Saturday News Links – August 31, 2013

The Council for Marriage warns that lesbians are coming for your seed and your child support if you are a man –

Profile of former Exodus leader Alan Chambers –

Pat Robertson tells women that they can’t compete with the babes in boyfriend’s porn so just dump him –

Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio was busy this week claiming that various historical figures were merely demon possessed , including Mark Twain and Charles Darwin. –

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


About Suzanne Calulu
  • Retha Faurie

    That council for marriage story is one of the most fact-free things I read in a long time. The mind boggles.

  • Retha Faurie

    I looked up the original article on lesbian marriages exploiting men, the one David R Usher wrote, and it seems more MRA than Christian fundamentalism. It is one of those screeds that sees children not as people to be loved, but as just a tool by which women get money out of men.

    In that view:
    two women marriages = two tricksters potentially getting money out of men.
    woman-man marriages = sucker volunteering to give money to woman and her
    children, with man also a potential victim for any female trickster who wants his money
    two men marriages = two potential victims to trick into giving money
    heterosexual divorce = woman tricking man out of sex while still demanding his

    If they actually saw children as people to be loved, and if the woman they slept with was just into money, I am sure they could tell the court that they want custody, the mother see the child as just a money-making tool. Men who ask for custody are statistically rather likely to get it.

    And if they were equally loving as the mother, they could ask for shared custody. That usually plays out with them having the children half the time, and paying the children’s expenses that half the time, and not one cent paid to the mother.

    But their way of seeing children tell me more about their attitudes than about those of women.

    And even seen through the MRA glasses of women as tricksters and children
    as tools of women’s trade, his view still is the epitome of irrationality:

    1) It suggests that gay men will be entrapped into giving children to these women. (How?)

    2) And it suggests that the problem of women tricking men will somehow worsen if two tricksters pool resources by marrying. (He did not envision lesbian marriage per se, but convenience marriages between two women.) I see no way how this will worsen the tricking, and two women could pool resources now without marrying.

  • Theo Darling

    In my experience, Christian fundamentalism is not super unlike MRA culture…