Re: Dr. Phil and Glenn Stanton

Some background on Glenn Stanton. He and Bill Maier -- both Focus on the Family hacks -- wrote a book called “Marriage on Trial” © 2004. It’s basically a manual to learn how to be anti-gay-marriage, without sounding anti-gay. It’s in question and answer form to make it simple to read and easy to remember.

Early on in the book they establish for the reader that our love is fake. But they do so in a roundabout way by placing our love for our partners in the same category as love for parents, children, friends, coworkers, athletes and soldiers.

Because after all, just coming out and saying we're too dumb to know the difference between those kinds of love and actual romantic love might come across as anti-gay.

My favorite part was in Chapter 5, where they warn that gay marriage would create “strong dissention in the homosexual community” between “married gays from gays who don’t want marriage.”

Yes, you heard that right. They actually state that one of the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, is to ensure that all we gays get along. How thoughtful of them.

They offer the same drivel when it comes to non-supportive family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc., who might be invited to a gay wedding, “they will be forced to have a confrontation” and “the relationship will suffer.”

They also use the Dutch Study and The Male Couple to show that gay couples are too slutty to be good parents, and apparently, gay people can “change.”

Glenn Stanton is a propagandist and a fraud, who is willing to lie in the name of Jesus for political gain.

That said, he was on the Dr. Phil show the other day, AGAIN. But right now I'd like to explore his performance on the show last fall.


Dr. Phil Show -- Gender Confused Kids



Transcript:

Dr. Phil: Are you aware that less than 20% of transgender children grow up to be transgender adults, how do you feel about that?
[skip]
Dr. Phil: Joining us today is Glenn Stanton, he’s a research fellow with a Christian based organization Focus on the Family. He studies gender as a social phenomenon, and is currently working on a book that deals with the importance of gender and parenting. He says we are not born this way. He says parents are responsible for guiding their children into the gender they were born with.

Did I summarize that correctly?

Glenn Stanton: Pretty closely, Dr. Phil. What we find is that kids start out as kids, they don’t know. Most little boys have never been a man before, most little girls have never been a woman before. They need help figuring these things out, and it’s the job of the parent to come in, as you did, with such a loving heart, and to care for your child, but to guide them and direct them. The children are not in the driver’s seat, they’re not the ones that are at the age and the maturity to be able to make these kinds of decisions, so we need to help them move in the right direction.

Dr. Phil: So you disagree with Dr. Seigel saying that, because you talk about ‘born as,’ but what Dr. Seigel is saying, is that that is defined by the brain, as well as the external genitalia. How do you respond to that?

Glenn Stanton: I’m actually agreeing with him in a way, that there’s a spectrum, but it’s not--we don’t, there are very few real Pats in the world, where we just don’t know what they are. Either we start out one way or the other and we identify in a particular way, but we always identify as either a girl or a boy. We can always determine, ok that’s girl behavior or boy behavior.

For my little boy wanting to go to art museums, for me wanting to go to art museums, is that feminine behavior? For you being interested in ballet, is that a feminine behavior? No, it can be done in a very masculine way.

Dr. Phil: Are you saying these parents are wrong?

Glenn Stanton: From what I understand, I mean you’ve taken an entry level psychology course in college. You gave your child a test on the internet about what it means to be transgendered, and your child mimics really, as I see it, some very adult concepts that she got from somewhere, and so I’m wondering, you know, who’s leading and whose following.

Melissa: Your idea of thinking, is what ends up happening to these transgender children, is that they grow up depressed, they grow up suicidal, they get into drugs, into prostitution, and it’s wrong. And you know what, what these-these, what he’s stating, it’s actual fact, it’s scientific fact. Where’s your facts?

Glenn Stanton: There are plenty of facts, I mean, Dr. Kagan at Harvard, who has looked at this issue for a long time, 40 years, longer than anybody else, he says what parents need to do with these gender confused kids is be very directive with them, and be the parent, step into the scene. And he says when these kids develop a good solid healthy gender identity, they become more confident, more secure. When they don’t know, they…

Melissa: He was becoming less that every time we tried to push him into being a male. Every time we tried to say, you know what, this is what you--you were born a boy, so you have to dress this way, you know, you can not wear these clothes to school, you can not wear these clothes at home, you cannot wear these barrettes, he was becoming more depressed.

