46 Comments on “Debunking the Myths

  1. Hardly inspiring ‘highlights’. I wonder, do these people simply enjoy talking amongst themselves? One sided discussions. You can see all the familiar faces in the front row. A ‘highlight’ of the N.I. Event has now been posted and you can see very clearly how few people turned up. I don’t think it’s decent to highlight any ‘conference’ organized by this Minichelio creature when she has yet to apologies for her alleged hate mongering in Jamaica. And that Gagnon fellow- he makes Andrea look like a saint! Take a look at his blog- just a brief review and you find find posts where he makes disparaging comments about the relationship of one man and his deceased partner of 30 years. That’s not just unpleasant it’s a disgrace, and unquestionably homophobic (as much as I hate using that word). Why does ‘god’ have such bad PR here on planet earth??

    • ‘One sided discussions. You can see all the familiar faces in the front row.’

      Have you ever attended a Changing Attitudes event? They’re another lot who assert belief in the invisible God (a.k.a. the fairy god in atheist circles). Of course, the latter is all part of the excusable unoffensive on-line banter until someone makes….(insert drum roll here)

      ‘Disparaging comments about the relationship of one man and his deceased partner of 30 years’. (insert Thunderbirds suspense music!)

      Well, in the same indignant spirit, liberal commenters here should roundly condemn other comments that have been left on this blog disparaging the authenticity of Peter’s marital commitment to his wife. One does not excuse the other, but let’s not feign a high-minded thoroughgoing desire for what is fair and right, while treating the calumnious volleys of seething liberal hatred as innocuous by comparison.

      You might well ask why this debate is so entrenched in party spirit as to suppress any challenge to those who go too far in seeking to champion the liberal cause, only to emphasise conservative ‘transgressions’.

      • David, I wholeheartedly agree- any comments regarding the authenticity of Peter’s commitments to his wife are every bit as just unacceptable and disgusting. No such comments have been made by me.

        I have not visited the Changing Attitudes website, nor do I have a desire to so. I can hardly imagine I’m their target audience. I also have no need to visit stonewall’s, or any similar website.

        I don’t know what this liberal hatred is supposed to be?? I have no interest in looking through your’s or jillfromharrow’s respective windows so don’t understand the need to look through mine? I’m certainly no ‘liberal’ but having said that I’m grateful to those of gone years that mean that I’m able to lead a relatively free and comfortable existence, even though the likes of Andrea would have me behind bars (vile woman that she is).

        I note you make no remark concerning the website of that Gagnon fellow. seriously, take a look. Is that the kind of Christian message you are happy with?

        • Okay. I’ve looked at the link. You clam that Gagnon is a homophobe and it wpuld be useful to understand your definition. Homophobia is not a mere distaste for homosexuality.

          As far as I can see, he is a biblical scholar who has a blog that focuses predominantly on homosexuality. Other clergy and biblical scholars devote their blogs to LGBT advocacy and there’s little hue and cry over it.

          So, it would help for you to clarify why his debate against LGBT advocacy is ‘hate speech’.

          Nevertheless, I would freely admit that Gagnon’s site should devote more space to testimonies of how grace has transformed lives of all shapes, sizes and moral varieties. The tone of his responses may rouse consciences ‘for by the law is the knowledge of sin’. What is lacking is any exposition of the profound condescension of God

          • Hi David,

            He is eager to state and to defend a position that would not grant any civil recognition of same sex relationships, survivor benefits etc. and we are not talking about same sex marriage here. A whole rambling essay on why the CIVIL rights of gay couples should be denied on RELIGIOUS grounds. That’s homophobic – goes further than just a general distaste

            He passes his mighty condescending judgment on a couple of 30 years belittling their relationship, dismissing the feelings one partner has for his deceased partner, and says that they are dis honouring themselves in a way that is worse than adult incest. That’s more than distaste. It’s hateful

            • Hi again David,

              Gagnon also states that to make a distinction between peadophiles and homosexuals is ‘just smoke and mirrors’

              He also wishes for homosexuality to be reclassified as a mental disorder

              Again, this goes far beyond a’distaste’ in my view, and moves into the realms of hate speech and homophobia. Maybe you disagree, but that doesn’t alter my take on the vile creature one jot

            • I think that Gagnon leaves me with mixed views. St. Paul took pains to differentiate his preaching depending on what light that they had already received.

              To the Gentiles, the call to repentance involved abandoning the heathen daily devotion to material gain and sexual ‘freedom’. To the Jews, the call to repentance involved recognising that law should do no more than rouse the conscience; that Someone with the authority to forgive sins.

    • Could you say where on the Robert Gagnon site the post is…….inevitably it is easy enough to stumble across something but much harder when you are actually looking for it! Are the comments written or in a video? On the other hand I may have the wrong site – it seems to be essays and videos rather than standard blogs – but I can’t find another one.

      • Hello Anna, I think if you look through the FAQ section on his site you will see the email exchange with the man with the deceased partner when Gagnon says that to celebrate such a relationship would be no better than celebrating an adult incestuous relationship. There are numerous other examples of this man’s hatred, disguised in pseudo academic theological speak. Take a look at the collated extracts at:

        He likens gay relationships to adult incest, pedophilia and constantly rants about people ‘dishonouring themselves’. He has also written extensively on why he thinks gay couples should not be given any legal recognition of their relationships, even putting the issue of gay marriage to one side. A vile homophobe and a disgusting excuse of a human being. And yet a happy bedfellow of Andrea – gays should be locked up- Minichelio Williams. I don’t understand why more Christians do not distance themselves from such vile creatures.

        Apologies for typos- I’m on an iPad and it’s a little clunky with the internet speed

        • I think you are confused.. or not wanting to think. Homosexual relationships, and adult incestuous relationships, are wrong because they go against the natural order – BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

          By nature, if human beings have sexual intercourse with a close family member any resulting child is likely to be genetically weak… And sexual relationships disrupt the natural relationships within a family and society.

          And, by nature, human beings’ can’t even have sexual intercourse (rather than just mutual stimulation) if two men or two women are involved….

          • Wrong in whose eyes? Your eyes? Your god’s eyes? Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon and is not restricted to the human species. I think it’s you who needs to think. Homosexuality is not the ‘norm’ but that does not mean that it is wrong.

            To equate homosexuality with pedophilia, incest or abuse is blatantly wrong, vile and truly disgusting. To say that it is ‘wrong for different reasons’ is merely a smokescreen. What makes it worse is that this Gagnon fellow veils his hate in pseudo scientific theology claptrap

            • No. It is not unreasonable to point out that various sexual attractions (that you or I may or may not think are good) have some similar features. You would deploy reasoned argument against sexual behaviours you see as wrong!!… and people who were attracted to them, and thought they were good, might well try to argue that you were just being offensive!

              BTW regarding same-sex encounters in animals… you are confusing the question of what happens in nature with how our sex organs and reproductive systems are designed by nature. Animals do all sorts of things that we, as moral beings, may decide would be wrong for us to do.

        • Thank you so much – still can’t find the faqs but I have looked at the extract on equality matters. Actually I have found a section of e mails and replies on the site I’ve seen so I’m hoping to find a complete mail there (only looked at a few so far.).

  2. I thought the conference was very good. O’Callaghan and May did a good job, but Gagnon was undoubtedly the star turn. Although he does “major” in all things same-sexed, Gagnon’s understanding springs from a deeper understanding – namely, what it means to be made male and female. The highlight for me was his comments on divorce and polygamy. Not for the half-hearted.

    Marriage is right. The rightness of marriage makes all other sexual activity wrong.

    • What a sweeping statement. Right for you perhaps. Don’t see why it’s any of your business to conjecture whether the relationships of others are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’

      • So I presume you wouldn’t conjecture about polyandry, consensual incest, wife-swapping etc? Or is it only sexual relationships you approve of that we’re not allowed to judge?

        • Hi Peter, why should a gay person have to explain or justify the love for their partner any more than a heterosexual person? When was the last time you had to defend or justify the love for your wife in relation to throwaway comments about incest or polyandry?

          It’s been covered here nanny times. I would say there are good reasons for not approving incest – genetic damage to children etc. you would say, what about homosexual consensual incest? I would say there are other reasons to not approve of that. For example, such a sexual relationship would prevent or displace a familial sisterly or brotherly (or whatever the situation may be) relationship.

          With regards to the smokescreen of polyandry, in my view it is entirely different and is a preference rather than an orientation. Certain individuals may prefer to have more than one spouse but it is not a necessity. Indeed, my understanding that sexual activity in such relationships is usually on a one to one basis. I agree that sexual orientation can be fluid ( in both directions ) but for many it is fixed.

          Conservatives often accuse liberals of being more illiberal. I don’t consider my self a liberal at all. Quite conservative in fact. Couldn’t give a damn what people get up to as long as I’m not paying for it. But you are FREE to not get same sex married (and no, I am no particular supporter of same sex marriage since CPs became available), you are free to not enter into a ‘wrong’ relationship according to your book, and you are free to not have an abortion or whatever else it may be that Christians oppose

          • All your “good reasons” below are actually just your own naked bigotted ignorant prejudices. You constantly make assumptions about people whose lives you don’t know and then expect to be allowed to enforce your bizarre moral judgements on everyone else.

            And he calls himself a liberal…..

            • Peter, what a sweeping statement! You surely must be busy! I notice that you don’t engage on any of the points whatsoever! When was the last time. You had to justify the love for your partner and wife in light of throwaway comments about polyandry and incest??! Just as I have to defend myself against comments by hateful figures such as Gagnon and ‘lock up the gays’ Williams?

              I made an honest and reasoned attempt to explain why the behavior you mention is different to heterosexual or homosexual activity:

              Child abuse – this is wrong. I think we can agree
              Non-consensual intercourse/rape- this is wrong. I think we can agree
              Consensual adult incest- see my post above-!there are valid reason why the state should not sanction this
              Polyandry- please explain to me why you think this is an ‘orientation’? I explain why I think this is different from sexual orientation but you refuse to engage. By the way I’m not against these relationships and give no view on whether they should be afforded recognition by the state. But I fail to see why I as a monogamous gay man in a committed relationship should have to speak to defend that relationship any more than you have to defend your relationship with your wife

              • Yeah, but BB, looking at that list Don’t see why it’s the business of others to conjecture whether the relationships of others are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’

                Sorry, there’s an echo on this comment thread!

                • I say the same to you as to Peter – there is no more relevance in discussing polyandry or incest with regards to your or my relationship. I merely pointed out how polyandry is a preference not an orientation

                    • Thanks David. I try to engage with some of the points – precipitated by gentleminds sweeping statement ‘all sex outside marriage wrong!’ – and yet you don’t engage with that nor his endorsement of bigoted Gagnon and yet you try and make petty points (self liking comments) with me

                    • Not agreeing with you at all. You still have not engaged on why polyandry is a preference and not orientation

                    • I don’t think I’m arguing either. Polyandry is something you do in the same way that sleeping with someone of the same-sex or someone you’re related to is something you do.

                      What you *want* to do doesn’t come into it.

                    • If we are talking about legal sanctioning by the state, then yes I do think ‘it comes into it’. You brought the topic up, not me. I still fail to see why I should be any more concerned with discussing polyandry in relation to recognition to my relationship than you should be to yours. I made a valid point about polyandry – it’s a preference – it’s not orientation – most of the sex is one-to-one. Orientation a a spectrum and there is fluidity for some people (in both directions), but for others it is fixed. There is just no comparison with polyandry.

                    • We’re not talking about orientation, we’re talking about activity. Unless of course you think that your orientation means that you *have* to undertake a particular action.

                    • Peter, let’s not forget where this began. I criticized Gentlemind for his comment about all sexual relationships sprat from marriage are wrong, and you threw polyandry into the mix. I’m still unclear why I need to justify my relationship with polyandry any more than you do.

                      With respect to your comment on ‘having’ to undertake a particular action- of course you do not. You could choose to be celibate. Or not. Of course orientation does not mean one has to undertake an action. I’m not arguing against polyandry and neither for if. I’m sure you may do so on religious grounds.

              • “Consensual adult incest- see my post above-!there are valid reason why the state should not sanction this”

                They are not valid – they are arbitrary and bigoted. You provide no evidence of the effect of consensual incest that you suggest, you simply insist we must accept your hatred and prejudice.

                • Peter, again you take a minor pursuit (homosexual adult incest) – even much rarer than homosexuality- and you fail to explain why I need to justify my relationship in light of this pursuit but for some reason you do not. You say I am bigoted. Please then explain why your relationship is better than ‘consensual homosexual adult incest’ if you must

                    • And my Christian friend states that her relationship with her partner is a sexual relationship for her to be in. That’s for you guys to discuss- couldn’t care less what your god states

                    • For a man who couldn’t care less you seem to care a great deal.

                      You mightn’t believe in God, but you’re simply suppressing the truth of his existence in order to satisfy your desires (Romans 1).

                    • No Peter. I simply want to live in a society where people are free to their beliefs, but where religion has no role to play in shaping politics and legislation. We are getting there slowly.

                      When I say ‘I don’t care less’ I mean I’m not in the slightest bit interested in what your god or book state. But I believe passionately in your right to believe what you want to. Maybe that’s the liberal in me :-)

                      I think we can all be good people and be kind to others, irrespective of religious or secular beliefs

                    • Hello Barnaby. If I had known my comment would cause you so much trouble, I might have kept quiet! :)

                      You are right about polyamory being a preference – it accomodates all three “orientations” (“gay”, “straight”, and “bi”).

                      Gagnon is right about incest and same-sexed sexual acts: (opposite-sexed) incest is wrong despite being male/female. Same-sexed sexual acts are wrong because of not being male/female. One is the right game (but the wrong rules), whereas the other is a wrong game.

                      I realise much of what Gagnon says is a long way from the typical understanding of 21st Century Western Man, but that says more about the strange times we live in than it does about the reality of sexual morality.

          • ‘I would say there are other reasons to not approve of that. For example, such a sexual relationship would prevent or displace a familial sisterly or brotherly (or whatever the situation may be) relationship.

            Whoa, BB, say w-w-what?? So, what happens in the cases below when the same-sex couple agree to partner with a third person (or more) to have a child, only to displace a familial paternal relationship.
            You are aware that, outside of licensed IVF, marriage bestows a presumption of parenthood that would completely negate the parental claims of the biological father.

            I’m so glad that you finally agree.

            1. A partner in lesbian couple conceived via intercourse with biological father. http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1625

            2. A partner in lesbian couple conceives by intercourse with biological father (her partner’s brother) http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed999

            3. A lesbian couple used DIY assisted reproduction to conceive child with known biological father. http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed96467

            • David, you may be quite the expert in verbose lengthy emails, but do you actually read?? As stated above I’m not at all a particular supporter of same sex marriage so quite fail to see why you think it necessary to quote to me those cases.

              I put forward an opinion as to why consensual homosexual incest should not be sanctioned or approved of by the state, and yet you seek to muddy the waters with cases of same sex marriage.

              There are frequent legal wrangles concerning unmarried couples (heterosexual or homosexual) and the care of children. What this has to do with my disapproval of same sex consensual incest and my lack of support for same sex marriage, I’m not quite sure!

              • Peter was simply whether your rejection of conjecture about the morality of other people’s sexual activity outside of marriage included consensual incest et al.
                Obviously not, since you proceeded to give him a rather verbose conjecture about the morality of incest (it’s damaging) and polyandry (it’s a preference).
                The short version. There’s difference between your lack of support for something (like same-sex marriage) and active opposition against it.
                We can’t assume your opposition unless you say so.

                • Maybe a lesson for you would be to make less assumptions. Just as I don’t (and never have) assumed you or Peter to hold the same view as vile creatures such as Andrea ‘lock up the gays’ Williams and Robert Gagnon

                • As to your comment about self liking my post- I live in Beijing and the internet is super slow. Can’t even see the letters as you type sometimes. I can assure you I had no intention to self like my own post. Very cheap comment by you

                • Active opposition against SSM? If there was a referendum I wouldn’t have voted for it. What exactly is your active opposition against homophobia? As a religious person what have you done concerning Andrea Williams? What of all the gay people in Jamaica who may suffer as a result of her comments? Are you reaching out to them? Have you tried to contact her like Peter? Complained to the Bishop perhaps? All I can see is that you make lukewarm comments about Gagnon – but never directly address hîs insipid inconvenient underlying homophobia

                  • Am I reaching out to all the gay people in Jamaica who might suffer as a result of Andrea Williams comments? No, but I’d like to see how you’ve managed to do that, or the success of your attempts to contact her.

                    In contrast, I’m not asking you to contact any biological parent who might be deprived of parenthood by same-sex married couples, am I?

                    The fact is that by your own stated standard of opposing any sexual relationship that displaces a familial relationship, same-sex marriage is wrong. Re-defining the law of marriage in a way that displaces the role of natural fathers is wrong. Not the same as the ‘legal wrangles concerning unmarried couples (heterosexual or homosexual) and the care of children.’

                    But the fact that you’re in a same-sex relationship makes it so unfair because you view this as a personal interrogation,(‘why should a gay person have to explain or justify the love for their partner any more than a heterosexual person?’); whereas any other expression of sexuality is subject to your ample moral scrutiny. Peter’s right. You’re bigoted.

                    My supposed lukewarm comments about Gagnon were based on as much evidence as I could glean from the website to which you pointed me. I had not read his work before then, but, after a cursory glance at the site, you want me to make a sweeping condemnation.

                    In contrast, all I can see from you is tacit resistance to criticising SSM because this is not an open debate, is it? Unlike heterosexuals, we’re just forcing you to defend or justify the love you have for your partner. Such a personal and subjective attack, eh? So unfair?

                    • I think you are bigoted. I’m not asking for marriage to be redefined so I don’t know why you go on about that to me.

                      As for Andrea, you’re right – it’s a pointless exercise. She has refused all requests to explain herself or retract her remarks. She is a coward, thrill seeker and a stain on Christianity and society

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.