The apparent truth is that a term ‘Christianist’ was coined to refer to conservative Christian political activists…the perceived ‘other side’ in this great war of polarization. Someone responded with the term ‘homosexualist’ to refer, not to gays in general, but to gay activists. A very practical move. HOMOSEXUAL activIST. Makes sense…easily understood…except by those who want to make something more out of it than what is there. Contempt (the same contempt that you hold for him?) might be inferred but only a true judge and reader of hearts and minds could say that contempt was behind his usage.

I’ve just googled his usage of ‘homosexualist’ and of the terms ‘homosexual’ and homosexuality’. In every instance I could find, ‘homosexualist’ was always used to refer to those actively involved in advancing a homosexual agenda…not once in reference to a gay individual. It clearly means ‘activist’. And, as further support for this notion of mine, he hasn’t stopped using the other terms when he is speaking of an individual or of the behavior.

I’ll stand by my claim that you presented an allegation as fact, dodged when questioned, and that you inserted a judgement that isn’t supported by anything other than your personal opinion. The fact that Gagnon has ‘taken you on’ at various times probably has nothing at all to do with your vehement and unrelenting judgement of him.

I still think Gagnon coined the phrase but I’m not married to the word “coined”.

Perhaps you’ll be happier with

Gene,

You are mistaken about Gagnon. He is so virulently anti-gay that he adopted a new term “homosexualist” to really express his contempt.

Here’s what started it all: You were straightening Gene Chase out…just as you so faithfully straighten everybody out who differs in opinion from you.

Gene,

You are mistaken about Gagnon. He is so virulently anti-gay that he coined a new term “homosexualist” to really express his contempt.

This ‘fact’ was used to correct someone. You gave it the significance of being your lead statement. You gave it a paragraph all to itself. And, it seems that it wasn’t a fact at all. I think that really sucks.

There’s no secret that you and I have had our moments but, in the back of my mind, there was always this voice that said ‘but at least he’s honest…I can deal with that’. You’ve been so dazzling so many times with facts, with stats, with links…that I never thought to check for veracity. Now that I know that I need to, I’m tempted to consider your posts as ‘not worth the effort’. Even this overstatement on your part could have been dismissed quickly…by admitting that it was a presumption rather than a proven fact when originally challenged or in the first challenge in this thread…but you chose to dodge instead and further diminished my respect for you.

LOL. You and yours continually challenge Exodus and ex-gays re their terminology yet look how you now dance. To coin a word has a very specific meaning and it’s different from ‘popularized’. First you said he coined the term and now you (somewhat snarkily) say “perhaps he wasn’t the first person on the planet to string those letters together in that order”. Oh, my bad, my very very bad. To get an answer to a simple challenge about a fact, I first have to endure several bouts of snarkiness and slurs.

As I said in one of my posts (or at least I meant to), it’s ironic that you accuse Gagnon of expressing his utter contempt; tell me, sir, from your combination of non-responses, aversive responses and snarky responses, what do you think I’m feeling from you? (Rhetorical question in case that wasn’t clear. I currently have no desire for anymore pearls from you.)

You seem obsessed over whether Gagnon coined the phrase homosexualist.

I do not know that he was the first person on the planet to use that string of alphabetical characters. I don’t even know whether he was the first to assign it the meaning with which he uses the term.

But I do know that he is, to the best of my knowledge, the first person in the anti-gay activist community of which I am aware, that adopted the word as part of their constant vocabulary and used it in replacement of either “gay” or “homosexual” and who has assigned pejorative associations to the term.

If your complaint is that I said he “coined” the phrase rather than “adopted the constant usage” of the phrase, well then you win a jelly bean.

Oh I take it all back.

Homosexualist was really coined by Daffyd Thomas, who is, as I’m sure you know, “the only gay in the village.”

Perhaps Gagnon’s creation of the term simply occurred at the same time of his expression of utter contempt – for some other unknown reason – and was not necessarily caused by such contempt. Forgive my presumptions.

I attempted to search the origin of the terms ‘homosexualism’ and ‘homosexualist’ and could not find that Gagnon was the creator of the term. The best I could find was that it seems it may have been coined in response to the coining of the term ‘christianist’ to refer to Christian activists. So…1) it didn’t seem clear that Gagnon coined the term, yet you claim he does. I will ask you again to support the ‘fact’ that you’ve now stated a second time. ( It was your opening and main rebuttal point in an exchange with Gene Chase a short time ago.) 2) if it was coined, even by Gagnon, in response to the term ‘christianist’ there is no grounding for your allegations that it was coined out of ‘utter contempt’ for homosexuals since it seems to speak to activists rather than to all homosexuals.

If you’re speaking about Jack Sampier at Calvary Temple, from what little I know about him I would disagree with him on theology but I don’t know of his expressing any untruthfulness or unkindness. Which is certainly a good position by comparison.

Sadly, however, he does seem involved in anti-gay political activism and affiliated with some whom are a bit disreputable. I don’t know how extensively, so I’ll not judge too harshly.

Would this be the same champion of the truth talking (Mr. Kincaid) who claimed that Robert Gagnon coined the term ‘homosexualism’…that he did so for the purpose of expressing his utter contempt for gays?

Ah, perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps it’s simply correlation and not causation.

Perhaps Gagnon’s creation of the term simply occurred at the same time of his expression of utter contempt – for some other unknown reason – and was not necessarily caused by such contempt. Forgive my presumptions.

That statement actually says little or nothing regarding the church’s ability to be a supportive home for someone who has homosexual inclinations but believes that homosexual behavior is sin.

Personally, if it were me, rather than defend the obvious untruthfulness of McPherson’s numerous statements, I’d let them know that they couldn’t be an Exodus referral church until they stopped saying untruthful things.

But, well, maybe I have different priorities and values than Exodus and its defenders.