Friends with the enemy
(Nice thought, eh?)
Glenn Stanton is a friend of mine. He’s also badly wrong about same-sex marriage, and I tell him so—frequently, publicly, and sharply.Some background:
Glenn has written about our relationship in the January issue of Christianity Today, where he describes us as “highly unlikely but dear friends.” It’s a good description.
Glenn Stanton works for Focus on the Family, and has published a book called “Marriage on Trial.”
In that book, Glenn Stanton cites the Dutch Study to portray gay men as non-monogamous, despite the fact that this study required its participants to be non-monogamous.
From page 65,
Monogamy in male homosexual relationships is difficult to sustain, even in long-term relationships  And if we can’t expect monogamy of homosexual males in marriage, the social-norms bar gets lowered for everyone, making it even more difficult to expect in of heterosexual males.And what does that footnote  include? The Dutch Study, a study that REQUIRED its participants to be non-monogamous.
Glenn Stanton thinks it’s ok to lie, and John Corvino thinks that Glenn Stanton’s lying is acceptable, and 365gay.com thinks Corvino’s approval of Stanton’s dishonesty is acceptable.
In addition, from page 24 of Marriage on Trial:
Question 3. Shouldn’t two people who love one another be allowed to commit themselves to one another?In other words, if you're gay, you're too stupid to know that your love is any different than that between a parent or child, or athletes, or coworkers, or soldiers, or moms and dads, or brothers and sisters, or pupils and coworkers, etc., etc., etc.
Answer. Yes. But we don’t’ always call it marriage. Parents commit themselves to their children, but they aren’t married. Friends love and commit themselves to each other, but they aren’t married. Coworkers, athletes and soldiers can even love each other and enjoy great commitment, but we don’t call it marriage.
But hopefully, if people like Glenn Stanton surreptitiously dance around the subject like that, no one will notice that what they're really saying is that gay people are just too stupid to know the difference between their romantic relationships, and their relationships with their parents, or anyone else for that matter. But don't tell gay people that, they'll get offended, and start persecuting us for our "deeply held moral beliefs."
So thank you John Corvino, for giving credence to the notion that we should overlook the actions of “friends” -- who promote for a living -- the idea that we are blithering idiots when it comes to recognizing romance.
And now we move on to the Glenn Stanton portion of the articles (apparently this is a tandem effort). Oh, and By the way, Glenn Stanton, this isn’t about how I don’t like you being friends with a gay guy, it’s about how you’re a lying sack of shit, and about how your token "gay" friend isn’t calling you out on that fact.
Moving right along…
Glenn Stanton’s three page article (the one Corvino acknowledges above) has this statement on each page:
“Publicly arguing for traditional marriage is worth it even if I don't change many minds.”
Long story short, Glenn Stanton’s mind can never be changed, because Glenn Stanton could never be wrong. The only goal, according to Glenn Stanton, is to change other people’s minds.
In other words, FUCK YOU John Corvino, and all of the stupid little gay people like you who you represent, who are "less than" him.
But, as it would seem to me, by “publicly arguing” with you, it helps him to understand how to not be so “fuck you-ish” with his words.
John discovers things about me that surprise him, such as that I can believe the world is older than 6,000 years and remain an evangelical in good standing.Where exactly does Adam and Eve fit into that "good standing" Mr. Stanton? You’re not confirming anything here, all you’re doing is demonstrating error in the perception of you.
You did the same thing with me.
All I ask is that you show your work. How old is the Earth? What parameters and/or what criteria do you use to determine this? Etc.
If you’re going to make the claim that your beliefs are based on the Bible, and then claim that you believe in an “old Earth” theology, then be willing to defend it and explain it.
I’ll accept it. I’ll say so right now, I’ll accept it, but spit it the fuck out and don’t be coy about it. Don’t just drop it like a bomb and expect it to be something that should be accepted at face value. Your friends at Focus on the Family don’t sing that same tune, and we know it, so why take us for that ride?
If after all this time, that’s the best you can do, then to me it shows you have something to hide. Again, if you don’t want that to be the perception, then open up and explain yourself.
It's an interesting point that prompted me to ask our audience why many Christians, as well as Scripture-twisting revisionists, never address either the Creation narrative or Jesus' clear affirmation of that narrative in the Gospels. These pericopes show the centrality of male and female to the family anthropologically, sociologically, and theologically, teaching us that male and female bear the image of God in unique, essential ways. Humanity and the family need male and female to need each other.OMG. Spare me out of my fricking mind. If at this point, you are STILL maintaining the notion that somehow the anomaly of “gayness” or “homosexuality” or of “same-gender attraction” is trying to DO AWAY WITH MALE AND FEMALE ITSELF, then you, Glenn Stanton, are a hateful bigot for the sheer sake of enjoying it.
Good god man, "male and female?" Do you really think God "anointed" you with the notion to hate what you're already hard-wired to hate? Do you think the rewards of Heaven are that easy?
I'm not saying that that the answer is difficult, but seriously, take a closer look.
This part, however, takes the cake:
I clarified my opposition to all sexual relationships that are not between a husband and wife. But I also said that whenever one human denies herself for the good of another and dedicates herself to the other's value, that was a praiseworthy thing. True selflessness is an intrinsic good, whether the person is a lesbian, a gossip, or a tax-cheat.Gossip or tax-cheat?
Comparable to a lesbian?
Glenn T. Stanton, you are an asshole.
Nothing really counts after that.
Belated h/t to NG