Deeper Waters Podcast 8/3/2013 Robert Gagnon

What’s coming up on this edition of the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The news has recently been talking about the striking down of DOMA and what it means for the future of marriage in our country. Right now, there are several people who are in favor of redefining marriage and unfortunately, a lot of them are Christians. For the church, it is said that the Bible really doesn’t say anything clearly on this issue.

Robert Gagnon disagrees.

Dr. Gagnon will be my guest and is an informed speaker on this area, having written the book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice.” This is one of the most thorough works if not the most thorough (And certainly the most thorough I’ve read) on the matter of what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

Gagnon doesn’t even begin with Scripture but rather begins with the ancient society that the people of the Bible lived in. How was homosexuality viewed in their culture? What did the other societies do in relation to homosexuals or even to simple accusations of homosexuality? How did Israel behave in comparison to them?

Then, there’s the looking at the biblical texts and even texts that some people would think at the start have nothing to do with homosexuality. Does the story of Noah being shamed by his son have anything to do with homosexuality? It just might.

Of course, there is then time spent on accounts like Sodom and Gomorrah and looking at any argument against that being about homosexuality that can be found. Certainly, Gagnon takes us through the arguments of the holiness code in Leviticus and argues why it should be treated as a prohibition and explains why eating shellfish would not fall in the same category.

What about the writings of Jews outside of the Bible? Gagnon also looks at the positions of Philo and Josephus for instance to see what they say. Now some could say “Well Jesus never says anything about it?” According to Gagnon, Jesus in fact does say something about it and we’ll be definitely looking at that this Saturday.

Then we come to the NT and especially the passage in Romans 1. Is this a condemnation by Paul of homosexual behavior? Is it true that Paul knows nothing about loving and committed homosexual relationships? Do modern studies on sexual orientation change anything that Paul has said?

For those who want more, Gagnon also looks at modern discussion on the topic and even scientific studies on the matter. We’ll be discussing what the implications are of accepting the redefinition of marriage and why it is so important that we win this battle today.

I urge everyone to listen in and please be willing to call in and ask your questions, though I’m suspecting that some that champion tolerance in calling in might reveal themselves to be people who are in fact only tolerant of that which already agrees with them. In other words, intolerant. If you want to call in, the number is 714-242-5180. The time is 3-5 PM EST.

The link can be found here

In Christ,
Nick Peters


Tags: , , ,

19 Responses to “Deeper Waters Podcast 8/3/2013 Robert Gagnon”

  1. yeim Says:

    The fall of Exodus International and overall failure of “ex-gay” ministries seems to indicate that homosexuality is immutable and condemning it would be wrong.

    • apologianick Says:

      Must be news to people out there who describe themselves as post-gay. Still, how does it follow that first, this is hard evidence of immutability, and second, that immutable desires are not wrong desires?

      You’re free to call in to discuss that with Dr. Gagnon.

      On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Deeper Waters

      • yeim Says:

        “post-gay”? No such thing. Virtually all the people who go through those programs are still same-sex attracted. In fact, there’s no evidence that conversion therapy works (just ask the APA and the World Health Organization).

      • apologianick Says:

        Or you could ask the people who claimed such on last Saturday’s Unbelievable?.

  2. yeim Says:

    Two things about the questions answered:

    1. There is no scientific evidence that validates conversion therapy. Even the often-cited Jones and Yarhouse study revealed that less than fourth of the participants who completed the study were “converted”, and it was NOT a 180° change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

    2. The Regnerus study has been rejected by the vast majority of sociologists. There’s also evidence that it was funded by a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage and that they coached Regnerus beforehand to obtain the results they wanted.

  3. apologianick Says:

    1. That does not show an interaction with the Unbelievable? guest. It just shows a denial that they exist which is begging the question. Also, few changes are total 180’s. It’s more about controlling a desire one does not want.


    Conspiracy theories don’t sway me. I suppose every other study was done by organizations that had zero bias whatsoever in it.

    Take your paranoia elsewhere please.

    • yeim Says:

      By the way, saying the APA removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders just because of “pressure from homosexuals” is itself a conspiracy theory; a superficial and inaccurate description of what really happened.

  4. yeim Says:

  5. Dorothy Conley Says:

    Would appreciate info regarding the number of children Mr. Peters and Mrs. Peters have. His brief bio does not mention any, Godly or otherwise.

    I am the mother of seven, and have had long experience as both a Pediatric Nurse and an instructor of Pediatric Nursing. Years ago, after I tired of too many inexperienced writers dispensing information about parenting, I determined that couples should be required to have at least three children before being allowed to keep one.

    Six should be the minimum number parented before sharing either verbal or written advice on how it should be done.

  6. Nick Peters Says:

    Reply: This is an allegation. That misconduct was done has not been shown. Again, the review board found none. That people contest this is not surprising.

    As for the APA, if you think I’m wrong, please show the paper that was presented that changed the view of data.

