AZ GOP (Republican) vice-chair calls for sterilizing poor women: If you want a baby, get a job

AZ GOP vice-chair calls for sterilizing poor women: If you want a baby, get a job

I am right wing and a Republican. Several left wing sites were reporting this story.

If it’s true, it’s strange and hypocritical. Although I am right wing and socially conservative, I do not agree with the habit of other right wingers and conservative Christians who place too much emphasis on family and marriage.

I’m rather puzzled when any right winger speaks out against helping families or single mothers, as this man has done.

Much of the time, right wingers complain about how single women are having abortions, or they complain about how many women are delaying childbearing or choosing to skip motherhood altogether, or they complain about how secularists and liberals are destroying marriage and the traditional family.

I don’t see how a party can on the one hand, say they support those things, but then turn around and want to punish or shame women who get pregnant prior to marriage but rather than have an abortion, decide to keep and raise the baby? That doesn’t make any sense to me, and I am a right wing Republican myself.

This politician’s views also work against the standard Republican or conservative Christian belief that a woman’s only, or most high calling in life, is to be a wife and mother.

You can’t be consistent by saying on one hand you’re deeply disturbed that women are choosing NOT to be mothers and wish they would chose to be mothers, and also arguing that women were created by God to do nothing but pop babies out (that’s supposedly their “highest calling or role in life”), then turn around and say you want to sterilize women so that they cannot be mothers and have babies.

(Link):  AZ GOP vice-chair calls for sterilizing poor women: If you want a baby, get a job

  • by Travis Gettys
  • Sept 12, 2014
  • The recalled Arizona senate president who proposed the state’s controversial anti-immigration law said he could fix public assistance programs by forcibly sterilizing women who receive aid and by requiring drug tests for all recipients.“You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations,” said Russell Pearce on his weekly talk radio program. Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”He suggested drastic cuts to food assistance for needy families, (Link): reported Phoenix New Times, and he urged strict limits items that could be purchased what little help was available.
  • …“No cash for Ding Dongs and Ho Hos, you’d only get money for 15-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and powdered milk – all the powdered milk you can haul away,” Pearce said. “If you want a steak or frozen pizza, then you’d have to get a job.”He also suggested Spartan accommodations and strict rules for anyone who received government housing assistance.“Ever live in a military barracks?” he said. “You’ll maintain your property in a clean, good state of repair, and your home will be subjected to an inspection at any time, possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or an X-Box 360, then get a job.”Despite his apparent endorsement of draconian policies, Pearce insisted he favored a small-government solution to poverty.

(Link):  AZ Republican Wants to Sterilize Poor Women: ‘If You Want to Reproduce, Get a Job!’

(Link):  Arizona Republican Advises Sterilizing Women On Welfare

Edit. Sept 23, 2014:

(Link): Russell Pearce’s resignation isn’t enough for protestors

(Link):  Top Arizona GOPer Russell Pearce resigns after sterilization comments

  • The far-right former lawmaker who helped push Arizona’s “papers please” immigration law has resigned as a top official with the state GOP after making comments about sterilizing poor women.
  • Russell Pearce, a former state senator, resigned as the party’s first vice chair late Sunday, the Arizona Republican Party announced.
  • On Saturday, the state Democratic Party highlighted comments Pearce made recently on his radio show. Discussing the state’s public assistance programs, Pearce declared: “You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations…Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”
  • The comments were quickly repudiated by Republican candidates for several statewide offices.

—————————————–

Related posts:

OFF SITE:

(Link):  It’s come to this: Planned Parenthood now attacking GOP plans to expand access to birth control

THIS BLOG:

(Link): Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids? by M. Walther

(Link):   Family Research Center (Christian group) thinks people (including the Nuclear Family) should be cut off food stamps

(Link):  Judges who Force Insane, Negligent Women, or Addicts to Get Abortions or Undergo Sterilization – Also: Court Ordered Male Sterilization – Being A Parent Does Not Make A Person More Godly, Mature, or Responsible

(Link):  Are Marriage and Family A Woman’s Highest Calling? by Marcia Wolf – and other links that address the Christian fallacy that a woman’s most godly or only proper role is as wife and mother

(Link): Southern Baptists Pushing Early Marriage, Baby Making – Iranians Pushing Mandatory Motherhood – When Christians Sound Like Muslims

(Link):  Baby Making Fixation at Christianity Today Magazine Online – Shaming Women For Not Procreating, or For Delaying Motherhood, or For Limiting the Number of Children

(Link):  Editorial at Christianity Today Actually Suggests that It Takes Motherhood To Make A Woman Become Mature / Also: Homeless Mother Stays In Hotel Room and Makes Her Toddlers Sleep on the Street

(Link):  Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

(Link): Fox News Channel Guest Encourages Female Host To Quit, Get Married, Have Babies – Look, I’m Right Wing, But Also A Never-Married Woman, and I Find This Obnoxious

(Link):  Christian School Fires Single Woman For Having PreMarital Sex But Offers Her Job to Her Single Boyfriend Who They Know Had PreMarital Sex Too (and similar news stories – Re Christian Employers and Sex)

(Link):  Republicans And Women: Single Women Vote Democratic Because They Wish They Were Married, Pundit Says

(Link): Women in Sao Paulo Must Provide Proof of Virginity to Be Hired as Teachers

Does Helping Out Around The House Mean You’ll Have A Lousy Sex Life?

Does Helping Out Around The House Mean You’ll Have A Lousy Sex Life?

(Link): Does Helping Out Around The House Mean You’ll Have A Lousy Sex Life?

Excerpts:

  • Tue, Apr 29, 2014
  • by Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett
  • Do wives whose husbands help out with “women’s” household jobs have lousy, or less frequent sex? Are women happier in bed when they are married to old fashioned men who don’t help around the house?That’s the suggestion made by Lori Gottlieb in a recent New York Times magazine cover piece entitled,  (Link): Does a More Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex?”Gottlieb, an L.A.-based marriage and family therapist, looked at a (Link): study saying that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex.

    “Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car.”

    This idea resonated with Gottlieb.

    “As a psychotherapist who works with couples, I’ve noticed something similar to the findings. That is, it’s true that being stuck with all the chores rarely tends to make wives desire their husbands. Yet having their partner, say, load the dishwasher — a popular type of marital intervention suggested by self-help books, women’s magazines and therapists alike — doesn’t seem to have much of an effect on their libido, either.”

    Well, duh!   Does anyone really see the dishwasher as an aphrodisiac? And correlation is not causation, as she admits. Does it make sense that a woman will feel a cold chill of indifference when her husband stacks the dishes, but will go wild with lust when he takes out the trash? No. Are other factors at work here? Yes. This is classic junk science — a provocative headline perched on top of flimsy evidence.

    The study itself, by the American Sociological Review, has several problems. To begin with, it is concerned only with sexual frequency, not with the more interesting question of sexual satisfaction. Couples who have infrequent sex may, nevertheless, find their sexual relationship satisfying, while couples with high frequency may not.

    Also, the husbands in the sample, on average, were born somewhere around 1947. Are they too old to represent many of today’s married couples?

  • ….But Gottlieb goes beyond the narrow findings of this study to claim that egalitarian marriages — in which both spouses have jobs, do housework and have a relationship “built on equal power” — essentially zap partners’ libidos. It “may be having an unexpectedly negative impact” on the sex lives of such couples, she claims.True?
  • No, it’s not. There is substantial evidence to show this statement is absolutely wrong.A (Link): study by one of the authors of this article, Dr. Rosalind Barnett, looked at men’s marital happiness and found that, overall, as a woman earns more relative to her husband, his marital quality — including sexual satisfaction — goes up.In another study, Barnett found that among dual-earner couples, the more equal the amount of childcare he and she do, the better she rates the quality of the marriage. The hands-off macho man who stands back while his wife does the lion’s share of the childcare is apt to find himself standing alone. An unhappy wife is not likely to be wildly receptive to her husband’s romantic advances.
  • (click here to read the rest)

—————————————————-

Related posts (kind of related):

(Link): Getting Married Does Not Necessarily Guarantee Frequent Hot Satisfying Sexy Sex / (also discussed): Gender and Sex Stereotypes (article)

(Link): Getting Married Does Not Necessarily Guarantee Frequent Hot Satisfying Sexy Sex – Husband is Sexless for Eight Years (article)

(Link):   Southern Baptist Russell Moore Admits That Christians Have Sexless Marriages

(Link): Jason the Christian’s Sexless Marriage – Christians promise hot regular steamy married sex but it isn’t true

(Link): I’m Afraid to Have Sex with My Husband – from E. Street – Her Sexless Marriage & She Is Visually Oriented, Prefers Hot, Young Studs

(Link):  Married Woman Signing off as “Looking Ahead” Admits to Being in Sexless Marriage for TEN YEARS

(Link): Resident Christian Marriage Advice Writer at Christian Mag Admits Some Christian Marriages are Sexless

(Link):  When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped

(Link):  Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

(Link): Problems Created by Conservative Christian Teachings About Virginity, Sex, and Marriage: Christian Couple Who Were Virgins At Marriage Are Experiencing Sexual Problems – Re: UnVeiled Wife (Marriage does not guarantee great sex)

(Link): AARP post: How to Handle a Sexless Married Life – But Christians Promise You Great Hot Regular Married Sex

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles? by S. Hamaker

Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles?

This link below is from 2012 but is as timely as ever. This will still be pertinent and relevant 20 years from now because I predict the whole of American Christianity will still be failing singles into the future.

(Link): Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles? by Sarah Hamaker

How are they responding? Not very well, that’s how.

Most churches continue to ignore singles, except for the sliver who note we exist but who blame and shame us for being single (as I have blogged about before, with links to examples).

Though I must disagree with the person quoted in the article who said, “church is for women.” No, it’s not.

Women are more marginalized at church than males are. Oh yes, they are, more so than males, click here and read this for an explanation.

Males run all churches. Women are barred from leadership in most churches.

It is breath-taking when Baptists and other denominations bar women from leading, preaching, and teaching…

But then these same Christian males (and a handful of the females who support sexism in churches under the names of “biblical womanhood,” and “gender complementarianism”), complain, moan, and gripe in their books and blogs that “Christianity is too feminized, it is feminizing men, and Christianity is not masculine enough.”

Yeah? If that is so, whose fault it is?

Why, it’s the men who are at fault.

You males prohibit women from leading, preaching or having any meaningful input in churches, yet you have the nerve to complain that church is “too feminine”? It is to laugh.

Preacher John Piper wrote some time ago that he believes that “Christianity is masculine.”

This Piper has many nutty views about women which I shall not get into here, but anyway, if you google for it, you can find many pages about his belief that “Christianity is masculine.”

Here is one page of a million on the issue:
(Link): Piper’s ‘Masculine Christianity’ Actually Emasculates

And goodness help you if you are a never-married and childless woman in Christian circles, because you are the lowest of the low on the totem pole in churches, even below the single males.

(Link): Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles? by Sarah Hamaker

    February 29, 2012

    One can be the loneliest number, especially in the church. Today, there are more singles in the United States than at any other time in history – 43.6 percent of the U.S. adult population are unmarried, according to the 2010 U.S. Census.

    “The number of single adults in the United States has been rapidly approaching the number of married adults, and this is an unprecedented culture shift that is dramatic,” says Barry Danylak, author of Redeeming Singleness. “This is not an American phenomena – it is seen in nearly all of the modernized and industrialized nations.”

    The church, long welcoming to married with children congregants, has been slower to adjust to this demographic shift.
    “At least 80 percent of every denomination do not have a targeted ministry to single adults,” says Dennis Franck, national director for Single Adult/Young Adult Ministries for the Assemblies of God denomination, headquartered in Springfield, Mo.
    “However, the majority of churches are not trying to exclude singles, but they are more marriage and family focused, which means singles are not acknowledged very often.”

    The Rev. Alan Fretto, a single senior in Danbury, Conn., points out, “The church is geared toward children, women and couples. There is very little in most churches for singles, and yet singles dominate the church population. Singles need to be encouraged and included in the process of the church, and should be considered a valuable asset to the church.”

    Continue reading “Pew for One: How Is the Church Responding to Growing Number of Singles? by S. Hamaker”

Misuse of Terms Such As “Traditional Families” by Christians – Re: Kirk Cameron, Homosexual Marriage, and the 2014 Grammys

Misuse of Terms Such As “Traditional Families” by Christians – Re: Kirk Cameron, Homosexual Marriage, and the 2014 Grammys

I don’t agree with homosexuality – I don’t regard it as moral or normal behavior – but, I find that many right wing Christians incorrectly equate the legalization of homosexual marriage, or homosexuality itself, to “an attack on family values” or “an attack on traditional families.”

The Bible, however, seems to define homosexuality, and other types of sexual sin, as being sins against God and one’s own body (ie, as in this verse directed at followers of Christ: (Link): 1 Corinthians 6:12-18) – and not as being against family or culture.

A night or two ago, the 2014 Grammys were televised. I did not watch it because awards shows are boring, but I did see a few articles about the show today. A mass hetero- and homo- sexual wedding ceremony was held on that program.

You can read more about it later, here:
(Link): Grammys 2014: Rush Limbaugh, conservative pundits angered by same-sex marriages during Macklemore & Ryan Lewis performance (off site link)

Remember, I wrote in a previous post how Christians misuse and misapply terms such as “family values”:
(Link): The Term “Family Values” And Its Use By Christians – Vis A Vis story: Grandma Gives Teen Granddaughter a Vibrator.

There is a conflation by evangelicals, Reformed, Baptists, and fundamentalists of the terms or concepts of “family values” and “biblical values.”

I posit that biblical values are not necessarily the same thing as family values.

Right wing, socially conservative Christians tend to measure lifestyle choices and behaviors not necessarily by what the Bible teaches, but what they assume it teaches, or by American cultural norms.

In other words, I find it suspect, troubling, and strange that while these sorts of Christians would no doubt consider themselves “sola scriptura,” that rather than appeal to Scripture to explain why they consider homosexuality or homosexual marriage wrong, they will usually appeal to language such as “family values” or “attacks on traditional families” or “attack on traditional marriage.”

Is homosexuality a sin against God, and does it go against what God has said of homosexuality in the Bible, and should Christians oppose it on those grounds, or should Christians really be running around on blogs and radio shows saying they object to homosexuality on the basis that it does not jibe with their view on what constitutes “family values” or “traditional families,” or that it makes for uncomfortable, prime-time television viewing?

Many right wing, socially conservative, evangelical, Baptist, fundamentalist, and Reformed Christians hold the American, 1950s nuclear family up as the criteria by which to judge changes in society – such as the gaining acceptance of homosexual marriage – rather than holding up the Bible (which purports to tell humanity what God thinks about various topics) as the point of reference.

I consider this tendency by Christians to use phrases such as “traditional family” and “family values” as another indication of how some Christians have turned family, parenting, pro-creating, and marriage into idols- and which the Bible forbids.

If you are going to protest homosexuality or homosexual marriage, and you are a Christian, I would hope you would use the Bible as your grounds for engagement, not “traditional families” rhetoric.

The Bible does not define “traditional family” as being one mom, one dad, and children.

The Bible does not define “traditional family” as being two married lesbians who are raising three kids, or as an uncle raising a nephew.

The Bible does not define a grandma and grandpa who have four grandchildren living with them as being a family, or what God considers the only acceptable expression of a family unit.

There are some cultures, such as in Latin America, where it is normal for three or more generations of flesh and blood relations to live under the same roof.

The Bible has nothing to say about the topic of what defines a family for all people of all cultures and time periods.

The patriarchs and other males in the Bible, the Abrahams, Noahs, Solomons, and King Davids, had three or more wives and ten or more children apiece. I don’t see many Christians, outside of Quiverfull or Reconstructionist- type kooks, who advocate that Christians today revert to having patriarchal family structures.

The Bible does seem to define or understand marriage – as God intended it to be – between one man and one woman, but that is the extent of it (see (Link): Matthew 19:1-9).

The Scriptures do not go on and limit the term or concept of “family” to mean only or even primarily, a man, woman, with children, it only says that a marriage is tantamount to one man married to one woman.

What the Bible does discuss is that God considers sex outside of marriage as being sinful, but it nowhere dictates what God considers an acceptable configuration of adults and children as being a “family.”

The Bible warns against believers placing family above God and above other Christians (see the words of Jesus in (Link): Matthew 10: 34 – 37 or (Link): Matthew 12:46-50).

If you are a Christian, your priority in life is not the “traditional family.”

Of course, if you are a Christian, you should provide for your family members (1 Timothy 5:8), but if one of your main motivators in life is defending what you consider “traditional families” from societal changes or homosexual lobbies or homosexual special interest groups, that may be an indication that you have turned the “traditional family” into an idol.

Jesus Christ did not die on the cross to defend “traditional families,” “family values” or “traditional marriage.”

The Apostle Paul did not instruct the new converts in pagan Greek cities he ministered to to rise up and challenge the ungodly climate of their host cities, but to go about their lives quietly, helping each other, and spreading the Gospel message.

Christians such as actor Kirk Cameron, who bloviate about “family” constantly, keep forgetting that there are Christians who are over the age of 30 and older, who have never married, who have no living relatives left to turn to, or they are widowed and childless; they don’t have a “traditional family” to provide them with emotional support or financial help.

Christians constantly complaining that “traditional families” are being attacked by liberals, feminists, or homosexuals keep maintaining this illusion, which is not biblical, that all Christians have a spouse and children to lean on, or that they should.

The Bible upholds being single or childless by choice – or circumstance – as being acceptable to God; God does not “look down his nose” at singles or the childless and deem them “less Christian” or less worthy of help, time, and financial support.

Why do I never see the Kirk Camerons, the evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Reformed Christians, discuss how, say, homosexual marriage may negatively be impacting “Singles Values,” the un-married Christian celibates?

I’ve seen only a very small number of Christian writers discuss how the cultural acceptance of homosexuality has influenced Christian, adult singles, such as:

      (Link):

Same Sex Marriage and the Single (hetero) Christian

      (hosted on “Christianity Today”), by Katelyn Beaty
    “How marriage-happy churches are unwittingly fueling same-sex coupling—and leaving (hetero) singles like me in the dust.”

And I’ve weighed in the topic in blog posts such as:

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

(Link): Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

Why do Cameron and his ilk only express concern over how homosexuality, and other phenomenon, may be impacting “families” and “marriages?” Does he and those like him not care how cultural trends shape or influence un-married Christians over the age of 30?

An atheist blogger wrote a post about former atheist now turned Christian, actor Kirk Cameron, and his comments about the 2014 Grammys:
(Link): Kirk Cameron: The Grammys Were An ‘Assault on the Traditional Family’… Now Buy My Movie!

Excerpt:

    January 27, 2014 By Hemant Mehta

  • Kirk Cameron, Protector of the Family, Defender of the Faith, and Speaker of the Bullshit, took to Facebook today to announce that the mass-wedding at last night’s Grammy Awards during Macklemore and Ryan Lewis‘ performance of the pro-LGBT song “Same Love” was an “all out assault on the traditional family.”

Most everyone – the atheists, homosexual marriage supporters, and the emergent, liberal, ex Christians, are hopping angry over Cameron’s disapproval of homosexual marriage, but what escapes the attention of all these critics is Cameron’s improper, unbiblical fixation on elevating marriage and family to a sphere that even the Bible does not do.

On (Link): that page, the blogger provides a screen capture of Cameron’s Facebook page comments.

What Cameron said in part was:

    How did you like the Grammy’s all out assault on the traditional family last night?

  • As a husband and a father, I am proud to announce the release of my new family movie, MERCY RULE. Last night, the lines were drawn thick and dark.
  • Now more than ever, we must work together to create the world we want for our children.
  • [omit rest of his comment]

While all the atheists and others are spazzing out over Cameron not being cool with homosexual marriage, I instead note his fixation on flesh and blood family.

Cameron did not simply say, “As a Christian, I am…”

No.

He prefaced one of his comments by saying, “As a husband and a father, I am….”

Why did Cameron find it relevant to mention that he is a “husband and father” when introducing his movie?

Why does he seemingly feel that one has to be a parent and spouse to support, believe in, or live by, biblical values?

Look at this other line by Cameron:

    Now more than ever, we must work together to create the world we want for our children.

I am over 40 years of age, have never married, and have never had any children. I am very put off that so many Christians make these assumptions that any and all other Christians are also married with children.

There seems to me to be something wrong with a Christian apologetic mindset that predicates and presupposes flesh- and- blood family so much and so often.

When the Apostle Paul – who never married or had children – talked to un-believers, he said that he preached “Christ and Him crucified,” and not, “My God, man, think of your children and mine! What about family values?”

When Paul and other New Testament writers talked about sexual sin, they did not appeal to “family values.”

The biblical writers instead got into other arguments, about God’s intention for creating sex, and how, who, and when, and if, people should have sex, and so forth.

