same sex rights
2 Jun 2008
Seen and Heard
If you're looking for a homo-con, you've called the wrong number. John Heard responds to Andrew Potts
In an opinion article published last week, Andrew M Potts described as "bizarre" my claim that self-appointed activists, on the extreme fringe of the wider community, have hijacked the "gay marriage" debate to manufacture a false sense of grassroots support. He then cited, apparently against my contention, the findings of two surveys set-up, paid for, administered and disseminated by "gay marriage" lobby groups.
Potts is, of course, the "lead columnist at the Sydney Star Observer", a gay rights publication with an avowed "gay marriage" agenda.
His article cannot, therefore, rebut my Herald Sun piece; rather it reinforces (if not performs) the main claims. Here was a vocal and prolific advocate for "gay marriage" attempting to silence an alternative view. Potts was, in fact, so exercised by my Herald Sun article that he published the same rebuttal, twice, in two days! He also repeatedly commented on his own articles, sometimes challenging the readers who called his claims into question.
How's that for letting other people have a say?
More seriously, Potts misrepresented my views on the plight of transsexual individuals, using a blog comment relating the details of administrative procedures barring "paedophiles, transsexuals and others with serious mental disorders" from the Catholic priesthood to prove that I am "a man who believes that transsexuals suffer serious mental disorders". The two statements are not about the same thing.
I made this point clear to Potts when he emailed me last week, to no avail. My actual statements on transsexuals are, as one would imagine, less about stigma, and denigration, and more about the need for understanding - and, indeed great love.
They accord, in broad terms, with the views held by experts (not to mention pioneers) in the field; including the former head of the gender reassignment surgery project at Johns Hopkins in the United States. Any other views attributed to me are pure invention.
A selection of Potts's more silly mischaracterisations. I would not have newmatilda.com readers, or anyone else, "believe that... Australian gay men are commitment-phobic, poly-amorous serial shaggers". Indeed, I've regularly argued quite the opposite, whether defending same sex attracted seminarians from narrow interpretations of Vatican documents or arguing for the beauty, truth and goodness in serious, intimate, life-long male-male bonds.
In the same vein, the idea that I target "gay marriage" and related issues because of some perverse desire for notoriety is simply untrue. The first mainstream article I had published was actually a pro Brokeback Mountain opinion editorial in The Australian and the second was an opinion editorial in the same paper decrying homophobia.
Additionally, of the interviews, essays, reviews and features I have contributed to publications like Meanjin, DNA Magazine, The Australian, the Herald Sun and Policy, many did not even mention "gay marriage". To be frank, I am quite tired of the issue. So is the rest of the community.
In an earlier version of his piece, Potts called me a "Catholic robot", and made other disparaging remarks about my faith. He has implied that any religious believer must, necessarily, only hold certain views because she acts like an automaton, or blindly assents to injustice. This claim is as offensive to religious believers of any persuasion as it is untrue about me.
DREADNOUGHT, my blog, was actually started as a way to interrogate Catholic teaching on human sexuality. I was as surprised as anyone else to find myself re-converted by the very documents I'd previously found (albeit via secondhand reports) so offensive.
I learned then, as I hope Potts knows now, that it pays to actually read your interlocutors' work. This sort of thing goes beyond mere courtesy. It challenges us to see our opponents on any issue as human beings, worthy of respect, honesty and fair treatment.
While it is true that I have referred to myself as a "homo-con", I would not do so now. This is not because I am trying to be covert about my political views, but rather because my ideas cannot, I've found (and readers have lamented), be easily categorised by any single designation. I remain open-minded about politics, and I attempt to evaluate ideas on their merits.
Finally, Potts's interpretation of the findings of the Private Lives report is not convincing. The report is online for anyone to read.
All of this information was made available to Potts before and during the drafting of his article. It was also offered to him again after he had a similar article published elsewhere. While I am disappointed that he ignored these facts, I am not surprised.
Anyone who dares to challenge the homoactivist hegemony is, too often, subjected to similar sorts of lop-sided attack.
Sometimes the baiting, name-calling, and misrepresentations get totally out of hand. Comments elsewhere have suggested that I might be HIV positive (I am not), someone who has experienced child sex abuse at the hands of a priest and enjoyed that abuse (I have not been abused, and the suggestion is highly offensive/insensitive), and/or that I have regularly been seen at sex-on-site venues, picking up male prostitutes (again, untrue).
A comment on Potts's piece on this site even suggested that people like me were "self-hating gay homophobes [who] should be seen and not heard". The reader's next suggestion, that anyone with opposing views might prefer "the closet", betrays an intolerance and closed-mindedness that too often characterises the pro "gay marriage" stance.
Certainly it is - to counter Potts's most earnest claim - difficult to argue that people who oppose "gay marriage" are somehow rare, obscure types, devoted to arcane ideas, when the biggest newspaper in the country (plus two radio programs, numerous blogs, a tri-continental magazine, various websites) picked up the story. If I were as isolated and opposed as Potts claims, I'd never get a hearing. I wouldn't deserve one.
In truth, pro "gay marriage" advocates know all this, and it makes them wild. They should learn a bit of humility. For too long they have ignored the community they claim to represent and serve.
For this reason, and because I am sincerely convinced by the arguments I present, I will continue to offer my writing and ideas - not to achieve any momentary personal boost, but to ensure that the real concerns of same-sex attracted Australians are heard, and beyond that, to contribute whatever I can to the building up of a more humane, enlightened polity.
That sort of sentiment is, of course, intelligible to most people.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I dunno, Johnny. I had some suspicion of a homosexual who can subscribe to Catholicism, but I suppose masochists are people too.
Hi John,
Briefly, my response-
“self-appointed activists, on the extreme fringe of the wider community, have hijacked the "gay marriage" debate to manufacture a false sense of grassroots support.”
Your claim in your Herald Sun was that self-appointed activists on the extreme fringe of the gay community had hijacked the debate, not the wider community. This was quite obvious and consistent throughout- if not why was the article titled “Gays don’t want marriage”?
“He then cited, apparently against my contention, the findings of two surveys set-up, paid for, administered and disseminated by "gay marriage" lobby groups.”
One of these, the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby “Not Yet Equal” survey was conducted by the very same people (Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria) who collected the information for the La Trobe “Private Lives” study from which you so often quote and respondents were sought through the same avenues in both cases- how then is one valid and the other corrupted?
“the Sydney Star Observer- a gay rights publication with an avowed "gay marriage" agenda.”
We are not a gay rights publication- we are a CAB audited newspaper serving the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community in New South Wales and elsewhere. We have published articles and letters from those both for and against the idea of gays getting married- though we do not get nearly as many from those against and very few of those who have written that they see no value in marriage have suggested this is a reason that others should be prevented from marrying as you have.
“His article cannot, therefore, rebut my Herald Sun piece”-
My article rebutted your Herald Sun piece by showing step by step that you had misrepresented the data that your case relied on and that your having next to nothing in common with the majority of gay men and lesbians undermined your credibility in attempting to speak for a supposed silent majority amongst them. It did this quite successfully.
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding this sort of data as you are currently misrepresenting another poll on your blog from the DNA Magazine website which you claim shows, “89% of respondents said that "marriage is not for me”.
In fact that poll (still open) shows that 68% of respondents think marriage is for them, and of the 32% who say it’s not for them 88% (your 89%) said they still supported its legalisation and only 12% said gay marriage should not be legalised.
That you truncated the quote (the full quote from the second set of questions being “marriage is not for be but I believe same sex marriage should be allowed- 89% [now 88%]) suggests something more sinister- that you are willfully and deliberately misleading people.
“My actual statements on transsexuals are, as one would imagine, less about stigma, and denigration, and more about the need for understanding”
Comments you make in responding to readers on your website are as “actual” statements by you as ones you make elsewhere. You twice referred to transgendered people as suffering “serious” mental disorders in that discussion. It is entirely valid for me to quote you.
“The first mainstream article I had published was actually a pro Brokeback Mountain opinion editorial in The Australian and the second was an opinion editorial in the same paper decrying homophobia [defending conservative commentator Alan Jones].”
I never claimed that you would have never published an article in a mainstream publication without latching onto this issue. However I do believe this issue has given you a higher profile than you would have otherwise attained were it already settled, and if gay and lesbian Australians were already equal in all areas of the law, your opinion as a non-practicing gay man on gay issues would be of little interest to a mainstream audience other than as a contrarian oddity.
“In an earlier version of his piece, Potts called me a "Catholic robot"
That article was published on another website where you will also be publishing a reply- how about you deal with what has been written here, here and what has been written there, there?
“Comments elsewhere have suggested that I might be HIV positive (I am not), someone who has experienced child sex abuse at the hands of a priest and enjoyed that abuse (I have not been abused, and the suggestion is highly offensive/insensitive), and/or that I have regularly been seen at sex-on-site venues, picking up male prostitutes (again, untrue).”
I made none of those comments, nor would I make such comments, and have no knowledge of who did. Why bring them up here other than to paint yourself as victim where you have not been so attacked by me or by anyone else on New Matilda? You might also note that when one such suggestion was made in the comments section of the SameSame article I let that person know it was inappropriate.
That being said, when you actively work against the rights and aspirations of the community you claim to belong to, does it surprise you that other members of that community are affronted and offended?
“If I were as isolated and opposed as Potts claims, I’d never get a hearing. I wouldn’t deserve one.”
Many fringe opinions get a hearing in this society- often attaining a novelty value because they are so isolated and opposed- for example you may have seen a father-daughter couple plead for understanding of their incestuous relationship through a range of media not so long ago- if they can get a hearing, I’m quite confident that you as a gay man who doesn’t believe in gay men consummating their relationships can too without being representative of anything other than yourself.
“Certainly it is - to counter Potts’s most earnest claim - difficult to argue that people who oppose "gay marriage" are somehow rare, obscure types”
It is quite difficult to argue that those in the wider Australian community who oppose gay marriage are rare (though they are now a minority- albeit a very large one). Arguing that those who oppose gay marriage are rare in the gay community is not difficult- because they are rare.
Regards,
Andrew M. Potts
Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, notorious anti-equality activist and homocontrarian Catholic John Heard loftily declares, "It challenges us to see our opponents on any issue as human beings, worthy of respect, honesty and fair treatment". Alas, this is apparently an insurmountable challenge for him pesornally in relation to what he disparages as the "homoactivist hegemony". Far from the sinister cabal he insinuates, this, in real terms, is simply the increasing many Australians who support treating same-sex couples as equal human beings and equally entitling their relationships under the law.
It should be no surprise then that, despite the numerous media spotlights he has had the knack and fortune to thrust himself into, Heard has never been able to mount a solid convincing argument that his views are representative of the majority of the gay and lesbian community (let alone necessarily the wider Australian community).
The reason is that his views are wilfully detached from the diverse reality and lived experience of human existence. As such, his bold imputation that his views are widely representative merely because a handful of his opinion pieces have enjoyed wide circulation is laughable. Most Australian have not heard of Heard. Often, when people do, they instinctively reject his fundamentalist views. Idiosyncratic waffle that does little more than assert religious dogma (either overtly or covertly depending on the forum and the target audience) may make for an interesting read and sell papers but it does not translate into good public policy.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to respond to messages here. If readers have any remaining (genuine) questions about my writing, and ideas - or they want to constructively discuss any point further - please send me an email direct. Details on DREADNOUGHT.
- JH
Hi John,
It’s a pity you’re not prepared to take the time to engage with New Matilda readers through the comments section as most other writers for this site choose to do so.
Some might find it interesting to hear you acknowledge your deception in quoting the DNA poll, or hear you explain why the La Trobe study is valid while the VGLRL study is contaminated despite both being conducted by the same people.
Perhaps you’re more interested in obfusciation and painting yourself as a victim than actually answering valid criticisms?
Regards,
Andrew M. Potts
John
Andrew Potts provided a well thought out response to your Herald Sun piece. Unfortunately, you have not done similar in response. Generally, your writing is convoluted and lacking in any real substance. You constantly fail to address critical comments but rather attack the writer. When someone questions your use of statistics or polls rather than rationally deal with the criticism you make a comment like:
"Finally, Potts’s interpretation of the findings of the Private Lives report is not convincing. The report is online for anyone to read"
Hardly, a rebuttal!
In one sense I am thankful that you have entered the arena in this debate because in my opinion you will convince less people of your position than you will convert. However, on the other hand I hope you are not given too much oxygen as a so called writer as it can divert attention away from the real issues of equality.
I am happy that you are catholic and love your god. Just please don’t seek to impose your choice on me. I certainly don’t want to impose mine on yours. Yes, that is right, you don’t have to get married if you don’t want too….and I think that is fine! But I DO want to get married and I DO want my son to have his fathers both legally recognised. It wont harm you one iota. So please John, keep your oppression and your religion away from my family.
Regards
Rodney Cruise
Referring his so-called fringe homoactivist critics to private email, Heard avoids answering for his deliberate statistical errors and untrue generalisations, perhaps in order to limit embarrassment over his public exposure as being factually wrong about the hopes, needs, wants and beliefs of most GLBT Australians.