    As for Dorothy, we don’t have children and I have not given parenting advice. I’ve just stated that I think data shows children are best raised by their natural mother and father. Will it change if I get the parents you desire here to say the exact same thing?

    • yeim Says:

      The flaws and biases in that study are well documented. Google “Regnerus study” and most of the results will show why it can’t be trusted to evaluate same-sex parenting.

      These are some of the studies that influenced the APA decision:

      Ford, C.S. & Beach, F.A. 1951. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

      Hooker, E. 1956. A preliminary analysis of group behavior of homosexuals. J. Psychology 42: 217-25.

      Hooker, E. 1957. The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. J. Projective Techniques 21:18-31.

      Kinsey, A.C., W.B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.

      Kinsey, A.C., W.B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin, P.H. Gebhard. 1953. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.

    • H.C. Says:

      Just because a review board initially finds no misconduct doesn’t mean the study is correct. After all, it took The Lancet 12 years to fully retract a paper that claimed MMR vaccines caused autism.

  7. Nick Peters Says:

    oh good grief. Just Google. Because a Google search will find what an investigative committee failed to find.

    Also, you need to show these books written 20 years earlier were relevant then and the cause of the decision.

    Most noteworthy is that you have Kinsey. Kinsey accepted volunteer data, which is a huge no-no in that kind of study, did not have a valid statistician, got data from prisoners, and even employed the usage of pedophiles in making his case.

    Perhaps you should see Judith Reisman’s material to deal with Kinsey’s bogus information.

  8. yeim Says:

    You are pretty defensive towards Regnerus despite his study being criticized by most sociologists for its faulty methodology (he labeled everyone who had a same-sex relationship even once as “gay” or “lesbian”) and even a chief auditor (Darren Sherkat) from the journal that published it saying it was nonsense.

    No respected scientific body today has found any reason to re-classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. The only ones who claim so are anti-gay fringe groups like NARTH and the Family Research Institute (headed by the discredited Paul Cameron).

    Judith Reisman’s Ph.D is in communications; she has no credentials in psychology or anything related to sexuality. She also says watching porn produces “erotoxins”. Give me a break!

    • apologianick Says:

      Yes. I’m supportive of a study that has been vindicated by the very group sent to investigate it closely. If you think you found something they didn’t, feel free to email them. They need to know about it.

      Of course groups don’t speak out any more. There’s too much political lobbying against them. Note also I’m still waiting for documentation that says the works you cited were influential in the decision in the 1970’s.

      I see you disregard Reisman. I wonder if these groups do:

      As scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, she is listed in *Who’s Who in Science & Engineering, International Who’s Who in Sexology, International Who’s Who in Education, Who’s Who of American Women, The World’s Who’s Who of Women*, etc. Based on her work, *The German Medical Tribune* and the British medical journal, *The Lancet* demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated for deliberately covering up massive sex crimes against children and fraudulent science.

      Do you really know anything about Kinsey, or is it just what you’ve seen in the movie? Perhaps you could tell his views on bestiality.

      On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Deeper Waters

  9. yeim Says:

    “Yes. I’m supportive of a study that has been vindicated by the very group sent to investigate it closely.”

    “I’m still waiting for documentation that says the works you cited were influential in the decision in the 1970′s.”

    You can ask Robert Spitzer himself, the one who spearheaded the decision.

    “I see you disregard Reisman. I wonder if these groups do”

    That was back during the Reagan years, when government agencies were headed by social conseratives. Reisman tried to prove there was a link between adult magazines and crime, and her study was so shoddy the very university that hired her refused to publish it as a whole. She also sued the Kinsey Institute and her case was dismissed with prejudice.

  10. Nick Peters Says:


    Reply: Any reason I should take the SPLC seriously?

    Yeim: You can ask Robert Spitzer himself, the one who spearheaded the decision.

    Reply: Or you could just state what they are here.

    Yeim: That was back during the Reagan years, when government agencies were headed by social conseratives. Reisman tried to prove there was a link between adult magazines and crime, and her study was so shoddy the very university that hired her refused to publish it as a whole. She also sued the Kinsey Institute and her case was dismissed with prejudice.

    Reply: Again, show the flaw in the work. Really. Show it. Note also when Wiker wrote a book that critiqued Kinsey’s book, the Kinsey Institute didn’t even allow him to quote it.

    btw, have you accepted Kinsey’s views on bestiality?

    • yeim Says:

      Why should I serve you anything on a silver platter? Look for it; the information is widely available on the internet. I’ve shown you several links and sources already and you just won’t consider them. This is going nowhere. If you think the work of a couple of disgraced and discredited “researchers” with a right-wing and religious bias is more important than what the majority of professionals on the field say, go ahead. If you think only conservative Christians are right and the whole world is conspiring against you, I don’t care. I’m done.

  11. apologianick Says:

    Haven’t got to this in awhile.

    Why should you serve anything? Because you’re making the claim. You’re the one who is obligated to back it. I’m not the one obligated to defend your view.

    But anyway, you’re done. Alright. Have fun defending Kinsey’s bestiality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: