10 responses

  1. Stefano A
    August 10, 2008

    … impossible that the “heterosexualists” could possibly have a correct understanding of the story about…

    ?

  2. Emily K
    August 10, 2008

    I’m a Homosexuentologist because I’m level OT-9 in the Church of Homosexuentology.

  3. ted
    August 10, 2008

    What I find wonderful about reading these mental midgets — whether they work for Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, or anyone involved in the Alliance Defense Fund — is that no one involved in the professional bash-the-fag industry is bright. They’d all fail first-year English Comp classes because they aren’t able to make an argument, they cite sources without credibility, and they base their supposedly intellectual arguments on pure emotion — and that emotion is hate. Basically, the more nonsense they bleat, the easier it is for us to win. Ha.

  4. John M
    August 10, 2008

    Several years ago, I asked Gagnon on the Presbyweb website whether his attitude about homosexuality came before or after is “exhaustive” study of scripture. He just mocked my question. You will find Gagnon is never satisfied unless he has the last word.

  5. Lynn David
    August 10, 2008

    John M….

    If you look at Gagnon’s Curriculum Vitae it was sometime around 1998/1999 that Gagnon when gah-gah for being anti-gay. Probably something came up in the Presbyterian Church… at least that is my guess. For the first 7 or 8 years of his professional life he did not write on homosexuality

  6. grantdale
    August 11, 2008

    You know Timothy, you’re going to get yourself in a lot of trouble for doubting Gagnon’s knowledge about what certain individuals were thinking some 400 years ago. He was actually there, as witness, don’t you know?

    There is, of course, a far more plausible explanation than Gagnon’s wild guess that children would be shocked. (And I have no idea why English-speaking children ceased to be shockable in 1962.)

    Gagnon argues that regardless of the fact it was not (and therefore no ACCURATE translation should either), the term “homosexual offender” should be in Q87 of the Heidelberg Catechism because it is — to him — in 1 Cor 6:9.

    Perhaps, but the original authors chose not to. Gagnon obviously thinks he knows better than them.

    Gagnon states “The original German is clearly alluding to 1 Cor 6:9-10″. But in doing this he relies upon an all too typical and dishonest ploy.

    If Ursinus and Olevianus had included a full list of the absent, would they have said what Gagnon thinks they should have?

    Unlikely, in the extreme.

    The original authors were GERMAN afterall, and GERMAN Bibles do not read 1 Cor 6:9 in the way that Gagnon’s English version does. Overwhelmingly dominant in use, particulalrly in The Palatinate, it is Luther’s Bible which Ursinus and Olevianus would have echoed when writing to a German audience, not Gagnon’s.

    Luther selected “noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder” in his translation. You could argue Luther got his translation wrong, if you must, but it is ‘weichlinge’ and ‘knabenschänder’ that Ursinus and Olevianus would have included if they had so chosen.

    Weichlinge means ‘weaklings’. I don’t know why God hates weaklings, but there you have it. You could come up with any number of reasons how and why some think this must be referring to homosexuality, most of them ignorant. KJV translates this as ‘effeminate’, as another example. Gagnon wants this as ‘soft men': which he thinks “refers to men who feminize themselves to serve as the passive or receptive sexual partners of other men.”

    But that’s simply one of Gagnon’s wild claims ABOUT gay men, not an accurate description of gay men (let alone anything near our self-perception). Receptive or otherwise, gay men per se aren’t ‘feminized’ — all ignorance and slander to the contrary.

    The other word is even more problematic for Gagnon. ‘Knabenschänder’ is a compound word meaning, directly, ‘boy-rapist’.

    (For Gagnon’s word-twisting benefit: no, this is not referring to a boy who rapes — but instead refers to someone who rapes boys.)

    I don’t know any ‘homosexualists’ who would disagree that raping boys, or grown men for that matter, is a very bad thing. A referrence to “men who rape boys” could be directed at very few gay men.

    Basically: even if Ursinus and Olevianus had chosen to write in the full list from 1 Cor 6:9, Gagnon would still not have seen his anti-gay bigotry included. This is because they were 16th Century Germans and not 20th Century Americans. Instead, even included, an accurate translation of a 1563 Heidelberg Catechism Q87 would have read as:

    “Certainly not! Scripture says, “Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery, no weaklings nor men who rape boys, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers will possess the kingdom of God.”

    I cannot see myself in that list: but I can see the Paul-Cameron-quoting Robert Gagnon.

  7. Timothy Kincaid
    August 11, 2008

    Stefano,

    Ah, my error. I meant “homosexualists” of course. It certainly can be confusing when using made up words.

  8. banshiii
    August 11, 2008

    OMG.
    How much do I love you?!
    Thanks for the laugh. I need it.

  9. Ephilei
    August 14, 2008

    I suggest ending the blog battle and getting to more interesting topics and more intelligent people.

  10. Jim Burroway
    October 25, 2008

    Hey!! I just noticed this.

    Timothy didn’t call anyone “paranoid,” “incoherent,” or “despicable coward.”

    That was all me.

    Please Mr. Gagnon. Credit where credit is due!

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop