“Today’s people of God should actively oppose governmental imposition of “gay marriage” and homosexual civil unions (marriage without the name). The alternative is to have government penalize you for speaking out against homosexual practice, hold hostage your children in the school systems to homosexualist propaganda, and coerce businesses to subsidize immorality through mandatory health benefits for same-sex couples and “affirmative action” programs for “sexual orientation minorities”; in short, to have society treat you as the moral equivalent of a virulent racist and attenuate your civil liberties accordingly.

or does he have a less ranting frothing homopobe version out there?

Perhaps the following can give you some perspective before you start making accusations about calling names:

Gagnon Rants On And On
My Very Favorite Gagnonism
Robert Gagnon and the Grand Box Turtle Whirl of Immorality
Gagnon Revisited
Clarifying Robert Gagnon’s Tortured Logic
Gagnon Employs Tortured Logic
Robert Gagnon’s Unorthodox Approach to Doctrine

Incidentally, Dr. Gagnon prefaces his response to my criticism by:

The mean-spirited homosexualist website, boxturtlebulletin.com, is aptly named, for the box turtle is easily confused and frightened by reality (though I don’t attribute meanness to the poor box turtle). A main writer for the site, Timothy Kincaid, underscores his own difficulties with logic, truth, and civil discourse in his multiple caustic postings regarding me…

In fact I came across the name on the net only recently as I was reading
responses to the
Newsweek cover story “Mutual Joy”.

You refer to Mr. Gagnon as “an anti-gay hero” since, as you put it, “he is the leading theologian in the camp of those who believe that homosexuality is the worst of all possible sins”.

I don’t know about you, but I think someone ought to be free to disagree with the wording of a catechism if he/she believes that the wording is inaccurate; and calling that person wrong don’t necessarily make them so, while calling them names do not help at all.

It is etremely difficult to have a discussion with someone who insists on calling you names when all that needs to be done is to come forward with the facts and prove them wrong. Like someone said “facts are stubborn things”.

I have read the story of the healing of the Centurion’s servant countless times, and must say that I count myself among those who have not, yet, questioned the authenticity of the story or “read much else into it”.

But then, if I knew who these “some scholars” were and where I could find their writing, I would certainly do some digging on my own, something I enjoy doing, all in the interest of truth and accuracy.

I have learned a number of things in my time concering truth and fact, among these are: never believe everything you hear or read, always try to find as neutral and unbiased a source as possible, and that often, self discovey is the best discovery.

Whe I read Mr. Gagnon’s response to the Newsweek article, I thought, that beyond the fact that he does not endorse homosexuality, which I believe is his right, he did a fair job of pointing out some of the fallacies and flaws in the author’s reasoning and research.

So please help me locate these two statement which you made, the first concerning him:

1. That he believes that “Homosexuality is the worst of all possible sins”.(Did he actually say that, or did you just infer that from something else he said(or did)?

2. That there is within the message of Christ “an extravagant welcome that includes gay and lesbian Christians”. Can you direct me to chapter and verse of this “extravagant welcome”?

Please understand that I am not against anyone. As I said previusly I believe in seeking truth, since as someone rightly said “all truth is God’s truth”.

I don’t know whether it speaks to their own mental acuity or the low regard they have for their intended audiences.

Since reading his first book I’ve been a fan of Gagnon’s consistent circular reasoning and logical fallacies. He does it again in brilliant fashion:

1) Because sex with male servants was not a universal phenomenon, this one obviously did not do it.

2) Because rape was sometimes involved in master-slave relationships, we must assume that was the case here, even though the text said the Centurion dearly loved his servant.

3) Gagnon argues that Jesus’ silence should not be interpreted as condoning. But Gagnon has argued that Jesus’ silence should be interpreted as condemning – even if he interacted with homosexuals and remained silent.

4) Gagnon argues the Jewish leaders would not have supported the Centurion, even though he was generous to their cause, because they were supposedly fully aware of what he did behind closed doors.

And so on.

Gagnon is nothing if not consistent in his logical fallacies.

The link (also above) is here.

(b) The petitioner was originally a Jew. In addition, my own reconstruction of the earliest recoverable version of the story suggests that the meeting involved a non-descript Capernaum official who was probably neither a military officer nor a Gentile but a Galilean Jew in the employ of Herod Antipas.