Glenn Stanton: A three year old child, they don’t know what they think at this point, or they have very strong opinions about who they are. When I was that age, I wanted to be a horse, you know?

Melissa: At three years old, she wasn’t dressing like a female though.
[skip]
Glen Stanton: ‘completely agree in terms of meeting the child where they’re at, but here’s the problem of the spectrum. You know, if the child wants to be artistic, creative, even do ballet, you know what, encourage them in that, but to do it in a masculine sort of way.

You think, what does that mean. It’s very simple, parents know what that means, but the issue of like--I mean it breaks my heart when I see your son go to school with earrings, knowing what’s going to happen to him.

Mary: He doesn’t understand, because he doesn’t have a child going through this. There’s no way you could understand.

Glenn Stanton: My point is that our job as parents are to protect our kids. So I’m agreeing that it’s the parents’ part to come forth and be the leader there and say, you know what son, you wear a bra to school, certain things are going to happen. First of all, you shouldn’t be doing this, I understand your heart, I understand your interest, but I’m the adult.

Melissa: That’s not true. That’s not true at all.
[skip]
Dr. Phil: Glenn, you would be dead set against this hormone?

Glenn Stanton: Absolutely, and I think the name David Reimer is a very interesting one, in that, you know, he was this little boy that they tried to raise as a girl, and with hormone therapy, he is--grew up into an adult and killed himself, because he was being raised different from what his gender was.

Dr. Dan Seigel: That is a perfect example of a misrepresentation of science. Because if you look at that whole issue, and we can’t--don’t get into the details, it’s kind of upsetting. But what happened was that that person had a brain that developed as a male, and just because he had an accident that had them remove his external genitalia, they tried to raise him as a female.

Glenn Stanton: It was the science of the time.

Dr. Seigel: Exactly, for the biology that you’re disagreeing with. It actually supports the view that brain development is really what determines things. You’re arguing against yourself.

Glenn Stanton: But the point of--it was science at the time that directed them in this direction. And that’s the important point to say is that science is not necessarily the answer to everything. It does guide us in wrong directions, and it did with David Reimer.

Did you see what he did there?

Throughout the video Stanton argues in favor of forcing transgender children to be brought up as their physical gender, or what they feel to be the "opposite" gender.

He then attempts to validate that position with an example of someone who was FORCED to be brought up as the opposite gender -- with tragic results.

It’s a common Focus on the Family trick. Equate something innocuous, like same-gender attraction, with something malicious, like theft or murder, and then condemn them both the same.

In this case he's equating a healthy transgender situation, with a tragedy that he labels as bad science.

There was nothing scientific about it, a heterosexual boy was given a vagina and raised as a girl. The results were predictable. Just because they weren't foreseen at the time, by doctors, doesn't make it science.

But, via Glenn Stanton, we've now established that medical malpractice passes for science, and we can now freely condemn any science behind transgenderism, to conclude that everyone who is transgendered is just plain ol' confused.

Look, you may not get transgenderism, and you may not accept the science behind it, but at least know the difference between science, and not science. And realize that any "expert" who doesn't know the difference, is not an expert.

And Dr. Phil, to give a platform to an employee of a hate group like Focus on the Family, to spew his anti-transgender tripe, is criminal.

Dr. Phil invites expert shyster, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, on to berate parents of transgender children.

Re: The Dr. Phil Show, January 13, 2009:

Transcript:

Dr. Phil: Well, the world is changing, science is changing, there’s just no question about that. We’re learning more, but is it all helpful? What we’re going to do is put up links about this transgender issue, so you can go and hear both sides. And don’t just go to the side that you agree with, go to the side that you don’t agree with. Read, hear, see what they have to say, so you can consider everything and make an informed decision. You know I clearly have stayed on neutral ground here, because what I want to do is advance the dialogue, advance the debate. So I know I’ll hear from you on the message boards.

Do me a fave, Dr. Phil and try this one on for "size.":


Transcript:

Wayne Besen: Truth Wins Out went to Salt Lake City to interview Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. Diamond says the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, known as NARTH, distorted her research on human sexuality. NARTH manipulated Dr. Diamond’s work to say that people can choose to change their sexual orientation. Her work said no such thing.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The women who I’ve studied, have experienced changes in the way that they characterize and experience their sexuality over time, are quite clear about the fact that they don’t experience those changes as willful. And if anything, sometimes they actively resist them. So the notion that they’re chosen simply because there’s variability, is simply isn’t consistent with what I find. If NARTH had actually read the study more carefully, they would find that that isn’t supported by my data at all.

I started my study, I knew that it was potentially controversial and I knew that it was potentially open to distortion. I have bent over backwards to make it difficult for my work to be misused, and to no avail. When people are motivated to twist something for political purposes, they’re going to find a way to do it.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a message for NARTH’s co-founder, Dr. Nicolosi, for distorting her work.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a few words to say about so-called reparative therapy.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The APA has found that the majority of these therapies are being misrepresented, that therapists are saying, we can change your orientation, when in fact all of the data, all of the data, suggests that that’s not the case. Sometimes they’re successful at helping people to change their behavior, just like any of us can alter our behavior at will, but they say that the attractions, the same-sex attractions will disappear, they don’t.

These therapies are marketed inaccurately. They don’t actually have the effect that the therapists claim that they will have, and they do additional damage, by using these sort of aversive techniques that leave people feeling greater shame, greater guilt, feeling worse about themselves as a result. So they do, do harm.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond said she would like if NARTH stopped using her research.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: My choice would be that they don’t use it at all. If there’s any upside to this at all, it may be that it actually introduces some people to real science, on these topics, which can give them a lot better information, than the non-science that is being perpetrated on a lot of these websites.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond urges scientists to speak out when the research is distorted.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: There are a lot of scientists who would say, you know what, I just produce the data and then how it’s used is not my problem, but I think knowing that we have a culture that actually treats scientific findings very seriously in terms of support for public policy, that would be inappropriate. We have to be very vocal about what constitutes an unscientific use of the data, and that’s why I think it’s important to speak out.

I’m pretty accustomed at this point to the fact that these sorts of distortions will occur. My hope is that by doing something like this, we can hopefully have a more scientifically literate society, and sort of consumer culture, that will get better at recognizing distortions when they occur, and will not simply take the citation of a scientific paper as evidence that that paper has been appropriately used. My hope is that readers and thinkers in general will take a look at the sorts of work that’s presented on NARTH, and say well, maybe I better look at that work myself before I take at face value, what they are telling me that it says.

Wayne Besen: If you are a scientist, and your work has been distorted, misrepresented, cherry-picked, or misquoted by the right wing, contact TruthWinsOut.org
--
And just in case you didn't quite catch the impact of it the first time, Dr. Phil, Let’s listen to the most pertinent part of that interview again:

Dr. Lisa Diamond: “Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.”

Still wanna play the “neutral ground” card, Dr. Phil?

Remember, the Google is your friend.

Oh, and PS, all that just scratches the surface of Nicolosi's ethical meanderings. And I haven’t even gotten to the slitherings of Glenn Stanton yet.

And for posterity's sake, one for the road. This is my favorite anti-gay moment of all time. I've watched this dozens of times and it still cracks me up. He's standing there, calmly nodding his head to what the interviewer was saying, and then suddenly, without warning, he just walks off camera in a huff of a hissy-fit.

Let's watch:


God that's funny!

Ice Cream

By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
12.12.2008

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.

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.

Some background:

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 [10] 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 [10] 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?

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.

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.

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

John Stemberger's Florida4marriage used "Dutch Study" to dupe gullible pastors and church goers.

From the now defunct florida4marriage.org, led by John Stemberger -- leader of the Florida anti-marriage movement -- the "Dutch Study" (Via Glenn Stanton of Focus of the Family) was used to portray gay people as being inherently promiscuous:

Is Marriage in Jeopardy?
August 27, 2003
by Glenn T. Stanton

Q: But doesn’t expanding marriage to include homosexuals actually help strengthen marriage?