No where did Paul or the other biblical writers say,
“Do not have pre-marital sex, commit adultery, or homosexual acts, because FAMILY VALUES!!!1111!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!111!!!!11!!”

Are there consequences for a society, for the 1950s nuclear family model, and to people’s emotional and physical health, in regards to sexual behavior and rampant sexual sin across culture and in popular entertainment?

Yes, there can be, and there has been, I suppose.

But the Bible does not use “family values,” “our children’s future,” or “traditional family” as supporting arguments to convince people to drop sexual sin.

I don’t know if I am totally against the use of phrases such as “family values” or “traditional families” (and similar ones) per se (you may find me slipping and using them myself from time to time so ingrained are they in my Baptist and evangelical upbringing), but I am concerned that idolization of marriage and family by evangelical Christianity runs so deep that these phrases, or the very things themselves, are being held up as the norm, the standard, or measuring rod for culture and morals, rather than the God and Bible they claim to believe in.

January 30, 2014 update:

Huffington Post (a left wing site) published this:
(Link): Kirk Cameron Thinks Grammys’ Gay Marriages Were An ‘Assault On The Traditional Family’

Excerpt:

    The post [by Cameron] was, undoubtedly, a means of self-promotion for the 43-year-old’s newest flick, “Mercy Rule,” which co-stars his wife and is apparently about “family, faith and baseball.” Self-promotion drenched in homophobia, that is.

Other media mentioned Cameron’s Facebook comments, such as:

(Link): Kirk Cameron blasts Grammy Awards’ mass wedding

(Link): Kirk Cameron slams gay marriage after Grammys

(Link): Kirk Cameron Calls Grammys Gay Weddings an “Assault on the Traditional Family”

(Link): Kirk Cameron Bashes Grammys’ Gay Marriages, Uses Homophobia To Promote New Film

Cameron’s problem is not ‘homophobia’ – it’s family idolatry.
—————————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): If Family is Central, Christ is Not

(Link): ‘Family values’ Republican: Men should be allowed to grab breastfeeding women’s nipples in public

(Link): Fanatical, Violent Muslims ALSO Revere “Family Values”

IIRC, Kirk Cameron has rubbed shoulders with the kooks of the patriarchy movement; perhaps he is not aware of some of their unbiblical, extreme views about marriage, being childless, single, etc:
(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

44% of the U.S., adult population is now single [update, Nov 2014: this figure is now over 50%, see this post] – and many are childless (including some married couples) – and churches are not ministering to these groups (as they should be doing), but continue to bash them for being single and childless
(some Christian single women wanted to marry, but there were no Christian men their age for them to marry):
(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Ageism in the Church – The Insufferable, Obnoxious Fixation on the Under-25s Demographic

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy

(Link): The New Homophiles: A Closer Look (article) Re: Christian Homosexual Celibates and Christian Homosexual Virgins

(Link): Parenthood Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

(Link): Famous Preacher Claims Obama is Paving Way For Anti Christ Vis A Vis Legalization of Homosexual Marriage

(Link): Study: Conservative Protestants’ divorce rates spread to their red state neighbors (Divorce Rates Higher Among Conservative Protestant Christians)

(Link): The Way We Never Were (book – Family Idol)

(Link): Idolizing Family by David McCrory / Familial Idolization by Christians

(Link): Mormons and Christians Make Family, Marriage, Having Children Into Idols

(Link): Homosexual Father Arrested for Raping His Nine Year Old Son, Filming it For Perverted Friends, Lets Friend Rape His Kid, Resulting in Kid Getting STD – Parenthood Does Not Make People More Godly or Mature

(Link): Being Against Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Homophobe (editorial by a homosexual man)

(Link): Focus on the Family Members Practice Infidelity or Homosexuality and Get Divorced and Remarry – links to exposes

(Link): Do Married Couples Slight Their Family Members as Well as Their Friends? / “Greedy Marriages”

(Link): Why Do Christians Ask if Homosexuals Can Change Their Orientation – Why Not Explain that Celibacy is an Option?

(Link): Married Youth Pastor Father of Four Caught Raping and Molesting Several Little Boys claims the molesting kept the boys sexually pure and cures them of homosexuality

(Link): Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

(Link): Stigmas and Stereotypes of Single Unmarried Men Over 25 or 30 Years of Age – They’re Supposedly All Homosexual or Pedophiles