I'm not sure if it is possible to see the same thing so differently, or change anything about it if it is possible. Last effort:

• You don't defend same way as with VM mostly, because you have more time before (Gorgon needs allies to reposition), and you have more time AFTER your piece has been disabled by Gorgon. Against VM, once target is voided, it is useless (mostly) for rest of game. Against Gorgon, even if you don't defend at all, petrified piece might get unpetrified without harm.
• It does petrify for 1 turn. If you reposition stunned target, block / remove Gorgon, your piece is back to being fully functional after that 1 turn. For Gorgon to stun indefinitely, Gorgon itself, target, path between them, must stay clear / available for the trigger to keep stunning, no Alch interfence, and Gorgon will be occupied indefinitely too. Slightly more demanding than single cast from VM.
• If you push stunned piece elsewhere, it is now out of the ranged pathing of stun, and is back to full duty in 1 turn (the same you used for pushing it), so, I can't ever understand how this is not counterplay.

I do not misunderstand point 3, or anything else for that matter. But I have a feeling you misunderstand something more profound.

"objective is not to benefit the opponent with an offensive setup, but to force offensive play regardless of the setups" ?!?!

This is same thing said in 2 ways, 2 sides of same coin, cause and effect.
If I require / encourage something considered offensive, then of course setups that are better offensively will be better at doing the required offense, and therefore benefit (or are punished less, again, different wording for same thing) than non- or less-aggressive setups.

If I make competition in which I require participants to run fast, and hare and snail enter it, how am I going to require them to run fast without benefiting the faster one (hare), in your view ?