what you put in there, it's kind of a closed-minded statement. There are people past their religion, and a person's religion doesn't have to be a red flag.

That's apples to oranges. "Muslim" is a hugely broad group, as is Christianity. "Reformed" is much more narrow. Also, whatever your religious identification, that's a choice that you made. It isn't as if someone is judging based on some innate criterion that has always existed and can't be changed.  

For that matter, why shouldn't one individual see red flags wherever they want to see them, based on their background and experiences? If someone told me that they were Mormon or Republican or in a damn sorority, I'd want to proceed with caution. It doesn't mean that there aren't and can't be nice and decent people among those groups, but I'd want to know more about them before establishing a connection.

FFS, this entire board exists for the purpose of observing, critiquing, discussing, mocking, expressing concern/disgust over other people based mostly on their professed religious beliefs. Since when has "PC" ever entered the equation?

[FundieFarmer]

I edited as you were writing, @slickcat79. My statement now says not just "Muslim", but also "Catholic/Pagan/whathaveyou."

I would agree that we aren't necessarily PC, but my personal thought is that I always try to think about what I'm saying and whether or not I would think it appropriate to apply to other groups before I applied it to one we are discussing here. I didn't think that comment made sense to apply only to reformers, considering how bad it sounds limited to another singular religious group.

[EyeQueue]

Guess he couldn't stand the heat, because his blog is now private.

So much for being willing to engage with others who don't hold their views as long as everyone is being polite and respectful. None of the comments I saw where people were asking him questions were rude.

But we saw this coming, right? Put a little pressure on some of their views and shed light on how this isn't the 18th century (or the 14th or the 1st CE) and they pack up their toy sand fence up the sandbox and put a big lock on it.

[bjr70]

Many of my Indian co-workers feel that way, however they have all told me that they have the power to veto their parents choice and say no if they find something about the man/woman objectionable. These objections usually get raised VERY early on.

I've heard the same thing from my friends. Their parents found their spouse, but it was up to the couple to decide to marry and either of them could refuse. More matchmaking than truly arranged.

[ladyamylynn]

16 minutes ago, FundieFarmer said:

I edited as you were writing, @slickcat79. My statement now says not just "Muslim", but also "Catholic/Pagan/whathaveyou."

I would agree that we aren't necessarily PC, but my personal thought is that I always try to think about what I'm saying and whether or not I would think it appropriate to apply to other groups before I applied it to one we are discussing here. I didn't think that comment made sense to apply only to reformers, considering how bad it sounds limited to another singular religious group.

You can't compare a small sect like this brand of Reformed theology to Islam as a whole. However, I think a pretty apt comparison would be to Wahhabism, adherence to which I would consider a huge red flag. 

[devoe364]

20 minutes ago, bjr70 said:

I've heard the same thing from my friends. Their parents found their spouse, but it was up to the couple to decide to marry and either of them could refuse. More matchmaking than truly arranged.

Part of that is because most of my Indian friends are from higher castes (many actively fight against that caste system) and have a better education then lower caste counterparts. All of them will admit that arranged marriage the way this guy does them are sitll done in poorer and more rural areas...

But then isn't that how it goes? The educated progress and those with less education don't. The Duggars are a great example of that.

[Baabaablacksheep]

51 minutes ago, EyeQueue said:

Guess he couldn't stand the heat, because his blog is now private.

So much for being willing to engage with others who don't hold their views as long as everyone is being polite and respectful. None of the comments I saw where people were asking him questions were rude.

But we saw this coming, right? Put a little pressure on some of their views and shed light on how this isn't the 18th century (or the 14th or the 1st CE) and they pack up their toy sand fence up the sandbox and put a big lock on it.

Some commenters over on the Love Joy Feminism article about this were suggesting reporting Vaughn to state boards as he holds an LVN and an EMS license - you have to wonder if it was a move to protect himself from legal repercussions as you can imagine the boards finding these types of ideas...disturbing to say the least.

[refugee]

2 minutes ago, Baabaablacksheep said:

he holds an LVN and an EMS license

What are these, please?

[Baabaablacksheep]

Just now, refugee said:

What are these, please?