These are not the actions of a person seeking robust inclusive debate about good public policy but a sensationalist homocontrarian who not only knowingly does not represent the wider GLBT community but is seen to have variously denigrated that community because it does not conform to orthodox Catholic expectations. Rather, his comments consistently seem to better represent those of the Bishop of Rome.
Why won’t Heard respond with intellectually honesty, in this or another open public forum, to the flaws in his recent statements?
Maybe, simply, because he cannot.
Good for you, Rodney.
From John Heard’s website:
Merely being attracted to another man is not sinful….
Rather, sodomising your mate, or otherwise engaging in homogenital acts is sinful. Attractions to homogenital acts, then, are what is disordered.
Homocon? Methinks so.
If Heard insists on using simplistic homo-epithets to disparage and attack the rationality of his critics (as he has done for years), then such displays of "respect, honesty and fair treatment" should be returned threefold. Homocontrarian, homoconservative, homocatholic.
Well i was never a supporter of gay marriage until i read john heard’s ridiculous articles. Now I am. Thanks John.
Going by:
"Merely being attracted to another man is not sinful….
Rather, sodomising your mate, or otherwise engaging in homogenital acts is sinful. Attractions to homogenital acts, then, are what is disordered."
…there are quite large swathes of the Christian community who would not even describe John Heard as a gay man. Being attracted to the same sex but "resisting temptation" is the hallmark of the "ex-gay" movement, methinks.
Praise the Lord, John’s been cured!
DNA Magazine have now published a notice on their website alerting readers to Heard’s misuse of their poll data and confirming that his interpretation of what they meant was factually incorrect.
DNA: "We recently ran two polls on the DNA website asking two questions about gay marriage, with the results of both showing a large majority were in favour of gay marriage – for themselves and for society. The polls were run in response to a newspaper article by ‘conservative Catholic gay writer’ John Heard, claiming “ordinary, same sex-attracted Australians” are not behind the push for gay marriage."
"Our polls were then cited by Heard on his blog, with him concluding that 89 per cent of our respondents had said marriage was not for them. Whether he inadvertently or deliberately misinterpreted the results, Heard is mistaken in his analysis of these DNA polls."
"The results showed that 68 per cent of respondents would marry their same-sex partner if they could, while the remaining 32 per cent would not, even if they could.
We then asked only that minority of people who said they would not marry if they could if they supported the idea of gay marriage for others – with 88 per cent saying they supported the idea for others."
(http://www.dnamagazine.com.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=5735&c=51210)
Heard also planned to publish another rebuttal on SameSame.com.au- a gay community website that also published my New Matilda article. He has now declined to do so.
Which means pretty soon he’ll be disparaging DNA and SameSame as ",a href="http://homoactivist.blogpspot.com">homoactivist" forums where different points of view (in other words, homocontrarian dogma that bears no resemblance to the hopes, dreams, needs and wants of GLBT Australians) are silenced. He really is that intellectually shameless. Just wait and watch.
Which means pretty soon he’ll be disparaging DNA and SameSame as "homoactivist" forums where different points of view (in other words, homocontrarian dogma that bears no resemblance to the hopes, dreams, needs and wants of GLBT Australians) are "silenced". He really is that intellectually shameless. Just wait and watch.
Having been made aware of his error, Heard is now claiming on his website that DNA misunderstood their own poll data.
It is reassuring that the more John Heard opens his mouth the more feet he manages to get in! Reading his blog you get some idea of the size of his (self inflated ego). He makes claims likes:
"Thank you to those who have emailed support. I am particularly grateful for the messages from high-level pro "gay marriage" activists who now acknowledge (and distance themselves from) a number of the techniques described"
Well John, why don’t you identify these "high-level pro "gay marriage" activists" who now supposedly "acknowledge (and distance themselves from) a number of the techniques described"?
I suspect you wont because you cant. I doubt you have any "high-level pro gay marriage activists" supporting you in anything. But surprise us John. Tell us who?
John is an oddity in so many ways. After reading his blog I understand that (a) he will not have sex with a man, ever (b) he wont masturbate (c) even if he turned straight, he wouldn’t have sex with a woman unless he was married. So, it looks like John is telling us that he will never have sex again (if he has had it at all so far). I would assume that masturbation is out of the question to!
I am reminded of that old saying. 99% of men masturbate, 1% of men lie.
Cheers
Hi Rodney,
I think Heard was referring more to some of the more extreme personal attacks that have been made on him by anonymous persons in other forums than criticisms here or in my article when he refers to "techniques described".
Regards,
Andrew