A: Just the opposite. There is recent evidence from the Netherlands, arguably the most “gay-friendly” culture on earth, that homosexual men have a very difficult time honoring the ideal of marriage. Even though same-sex “marriage” is legal there, a British medical journal reports male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships.

However, as BoxTurtleBulletin notes (bold mine):

--This study was not about gay relationships, as most people who misuse this study claims. Its purpose was to study how HIV is transmitted in the Dutch population. That’s why the study was based only on those with HIV/AIDS attending STD clinics. It is no more generalizable to the general LGBT population than heterosexuals with STD’s are representative of straight people overall.

--This study excluded everyone over thirty — the prime age in which people are more likely to settle down and marry.

--“Relationships” weren’t defined. Anything including a second date to a lifetime commitment could be counted. You simply cannot compare that to straight couples who are married as the FRC does. FRC cites the study as taking place in a country with “legalized homosexual marriage”, but the Netherlands didn’t have anything like it when the study ended in 1998.

Registered partnerships for same-sex and opposite-sex couples didn’t begin until October 1, 1999. A limited form of same-sex marriage wasn’t available until 2001.

--And this is the most important point of all: Because the purpose of the study was to look at how AIDS is transmitted, all monogamous couples were specifically excluded from the study. Because monogamous couples aren’t transmitting HIV, they would have been completely irrelevant to the study’s goals.

These "Christians," John Stemberger and Glenn Stanton, have been using a study that EXCLUDED monogamous gay couples to show that gay couples are not monogamous!

AND THEY'RE STILL DOING IT!
From Focus on the Family: Marriage on the Ropes:

Studies show that homosexual men, in particular, have a difficult time honoring even the most basic commitments of "marriage." A recent study conducted in the Netherlands — a "progressive" nation in which gay marriage has been legal for several years — found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 1.5 years, and that gay men have an average of eight sexual partners per year outside of their "primary" relationship!

Related post: Florida (Yes on 2) anti-marriage movement uses "Dutch Study" to further their cause.
~~~~Studies like these need to be sought out and carefully edited - meaning that the deception is willful.

So to all you "Christians" and pastors out there who feel that intentional dishonesty is acceptable to your "Lord Jesus Christ," just remember, this is your witness to the rest of we "lost," "confused," and "damned to hell for all eternity" homosexuals.

including to those of us who already happen to be 'unthinkably Christian' as well!

"How Your Same-sex Family Will Harm My Family"

According to Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, here's how:

Your same-sex family will teach my little boys and girls that husband/wife and mother/father are merely optional for the family and therefore, meaningless.

The Lou Sheldon version:

Max Blumenthal: And you’ve said that the lifestyle is very seductive and it’s hard to get out of it.

Lou Sheldon: Well it’s a groove, you get in that groove and you’re up the creek without a paddle. But remember, homosexuality could strike you, it could strike this man here taking the picture.

Max Blumenthal: How could it strike me?

Lou Sheldon: Because you could go into a gender identity confusion, because it is a psychological imbalance. Something happens in a person’s life. It becomes a spirit.

Paul Cameron's take (re BTB) :

Homosexuality is particularly ‘sticky entertainment.' Like drug addiction, it's hard to break away from. But homosexuality transcends ‘sticky.' It is so all-consuming that it tends to degrade the logic and character of those who indulge in it.

And finally, a one Mr. Paul Richins' assessment:

Consider this scenario: You are married as husband and wife and have children. Since you agree with same-sex "marriages" your children say, "It must be great, exciting and fantastic." So all your children go for same-sex "marriages." They produce no grandchildren. Your ancestral line vanishes. How exciting and fantastic.

Argument being, that to make something legal, is to make it appealing.

Good thing we have laws against gouging one's eyes out...
---
Edit 7-10-08: In regard to that last line, I should have come up with a better example. I realize that gouging one's own eyes out isn't technically illegal.