LVN - Licensed Vocational Nurse

EMS - Emergency Medical Service (EMT)

I haven't personally verified that he holds either of these licenses, but someone commenting at LJF said he did.

[refugee]

Just now, Baabaablacksheep said:

LVN - Licensed Vocational Nurse

EMS - Emergency Medical Service (EMT)

I haven't personally verified that he holds either of these licenses, but someone commenting at LJF said he did.

Oh, cheese.

With his fixation on breasts, I'd hate to be a patient, if he does hold either of these licenses and practices in the occupational field.

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, EyeQueue said:

Guess he couldn't stand the heat, because his blog is now private.

So much for being willing to engage with others who don't hold their views as long as everyone is being polite and respectful. None of the comments I saw where people were asking him questions were rude.

But we saw this coming, right? Put a little pressure on some of their views and shed light on how this isn't the 18th century (or the 14th or the 1st CE) and they pack up their toy sand fence up the sandbox and put a big lock on it.

Re: bolded. Not a surprise that a patriarchal pervert like Vaughn Ohlman is also a chickenshit coward.

[Jucifer]

Per raw story, letthemmarry.org has added a statement at the top of their web page:

"Note: Contrary to vicious internet rumors we do not support or in any way condone child sexual activity of any sort, child marriage, or any other illegal activity. Nor do we support or condone forced marriages. We believe that parents should NOT seek a spouse for a child where that child has not actively sought for the parents to do so."

Update: The Salvation Army of Wichita/Sedgwick County released a statement on the group’s decision, as seen below.

The Salvation Army has denied a request by the Let Them Marry organization to conduct its event at Camp Hiawatha.
Our decision is based upon our long-standing concern for the welfare of children. At The Salvation Army, we work every single day to provide a safe, caring place for children, many of whom have been left vulnerable due to the actions of adults.

We remain steadfastly focused on our mission of advocating for and protecting children.

Update, 7:15 p.m. EST: Ohlman’s group said on its website that the event has been canceled."

[slickcat79]

8 minutes ago, Jucifer said:

Note: Contrary to vicious internet rumors we do not support or in any way condone child sexual activity of any sort, child marriage, or any other illegal activity. Nor do we support or condone forced marriages. We believe that parents should NOT seek a spouse for a child where that child has not actively sought for the parents to do so

If he believes that people as young as 15 should be allowed to marry, how does that not support child sexual activity? Obviously the children are expected to have sex once they marry, and start popping out babies before their eggs get too old.

[Thumb of Justice]

I think I know the basis for his bizarre statement that the government teaches five year-olds about anal sex.  Kindergarteners who venture away from the SOTDRT are now often exposed to the fact that there are gay families out there. My own kids had a lovely picture book about gay penguins making a family; there's that old classic, "Heather has Two Mommies", and tons more.  At my kids' school, I volunteered in the library and remember a book about  little kids whose parents divorce because the dad is gay, and it shows the dad with his new male partner. 

The fact that little kids can be exposed to the idea that some people are not straight = anal sex in his eyes. Gays are all about buttsex.  Never mind that heterosexual people have anal sex as well and that not all gay people do. There's an obsession with anal sex with homophobes.  

And this guy definitely spends too much time obsessing about sex. I was creeped out by the fact that he put that verse about tits as the header of his blog: 

Just Get Married

Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

How many times a day do you think he gropes his wife and tells her he needs to be satisfied by her breasts? The man thinks too much about tits.

p.s. I was reading his blog right when he shut down the public access.  I clicked to go to a different entry, and I'd been cut off!  Sob.

[Buzzard]

2 hours ago, EyeQueue said:

Guess he couldn't stand the heat, because his blog is now private.

So much for being willing to engage with others who don't hold their views as long as everyone is being polite and respectful. None of the comments I saw where people were asking him questions were rude.

But we saw this coming, right? Put a little pressure on some of their views and shed light on how this isn't the 18th century (or the 14th or the 1st CE) and they pack up their toy sand fence up the sandbox and put a big lock on it.

Thats kind of what we do best!

"Made my blog private" is a post count for a reason